The American Kafir

2012/05/07

Is Fast and Furious the Next Watergate?

Source Article Link: FamilySecurityMatters

Is Fast and Furious the Next Watergate?

by Alan Caruba

When suspects in a crime are interrogated, they often develop memory loss. When the crime is running guns to drug cartels on both sides of the border, the crime involves the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol officer, Brian Terry, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent, Jaime Zapata, and countless Mexican citizens.

Katie Pavlich has written an extraordinary expose, “Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and its Shameless Cover-Up” (Regnery Publishing).  Pavlich, a reporter with extensive contacts within the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), has meticulously documented a story  that should result in contempt of Congress action against Attorney General Eric Holder and possibly Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano as well.

It is an appalling story of arrogance, stupidity, and the intimidation of ATF agents who dared to question and expose the operation. It is a story of deception at the highest levels of our government. Both Holder and Napolitano exhibited memory lapses before a congressional committee. Both knew about a federal government authorized gun-running operation to Mexico called “Fast and Furious.”

Pavlich reports that “Fast and Furious was closely followed by Department of Justice officials. On multiple occasions, U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke met with Phoenix ATF Director Bill Newell to discuss the progress of the Fast and Furious operation. ‘There were DOJ attorneys and prosecutors who were involved in this since the beginning, giving advice,” testified ATF Special Agent Peter Forcelli.

As Pavlich details it, “Operation Fast and Furious wasn’t a ‘botched’ program. It was a calculated and lethal decision to purposely place thousands of guns in the hands of ruthless criminals.”

The operation was designed to attack the Second Amendment right of Americans to purchase and bear arms, a right considered so essential to the nation that it followed directly after the First Amendment rights of free speech, freedom of the press, the prohibition of the establishment of a nationally sanctioned religion, and the right of Americans to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

We are in the grip of an administration that would restrain and erase those rights, and which engaged in a reckless and ruthless operation to achieve that goal. It is an administration that is moving toward the confirmation of a United Nations treaty that would override and eliminate the right to own and bear arms.

The facts regarding Holder’s and Napolitano’s testimony are clear:

“Eric Holder was sent five memos, personally addressed to him, in the summer of 2010 that detailed Operation Fast and Furious.” Holder claimed he first knew about the program in February 2011.

“Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has feigned ignorance when questioned about Fast and Furious. She claims she only found out about the program after Brian Terry was murdered.”

“She visited the White House with Eric Holder to visit President Obama just a day before Holder testified on Capitol Hill about Fast and Furious, leaving the reason for her visit blank.”

Pavlich writes, “These are the facts: There are still 1,400 Fast and Furious guns missing and ATF agents are not actively trying to track them down. Ten thousand round of ammunition were sold to cartel-linked straw buyers under the watch of the ATF. Eight hundred of the original 2,500 weapons sold through Fast and Furious have already been linked to criminal activity.”

The program, observers believer, was the deliberate effort to blame the violence in Mexico and in some cases in America on the gun shops, but those shops were intimidated into participating in Fast and Furious out of fear that ATF would take away their licenses.

After questioning ATF and Justice Department witnesses, Sen. Charles Grassley (Iowa, R), the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote a January 31 letter to ATF officials saying, “As you may be aware, obstructing a Congressional investigation is a crime. Additionally, denying or interfering with employee’s rights to furnish information to Congress is also against the law.”
Read the rest of the article at FamilySecurityMatters

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Alan Caruba writes a weekly column, “Warning Signs”, posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center, and he blogs at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. His book, Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy“, is published by Merrill Press.

Advertisements

Excruciating Beginning to Trial of 9/11 Plotters

The majority of those who have been following Gitmo detainees coming to trial of the 9/11 plotters knew it would become a circus, especially since Eric Holder has close ties to some of the detainees at Gitmo, Holder was a senior partner with Covington & Burling, a prestigious Washington, D.C. law firm, which represented 17 of the Gitmo Terrorists.

Also, we must never forget who killed Wall Street Journalist Daniel Pearl, a Center for Public Integrity’s report noted:

“Khalid Sheikh Mohammed told FBI agents in Guantanamo that he personally slit Pearl’s throat and severed his head to make certain he’d get the death penalty and to exploit the murder for propaganda,”.

How can we forget that Barack Hussein Obama and Eric PHimpton Holder, Jr wanted a civilian court for the 9’11 terrorists in a New York City Federal Courthouse. W

Source Link: FrontPageMag

Excruciating Beginning to Trial of 9/11 Plotters

By Rick Moran

It was supposed to be a routine arraignment — a reading of the charges and entering of pleas by the defendants.

But the hearing before the military commission charged with trying the 5 major 9/11 plotters for crimes ranging from nearly 3,000 counts of murder to terrorism quickly bogged down and became a circus. A legal proceeding that was expected to last about 2 hours became a 13 hour marathon when defense attorneys used a variety of delaying tactics that bordered on the surreal at times, while the defendants ignored the presiding judge, Col. James Pohl, and refused to enter pleas as a protest against what they believe is an “unfair” system. Their pleas were deferred until a later date.

The arraignment, broadcast on closed circuit TV to 4 other military bases, was witnessed by members of the press, military officials, human rights advocates, and six family members who lost loved ones on 9/11. Some family members who spoke to the press after the arraignment were outraged at the cavalier attitude toward the hearing by the terrorists. The untried system of military commissions will no doubt slow the legal process down even more, as defense attorneys explore the limits of their client’s rights. President Obama and Congress amended the system in 2009 and gave the defendants more legal rights while denying some evidence from being presented that was obtained from the prisoners via “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Human rights groups still say the proceedings are unfair and wish the trials to take place in civilian court.

The five accused included the boastful mastermind of the attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; Ramzi Binalshibh, who allegedly scouted flights schools; Waleed bin Attash, who allegedly ran a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan and researched flight simulators; Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, who allegedly supplied Western clothing and credit cards, as well as acting as a conduit for money to the hijackers; and Mohammed’s nephew, Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, who also helped with financing the operation. The crimes committed by the 5 are outlined in an 87-page indictment that includes charges such as “conspiracy, attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, murder in violation of the law of war, destruction of property in violation of the law of war, hijacking or hazarding a vessel or aircraft, and terrorism.”

It became clear that one of the tactics of defense lawyers — both civilian and military — was to put the entire concept of military commissions on trial. In pursuit of this goal, they have filed hundreds of motions challenging every conceivable aspect of the proceedings, leading Col. Pohl to put back the start of the trial until May, 2013.

The cloak of secrecy — necessary to protect counterterrorism methods and confidential informants — is one of the major bones of contention about the commissions pointed to by human rights groups. While evidence obtained from defendants at CIA black sites has been made inadmissible by congressional reforms, some testimony from witnesses who may have been “renditioned” will be accepted. And there will be no mention of alleged mistreatment of the prisoners by their attorneys, although Col. Pohl allowed he will hear motions challenging that matter. Also, as a matter of secrecy, attorneys will not be able to discuss the government’s treatment of their clients while in custody.

Commission critics say that secrecy could still be maintained at a civilian trial — a questionable supposition given the opportunity for the terrorists and their lawyers to wreak havoc under the far more generous protections granted by the Constitution in such a trial. The outrage expressed by both Republicans and Democrats to the Obama administration’s announcement two years ago that Mohammed and his 4 co-conspirators would be tried in New York City caused the Justice Department to beat a hasty retreat and the idea of a civilian trial was dropped.

Prisoners now have access to civilian defense attorneys who specialize in complex death sentence cases — at taxpayer expense. And it was from civilians that most of the posturing and courtroom antics came from. For instance, attorneys for two of the plotters asked that the entire 87-page indictment be read word for word — a right that is granted defendants but is rarely exercised. It took 2 1/2 hours and 6 prosecutors to plow their way through the mind-numbing legalese. At one point, it was thought that all 2,976 names of the 9/11 victims would be read aloud, but prosecutors only mentioned the number of dead without objection.

But that was a small blessing. There were constant interruptions and trivial objections. Binalshibh’s attorney, James Harrington, interrupted the hearing to inform the judge, “My client would prefer to have his name pronounced Bin-al-shib-ah.” Pohl acceded to the request while Binalshibh laid a rug on the floor and began to pray. No attempt was made to stop him.

One female attorney for Mr. bin Attash, Cheryl Bormann, came dressed to the hearing in an abaya, covered head to toe with only her face showing. She suggested that females on the prosection side do likewise, “so that our clients are not forced to not look at the prosecution for fear of committing a sin under their faith,” she said.

The defendants themselves were alternately defiant and disinterested. Mr. Bin Attash had to be brought into the courtroom chained to a wheelchair because he refused to enter voluntarily. They all refused to put on headphones to listen for the simultaneous translation in Arabic, so Col. Pohl ordered the loudspeakers in the courtroom to carry the translation. This slowed the pace of the hearing down even more as the defendant’s lawyers would often speak over the Arabic translation, causing confusion and forcing the translator to repeat. The Guardian referred to the “near-farcical scenes in which the defendants prayed, read the Economist, talked among each other and ignored the judicial events around them.”

At one point during the reading of the charges, Judge Pohl asked Mr. bin Attash’s attorney Capt. Michael Schwartz, who was the attorney who demanded that the charges be read in their entirety, why he wasn’t paying attention. “You are the one who wanted it to be read,” Pohl said. “Your honor, it’s not my right. It is my client’s right,” the lawyer replied.

All of these antics angered many of the family members of 9/11 victims who were granted access to the proceedings at Guantanamo after winning a lottery. Prominent spokesperson for the families, Debra Burlingame, whose brother Charles was a pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, said, “They’re engaging in jihad in a courtroom.” An emotional statement issued by Eddie Bracken, whose sister died in the World Trade Center, echoed the thoughts of many family members:

“I came a long way to see you, eye to eye. … If you would have this in another country, it would be a different story. They would have given you your wish to meet your maker quicker than you would realize. But this is America, and you deserve a fair and just trial, according to our Constitution, not yours. That’s what separates us Americans from you and your ideology,” he said.

The hearing will continue next month as Judge Pohl will entertain the first of several hundred motions filed by attorneys for the defendants.

2012/05/04

10 Reasons to Impeach Eric Holder

View this document on Scribd

To order your copy, click here.

J. Christian Adams Bio

J. Christian Adams is an election lawyer who served in the Voting Rights Section at the U.S. Department of Justice. His forthcoming book Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department (Regnery) releases in October.  His website is Election Law Center.

2012/05/03

House Contempt Citation Draft Against Holder Over Fast and Furious – PDF Copy

View this document on Scribd

2012/04/12

Vetting Obama – Live Birth Abortion Survivor Law – Erosion of Individual Rights

Vetting Obama – Live Birth Abortion Survivor Law – Erosion of Individual Rights

By Walt Long

This year voting for a President of the United States, it is vital we know more about  Barack Hussein Obama. One of the issues that struck me was the attitude of the President concerning a law that would protect an infant that is born after it was aborted from the Mother. Obama refused to sign a law protecting a human life. All the pertinent articles and law are posted below. This should not be a Republican vs Democrat issue, we are talking about a human life,an innocent victim left on a cold slab to die. Obama gave orders to the Doctors and Nurses that they were not to administer to the life of this child…the baby would be left to die;Obama being the dictator of life or death.

We ,the American Citizen, have come to expect losing our individual rights at the hands of Obama and this administration. Our government, such as National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 which gives the U.S. government authority to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without charge or trial. If it has been suggested Conservatives are blowing this out of proportion I suggest reading… NDAA a Dangerous Precedent, Even With the Signing Statement.

Another individual right being taken away is the assassination of a United States Citizen without due process of the law, the only hearing allowed is not the Court of Law …but the court of Barack Hussein Obama’s law, with  Attorney General Eric Holder defending the decision.  I am talking about the assassination of, Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, both United States citizens,  by a CIA drone attack in Yemen on September 30 2011, authorized by Eric Holder,,Barack Hussein Obama, and a secretive government committee. Anwar al-Awlaki’s used Islam for terrorist incitements, yes he was a very evil man, however,  by being a United States citizen he should have been allowed his Constitutional rights by a trial before the Court of Law and his peers. If our government can kill two citizens then what would stop them from killing more? It is a very  dangerous precedence allowing the assassination of a United States Citizen by any secretive panel of senior government officials,



Documents show Obama cover-up on born-alive survivors bill

Source JillStanek

UPDATE, 4:30p: Ben Smith of The Politico has linked to this post.

UPDATE, 4p: Concerned Women for America has audio of an interview with me on this here.

UPDATE, 10:22a:Michelle Malkin has linked to this post.

UPDATE, 9:50a: Kathryn Lopez of National Review Online is covering the story.

Last week Doug Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee drew my attention to a previously unnoticed January 2008 article by Terence Jeffrey stating Barack Obama actually did vote against a version of the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act that was identical to the federal version, contrary to multiple public statements Obama or his surrogates have made to rationalize his opposition to the IL bill for the past 4 years.

Since then we have found 2 separate documents proving Barack Obama has been misrepresenting facts.

In fact, Barack Obama is more liberal than any U.S. senator, voting against identical language of a bill that body passed unanimously, 98-0. In fact, Barack Obama condones infanticide if it would otherwise interfere with abortion.

Here is the statement with documentation released by NRLC this morning…

New documents just obtained by NRLC, and linked below, prove that Senator [Barack] Obama has for the past four years blatantly misrepresented his actions on the IL Born-Alive Infants Protection bill.

Summary and comment by NRLC spokesman Douglas Johnson:

Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an IL state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion – even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion. Obama’s legislative actions in 2003 – denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions – were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress. The bill Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL ultimately did not oppose.

In 2000, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was first introduced in Congress. This was a two-paragraph bill intended to clarify that any baby who is entirely expelled from his or her mother, and who shows any signs of life, is to be regarded as a legal “person” for all federal law purposes, whether or not the baby was born during an attempted abortion. (To view the original 2000 BAIPA, click here.)

In 2002, the bill was enacted, after a “neutrality clause” was added to explicitly state that the bill expressed no judgment, in either direction, about the legal status of a human prior to live birth.

(The “neutrality” clause read, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section.”)

The bill passed without a dissenting vote in either house of Congress. (To view the final federal BAIPA as enacted, click here. To view a chronology of events pertaining to the federal BAIPA, click here.)

Continue reading the rest of the article Click Here

View this document on Scribd
View this document on Scribd
View this document on Scribd

2012/04/11

The Strange Case of Kenneth Michael Trentadue

Filed under: Barack Hussein Obama, Corruption, Eric Holder — Tags: — - @ 8:21 pm

View this document on Scribd

2011/03/22

CAUGHT ON TAPE: Former SEIU Official Reveals Secret Plan To Destroy JP Morgan, Crash The Stock Market, And Redistribute Wealth In America

Obama was in Brazil giving away American jobs,,$2 billion of Taxpayer money so the Brazilian Petro companies can drill for oil. Obama has been found in contempt by a Federal Judge for not lifting the moratorium placed on all drilling off the coast of Louisiana. Obama’s AG Eric Holder is busy suing individual states, yet has no time to prosecute scum like Stephen Lerner or the New Black Panther Party for the violating voting civil rights in Philadelphia Pennsylvania. I guess Obama is still paying back the SEIU officials who used $27 million of members dues to help him get elected.Walt

Source Link: Business Insider

Written By Henry Blodget

Former SEIU Official Stephen Lerner

A former official of one of the country’s most-powerful unions, SEIU, has a secret plan to “destabilize” the country.

The plan is designed to destroy JP Morgan, nuke the stock market, and weaken Wall Street’s grip on power, thus creating the conditions necessary for a redistribution of wealth and a change in government.

The former SEIU official, Stephen Lerner, spoke in a closed session at a Pace University forum last weekend.

The Blaze procured what appears to be a tape of Lerner’s remarks. Many Americans will undoubtely sympathize with and support them. Still, the “destabilization” plan is startling in its specificity, especially coming so close on the heels of the financial crisis.

Lerner said that unions and community organizations are, for all intents and purposes, dead. The only way to achieve their goals, therefore–the redistribution of wealth and the return of “$17 trillion” stolen from the middle class by Wall Street–is to “destabilize the country.”

Lerner’s plan is to organize a mass, coordinated “strike” on mortgage, student loan, and local government debt payments–thus bringing the banks to the edge of insolvency and forcing them to renegotiate the terms of the loans.  This destabilization and turmoil, Lerner hopes, will also crash the stock market, isolating the banking class and allowing for a transfer of power.

Lerner’s plan starts by attacking JP Morgan Chase in early May, with demonstrations on Wall Street, protests at the annual shareholder meeting, and then calls for a coordinated mortgage strike.

Lerner also says explicitly that, although the attack will benefit labor unions, it cannot be seen as being organized by them. It must therefore be run by community organizations.

Lerner was ousted from SEIU last November, reportedly for spending millions of the union’s dollars trying to pursue a plan like the one he details here.  It is not clear what, if any, power and influence he currently wields. His main message–that Wall Street won the financial crisis, that inequality in this country is hitting record levels, and that there appears to be no other way to stop the trend–will almost certainly resonate.

A transcript of Lerner’s full reported remarks is below, courtesy of The Blaze. We have heard the tape, but we have not independently verified that the voice is Lerner’s.  You can listen to the tape here.

Here are the key remarks:

Unions are almost dead. We cannot survive doing what we do but the simple fact of the matter is community organizations are almost dead also. And if you think about what we need to do it may give us some direction which is essentially what the folks that are in charge – the big banks and everything – what they want is stability.

There are actually extraordinary things we could do right now to start to destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement.

For example, 10% of homeowners are underwater right their home they are paying more for it then its worth 10% of those people are in strategic default, meaning they are refusing to pay but they are staying in their home that’s totally spontaneous they figured out it takes a year to kick me out of my home because foreclosure is backed up

If you could double that number you would  you could put banks at the edge of insolvency again.

Students have a trillion dollar debt

We have an entire economy that is built on debt and banks so the question would be what would happen if we organized homeowners in mass to do a mortgage strike if we get half a million people to agree  it would literally cause a new finical crisis for the banks not for us we would be doing quite well  we wouldn’t be paying anything…

We have to think much more creatively. The key thing… What does the other side fear the most – they fear disruption. They fear uncertainty. Every article about Europe says in they rioted in Greece the markets went down

The folks that control this country care about one thing how the stock market goes what the bond market does how the bonuses goes. We have a very simple strategy:

  • How do we bring down the stock market
  • How do we bring down their bonuses
  • How do we interfere with there ability to be rich…

So a bunch of us around the country think who would be a really good company to hate we decided that would be JP Morgan Chase  and so we are going to roll out over the next couple of months what would hopefully be an exciting campaign about JP Morgan Chase that is really about challenge the power of Wall Street.

And so what we are looking at is the first week in May can we get enough people together starting now to really have an week of action in New York I don’t want to give any details because I don’t know if there are any police agents in the room.

The goal would be that we will roll out of New York the first week of May. We will connect three ideas

  • that we are not broke there is plenty of money
  • they have the money  – we need to get it back
  • and that they are using Bloomberg and other people in government as the vehicle to try and  destroy us

And so we need to take on those folks at the same time. And that we will start here we are going to look at a week of civil disobedience – direct action all over the city. Then roll into the JP Morgan shareholder meeting which they moved out of New York because I guess they were afraid because of Columbus.

There is going to be a ten state mobilization to try and shut down that meeting and then looking at bank shareholder meetings around the country and try and create some moments like Madison except where we are on offense instead of defense

Where we have brave and heroic battles challenging the power of the giant corporations. We hope to inspire a much bigger movement about redistributing wealth and power in the country and that labor can’t do itself that community groups can’t do themselves but maybe we can work something new and different that can be brave enough  and daring and nimble enough to do that kind of thing.

FULL TRANSCRIPT FROM THE BLAZE

SPEAKER: Stephen Lerner. Speaker at the Left Forum 2011 “Towards a Politics of Solidarity” Pace University March 19, 2011

Speaker Bio: Stephen Lerner is the architect of the SEIU’s groundbreaking Justice for Janitors campaign.  He led the union’s banking and finance campaign and has partnered with unions and groups in Europe, South American and elsewhere in campaigns to hold financial institutions accountable. As director of the union’s private equity project, he launched a long campaign to expose the over-leveraged feeding frenzy of private equity firms during the boom years that led to the ensuing economic disaster.

TRANSCRIPT:

It feels to me after a long time of being on defense that something is starting to turn in the world and we just have to decide if we are on defense or offense

Maybe there is a different way to look at some of theses questions  it’s hard for me to think about any part of organizing without thinking what just happened with this economic crisis and what it means

I don’t know how to have a discussion about labor and community if we don’t first say what do we need to do at this time in history what is the strategy that gives us some chance of winning because I spent my life time as a union organizer justice for janitors a lot of things

It seems we are at a moment where the world is going to get much much worse or much much better

Unions are almost dead we cannot survive doing what we do but the simple fact of the matter is community organizations are almost dead also and if you think about what we need to do it may give us some direction which is essentially what the folks that are in charge – the big banks and everything – what they want is stability

Every time there is a crisis in the world they say, well, the markets are stable.

What’s changed in America is the economy doing well has nothing to do with the rest of us

They figured out that they don’t need us to be rich they can do very well in a global market without us so what does this have to do with community and labor organizing more.

We need to figure out in a much more through direct action more concrete way how we are really trying to disrupt and create uncertainty for capital for how corporations operate

The thing about a boom and bust economy is it is actually incredibly fragile.

There are actually extraordinary things we could do right now to start to destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement.

For example, 10% of homeowners are underwater right their home they are paying more for it then its worth 10% of those people are in strategic default, meaning they are refusing to pay but they are staying in their home that’s totally spontaneous they figured out it takes a year to kick me out of my home because foreclosure is backed up

If you could double that number you would  you could put banks at the edge of insolvency again.

Students have a trillion dollar debt

We have an entire economy that is built on debt and banks so the question would be what would happen if we organized homeowners in mass to do a mortgage strike if we get half a million people to agree  it would literally cause a new finical crisis for the banks not for us we would be doing quite well  we wouldn’t be paying anything.

Government is being strangled by debt

The four things we could do that could really upset wall street

One is if city and state and other  government entities demanded to renegotiate their debt
and you might say why would the banks ever do it  – because city and counties could say we won’t do business with you in the future if you won’t renegotiate the debt now

So we could leverage the power we have of government and say two things  we won’t do business with you JP Morgan Chase anymore unless you do two things: you reduce the price of our interest  and second you rewrite the mortgages for everybody in the communities

We could make them do that

The second thing is there is a whole question in Europe about students’ rates in debt structure. What would happen if students said we are not going to pay.  It’s a trillion dollars. Think about republicans screaming about debt a trillion dollars in student debt

There is a third thing we can think about what if public employee unions instead of just being on the defensive  put on the collective bargaining table when they negotiate they say we demand as a condition of negotiation that the government renegotiate – it’s crazy that you’re paying too much interest to your buddies the bankers it’s a strike issue  – we will strike unless you force the banks to renegotiate/

Then if you add on top of that if we really thought about moving the kind of disruption in Madison but moving that to Wall Street and moving that to other cities around the country

We basically said you stole seventeen trillion dollars – you’ve improvised us and we are going to make it impossible for you to operate

Labor can’t lead this right now so if labor can’t lead but we are a critical part of it  we do have money we have millions of members who are furious

But I don’t think this kind of movement can happen unless community groups and other activists take the lead.

If we really believe that we are in a transformative stage of  what’s happening in capitalism

Then we need to confront this in a serious way and develop really ability to put a boot in the wheel  then we have to think not about labor and community alliances  we have to think about how together we are building something that really has the capacity to disrupt how the system operates

We need to think about a whole new way of thinking about this not as a partnership but building something new.

We have to think much more creatively. The key thing… What does the other side fear the most – they fear disruption. They fear uncertainty. Every article about Europe says in they rioted in Greece the markets went down

The folks that control this country care about one thing how the stock market goes what the bond market does how the bonuses goes. We have a very simple strategy:

  • How do we bring down the stock market
  • How do we bring down their bonuses
  • How do we interfere with there ability to be rich

And that means we have to politically isolate them, economically isolate them  and disrupt them

It’s not all theory i’ll do a pitch.

So a bunch of us around the country think who would be a really good company to hate we decided that would be JP Morgan Chase  and so we are going to roll out over the next couple of months what would hopefully be an exciting campaign about JP Morgan Chase that is really about challenge the power of Wall Street.

And so what we are looking at  is the first week in May can we get enough people together starting now to really have an week of action in New York I don’t want to give any details because I don’t know if there are any police agents in the room.

The goal would be that we will roll out of New York the first week of May. We will connect three ideas

  • that we are not broke there is plenty of money
  • they have the money  – we need to get it back
  • and that they are using Bloomberg and other people in government as the vehicle to try and  destroy us

And so we need to take on those folks at the same time

and that we will start here we are going to look at a week of civil disobedience – direct action all over the city
then roll into the JP Morgan shareholder meeting which they moved out of New York because I guess they were afraid because of Columbus.

There is going to be a ten state mobilization it try and shut down that meeting and then looking at bank shareholder meetings around the country  and try and create some moments like Madison except where we are on offense instead of defense

Where we have brave and heroic battles challenging the power of the giant corporations. We hope to inspire a much bigger movement about redistributing wealth and power in the country and that labor can’t do itself that community groups can’t do themselves but maybe we can work something new and different that can be brave enough  and daring and nimble enough to do that kind of thing.

Listen to the tape here

2011/03/11

Obama Admin Accused of Ignoring Hyde Amendment on Abortion Funding

Source Link: Life News

Written by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com |

A pro-life group that uncovered how the University of North Carolina was requiring students to pay for abortions under a student health care plan says the Obama administration may be ignoring the Hyde Amendment.

Last year, Students for Life of America discovered that the UNC System was automatically enrolling their students in a health care plan that covered elective abortions. After working with UNC students and leading an effective grassroots campaign, SFLA forced the UNC Administration to modify its policy and allow students to “opt-out” of the abortion coverage.

After the expose’ and the followup actions, SFLA president Kristan Hawkins said she was worried that federal funds could have been involved in paying for the abortions, contravening federal law under the Hyde Amendment.

“Federal grant money is directed to accredited colleges and universities from U.S. taxpayers through the Federal Student Aid Program. Student eligibility for federal grants is determined by the difference in the student’s ability to pay and the total “cost of attendance” for the school. This amount equals the student’s eligibility for federal funds,” she explained at the time.

“As stated by the UNC System: the cost of their abortion health care plan, if the student chooses to keep abortion in their plan, is added to the student’s “cost of attendance” calculation. This in turn, increases the student’s need for federal funds,” Hawkins said. “Because of this increase in need, additional federal funds could be directed to a student to help cover this increase in cost.”

Congresswoman Virginia Foxx of North Carolina sent the Department of Education a letter in October asking Obama administration officials if they were aware of the abortion coverage included in the University of North Carolina System’s mandatory student health care policy and if they could prove that taxpayer funds were not paying for the abortion coverage.

On February 15, the U.S. Department of Education answered the letter. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan wrote, “…the Department has not issued any regulations, guidance, or other official policy with regard to the Hyde amendment, nor has the Department relayed any information regarding the Hyde Amendment to colleges and universities that participate in the Title IV and HEA programs.”

That prompts more concerns for Hawkins.

“The Department of Education is not upholding federal law which clearly states that taxpayer money is not to be used to pay for elective abortions,” she told LifeNews.com yesterday. “By not providing oversight, the Department of Education is allowing taxpayer money to fund elective student abortions at the University of North Carolina as well as in dozens of others universities across the country. Abortion is not health care and should not be a pre-requisite for learning.”

Hawkins is also worried that the potential violations could be occurring at other federally-funded colleges and universities.

In January, SFLA released a health care study (PDF Copy is below) )of the 200 largest universities in the United States. Of the 200 schools, 194 had school-sponsored health care plans for students. Eighty-six (44%) of the 194 school sponsored plans covered elective abortions, and 38 schools automatically enrolled their students in an abortion health care plan.

View this document on Scribd

Black Panther Rallies for 18 Men Accused of Gang-Raping 11-Yr-Old

Filed under: Eric Holder, Obama — Tags: , — - @ 7:17 pm

Vodpod videos no longer available.


 

2011/02/25

Gingrich: If Palin Took Obama Actions, There Would Be Calls for Impeachment

Source Link: Newsmax

Written By Jim Meyers and Ashley Martella

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV Friday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama’s decision not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law eventually could lead to a constitutional crisis, as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law.

Gingrich even suggested that, if a “President Sarah Palin” had taken a similar action, there would have been immediate calls for her impeachment. Asked directly whether President Obama could be subject to articles of impeachment, Gingrich said, “Clearly it is a dereliction of duty and a violation of his constitutional oath and is something that cannot be allowed to stand.”

(A Gingrich spokesman stressed after the interview that we are not currently in a constitutional crisis, nor was Gingrich calling for the direct impeachment of the president. His statements were meant to illustrate the hypocrisy of the left and the mainstream media.)

Obama Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday that the administration will not defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, which has banned recognition of same-sex marriage for 15 years. President Clinton signed the act into law in 1996.

Obama’s decision to forego a legal defense of the law has caused a firestorm of anger from conservative groups.

Gingrich slammed Obama for his decision, telling Newsmax that he is not a “one-person Supreme Court” and his decision sets a “very dangerous precedent” that must not be allowed to stand.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

“Imagine that Governor Palin had become president. Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone’s right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment.

“First of all, he campaigned in favor of [the law]. He is breaking his word to the American people,” Gingrich says.

“Second, he swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten everybody.

“The fact that the left likes the policy is allowing them to ignore the fact that this is a very unconstitutional act,” Gingrich said.

Gingrich said it is absolutely critical for Obama to comply with Congress and  the constitutional process.

“I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job.

“His job is to enforce the rule of law and for us to start replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama is a very dangerous precedent.”

Gingrich adds: “I don’t think these guys set out to create a constitutional crisis. I think they set out to pay off their allies in the gay community and to do something that they thought was clever. I think they didn’t understand the implication that having a president personally suspend a law is clearly unconstitutional.”

Please Note: The full Newsmax.TV interview with Newt Gingrich will air this Sunday. Please be sure to tune in. To be notified via e-mail when it is posted, please Click Here Now.

2010/08/12

More Than Just Mexicans Crossing Our Borders.

By Walt Long

There is a lot more on the security of our borders instead of the usual innocent Mexican coming over for jobs. There are many individuals coming over the border who are OTM (Other Than Mexican). For a breakdown of the OTM’s Click  Here, Here, Here, and Here. Justin Barber of WSBTV Channel 2 Atlanta, GA did an excellent job of reporting the Terror Threat on our border.

The articles being found are prayer rugs, Qur’on’s, and patches showing a jet flying into the twin towers. Adnan G. El Shukrijumah, who lived in the United States for 15 years and recently has been determined as one of al Qaeda Leaders, was known to be working with the Mara Salvatrucha gang to bring illegal’s across the Mexican border into our border.

The Iranian President Ahmadinejad has even bragged about being in Latin America stating:

“Our active presence in Latin America was a very wise move”

The takeover of Iran’s government in 1979 by radical Islamist forces faithful to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was the breakthrough after which the so-called Islamic Revolution spread throughout the Middle East and beyond. The Khomeinist revolution was born.

The formation of the Iranian-Syrian alliance in 1980 forming Hezbollah. Through the use of its terrorist surrogates—such as Hezbollah—Tehran’s reach extends around the world. In the early 1990s, Iran finally connected with Hamas through Hezbollah.

The early 1990s, Hezbollah had established a presence in the tri-border area between Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay. With the rise of the Hugo Chavez regime, Iran’s Latin American presence expanded even further.  The Venezuelans are providing Iranian units with Spanish language instruction with the aim of inserting them in a Latin America. One of the most dangerous aspects of Iran’s presence in Venezuela is the increasing ability to install Iranian missiles aimed at the United States.

From a U.S. counterterrorism perspective, the threats posed by Iran, Hezbollah, and its global terrorist network are considerable.

A common way of murdering any Infidel caught by Islamic terrorists is beheading. Recently there were decapitated bodies found around the U.S. and Mexico border. Also showing up on the border in July was a sophisticated bomb, a U.S. law enforcement official with knowledge of the improvised explosive device, or IED, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing security protocols. “It was complicated. It was not unlike the kinds of IEDs you see in Iraq, but not quite as sophisticated,” the official said.

It is not all about the “innocent”  Mexican Immigrant crossing our border to find a job, it is time we secure our border, it has been long over due .

2010/07/31

The Cost of Illegal Immigration Is Bankrupting The United States of America

Source: Social Contract

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.
Verify at: tinyurl.com/zob77

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
Verify at: www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
Verify at: www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
Verify at: transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
Verify at transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. That adds up to $2 billion annually for all costs of incarceration of illegals.
Verify at: transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
Verify at: transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.
Verify at: premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9. $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
Verify at: transcriptscnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that’s two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US.
Verify at: transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.
Verify at: Homeland Security
Report: tinyurl.com/t9sht h ttp://tinyurl.com/t9sht>

12. The National policy Institute, estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.’
Verify at: www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances to their countries of origin.
Verify at: www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14. ‘The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One million sex crimes are committed by Illegal Immigrants in the United States.’
Verify at: www.drdsk.com/articleshtml www.drdsk.com/articleshtml

These aforementioned costs and more from other criminal alien activities add up to $346 billion annually out of the taxpayers’ pockets.

2010/07/30

Dept. of Justice Funding Luaus, Carnivals, and Film Festivals?

by Connie Hair

A new oversight report released yesterday by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) exposes millions of dollars in Department of Justice (DOJ) funds are being spent on parties.

The review of recent activities sponsored by DOJ grantees identified luaus, a Mardi Gras party, block parties, a film festival, a carnival, skateboarding, dancing, fashion shows, and even a doughnut eating contest among the recreational activities made possible with federal crime prevention funding.

“With our nation facing the heightened threats of domestic terrorism and unprecedented debt and financial challenges, taxpayers should be shocked to learn DOJ crime prevention grant programs are paying for parties and rollercoaster rides for children rather than focusing on investigating crimes, locating and prosecuting terrorists, and administering justice,” Coburn said.

Coburn’s scathing, 42-page report entitled “Party at the DOJ” comes amid new Government Accountability Office (GAO) findings that DOJ does not track amounts spent on recreational activities nor does it assess impact outcomes of these expenditures.

“With America facing the threat of domestic terrorism and a $13 trillion debt, the Department of Justice parties on the taxpayers’ dime,” the new oversight report states.

From the Executive Summary:

Click Here to continue reading at Human Events

View this document on Scribd

2010/07/21

Race Card Fraud

Filed under: Eric Holder, Lies and more Lies, Obama, Uncategorized — Tags: , — - @ 12:01 pm

Source: Townhall

By Thomas Sowell

Credit card fraud is a serious problem. But race card fraud is an even bigger problem.

Playing the race card takes many forms. Judge Charles Pickering, a federal judge in Mississippi who defended the civil rights of blacks for years and defied the Ku Klux Klan back when that was dangerous, was depicted as a racist when he was nominated for a federal appellate judgeship.

No one even mistakenly thought he was a racist. The point was simply to discredit him for political reasons– and it worked.

This year’s target is the Tea Party. When leading Democrats, led by a smirking Nancy Pelosi, made their triumphant walk on Capitol Hill, celebrating their passage of a bill in defiance of public opinion, Tea Party members on the scene protested.

All this was captured on camera and the scene was played on television. What was not captured on any of the cameras and other recording devices on the scene was anybody using racist language, as has been charged by those playing the race card.

When you realize how many media people were there, and how many ordinary citizens carry around recording devices of one sort or another, it is remarkable– indeed, unbelievable– that racist remarks were made and yet were not captured by anybody.

The latest attack on the Tea Party movement, by Ben Jealous of the NAACP, has once again played the race card. Like the proverbial lawyer who knows his case is weak, he shouts louder.

This is not the first time that an organization with an honorable and historic mission has eventually degenerated into a tawdry racket. But that an organization like the NAACP, after years of fighting against genuine racism, should now be playing the game of race card fraud is especially painful to see.

Some critics of the Tea Party have seized upon banners carried at one of its rallies that compared Obama with Hitler and Stalin. Extreme? Yes. But there was nothing racist about it, since extreme comparisons have been made about politicians of every race, color, creed, nationality, ideology and sexual preference.

Some Obama supporters have long regarded any criticism of him as racism. But that they should have to resort to such a banner to bolster their case shows how desperate they are for any evidence.

Among people who voted for Barack Obama in 2008, those who are likely to be most disappointed are those who thought that they were voting for a new post-racial era. There was absolutely nothing in Obama’s past to lead to any such expectation, and much to suggest the exact opposite. But the man’s rhetoric and demeanor during the election campaign enabled this and many other illusions to flourish.

Still, it was an honest mistake of the kind that decent people have often made when dealing with people whose agendas are not constrained by decency, but only by what they think they can get away with.

On race, as on other issues, different people have radically different views of Barack Obama, depending on whether they judge him by what he says or by what he does.

As Obama’s own books point out, he has for years cultivated a talent for saying things that people will find congenial.

You want bipartisanship and an end to bickering in Washington? He will say that he wants bipartisanship and an end to bickering in Washington. Then he will shut Republicans out of the decision-making process and respond to their suggestions by reminding them that he won the election. A famous writer– Ring Lardner, I believe– once wrote: “‘Shut up,’ he explained.”

You want a government that is open instead of secretive? He will say that. He will promise to post proposed legislation on the Internet long enough for everyone to read it and know what is in it before there is a vote. In practice, however, he has rushed massive bills through Congress too fast for anybody– even the members of Congress– to know what was in those bills.

Racial issues are more of the same. You want a government where all citizens are treated alike, regardless of race or ethnicity? Obama will say that. Then he will advocate appointing judges with “empathy” for particular segments of the population, such as racial minorities. “Empathy” is just a pretty word for the ugly reality of bias.

Obama’s first nomination of a Supreme Court justice was a classic example of someone with “empathy” for some racial groups, but not others. As a Circuit Court judge, Sonia Sotomayor voted to dismiss a case involving white firefighters who had been denied the promotions for which they qualified, because not enough blacks or Hispanics passed the same test that they did.

A fellow Hispanic judge protested the way the white firefighters’ case was dismissed, rather than adjudicated. Moreover, the Supreme Court not only took the case, it ruled in favor of the firefighters.

Obama’s injecting himself into a local police matter in Massachusetts, despite admitting that he didn’t know the facts, to say that a white policeman was in the wrong in arresting a black professor who was a friend of Obama, was more of the same. So is Obama’s Justice Department overlooking blatant voter intimidation by thugs who happen to be black.

There is not now, nor has there ever been, anything post-racial about Barack Obama, except for the people who voted for him in the mistaken belief that he shared their desire to be post-racial. When he leaves office, especially if it is after one term, he will leave this country more racially polarized than before.

Hopefully, he may also leave the voters wiser, though sadder, after they learn from painful experience that you can’t judge politicians by their rhetoric, or ignore their past because of your hopes for the future. Voters may even wise up to race card fraud.

2010/07/19

A War amongst Ourselves

Source: American Thinker

By Pamela Geller

It is becoming increasingly clear to anyone paying attention that the seeds of division are being sown with increased vigor by Obama’s shadowy machine.

America, in her naïveté and eternal hopefulness, thought that electing Barack Hussein Obama would be the final chapter on race in America and would hammer the last nail into a well-deserved coffin for the divisive racial narratives that demagogues and provocateurs have used for so long to tear down this country. Little did America know that Barack Obama was the candidate of exactly those demagogues and provocateurs.

In a stunning reversal of decades of progress and harmony, during which spokesmen from the hate fringe like Louis Farrakhan were cast outside the realm of decent society, Obama’s presidency has ushered in the era of the hater. In the new doublespeak, hate is good.

And every single good, decent American who is standing up for individual freedoms, small government, and self-reliance is now evil.

Sowing the seeds of division is a pillar of Obama’s short but destructive presidency. It started early. The Boston incident involving Henry Louis Gates gave a clear indication of how he would inflame the populace with racist rhetoric. Back in July 2009, in a prime-time press conference, Obama smeared and libeled a good, decent (white) police officer with a spurious charge of racism. The police officer was just doing his job. In fact, the perp was the racist and the hater:

Police Officer Crowley made had been called to Black Studies Professor Henry Louis Gates’s home in Cambridge, Massachusetts to investigate a reported break-in. As soon as Officer Crowley arrived and got to the front door, he encountered, standing inside the door, none other than Gates, who instantly began yelling at him in an extremely loud voice that he was a “racist police officer.” Instead of defusing the situation by cooperating with the officer, who was, after all, only doing his job, instead of simply explaining politely that he lived in the house and that his house had not been broken into (though it’s still not clear who the two young men were), Gates continued his “tumultuous,” threatening (“you don’t know who I am, you’ll be sorry for messing with me”), and extremely insulting behavior for a long time, first inside the house, where his voice was so loud that the officer could not conduct a conversation over his police radio, then outside the house, alarming passersby, until, after warning Gates twice that he was behaving disorderly, Crowley arrested him. And during the whole time Gates kept bellowing that Crowley was a “racist police officer.”

Obama grabbed the opportunity on national television, in yet another seizure of the airwaves, to divide and create discord. I wrote about it here. That incident was not a blip, but an opening salvo.

Obama and company’s opening salvo. That was a red flag for America.

Concurrently, Americans began to speak out against statism, big government, high taxation, and increasing encroachment on our liberty. The movement, aptly named the Tea Party, exploded onto the scene and hit the streets on April 15, 2009, in protest against the socialist bailouts that Obama had imposed upon the people. Tax Day drew crowds in cities nationwide. They were summarily ignored by the White House in the feeble hope that it would all blow over. Hardly. The phenomenon went into overdrive with the health care debate that summer.

The response by Obama and Company was to paint millions of Americans as racists and bigots. The fabricated stories were easily debunked, but the leftstream media rushed to them like sharks to chum. The libelous press piled on. Despite the lack of any evidence, the libel continued — and in the place of any hard evidence, new videos appeared last week. Obama’s machine created fraudulent images: one Think Progress video attacking the Tea Parties included video shot in 2006, before the Tea Party movement even existed.

Why? What was the objective in creating such divisive hate propaganda? Sowing the seeds of war.

Furthermore, Obama’s Department of Justice refused to prosecute the heinous menacing of polling places on Election Day by the new Black Panther Party. They stood outside the polling places with nightsticks, warning that Obama would be president. One of the panthers said that “the black man was going to win the White House no matter what.” With the Black Panther brandishing nightsticks and swinging them menacingly, the police were called. One of the Black Panthers and his night stick were moved. Do you think little old white ladies would want to walk past a Black Panther with a nightstick? Yet the Black Panther voter intimidation case was dropped even though the case had already been won. Post-racial? No, post-American.

One brave American stood up. J. Christian Adams, a former lawyer for the Justice Department,  kept the case alive. He pointed out that the “1965 Voting Rights Act protects voters from voter intimidation. You’re supposed to be able to go vote without somebody with a weapon shouting racial slurs at you like these folks were doing in Philadelphia. … they said, ‘You’re about to be ruled by the black man, Cracker.’ They called people ‘white devils.’ They menaced, they tapped their baton. They tried to stop people from entering the polls.” Adams charged that the Justice Department was now declining to prosecute cases if the defendants were black and the victims white, and said, “It’s the easiest case I ever had at the Justice Department. It doesn’t get any easier than this. If this doesn’t constitute voter intimidation, nothing will.”

Christian Adams is no disgruntled DoJ employee. He was senior level, with a stellar performance record. And there was corroboration: former FEC Commissioner Hans A. von Spakovsky stated, “I can confirm a number of facts stated by Mr. Adams in his testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights about the voter intimidation lawsuit filed against the New Black Panther Party and several individual defendants.” Civil Rights Division Attorney Karl Bowers agreed: “In my experience, there was a pervasive culture in the Civil Rights Division and within the Voting Section of apathy, and in some cases outright hostility, towards race-neutral enforcement of voting-rights laws among large segments of career attorneys.

The racist war machine went into high gear again when the NAACP adopted a libelous resolution condemning “racist elements” in the Tea Party movement. They called on the movement’s leaders to repudiate bigotry, despite cries from Tea Party members across the country that the “resolution” was just a “political ploy.” It was worse than that. It was a declaration of war against good, decent people. A missile at the heart of American unity, subversion to melt the melting pot.

I have spoken at many a Tea Party event, and there is no finer, more decent group of patriotic Americans in the country.

Stealing a page from the NAACP, unindicted co-conspirator the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) calls itself a civil rights group. That’s like al-Qaeda calling itself a human rights organization. Co-opting the fallacious “victim” playbook, the offensive hate sponsors and supremacist groups came scurrying out of their rat-holes. The Islamic supremacists were gleeful and joined the lynch mob. CAIR backed the vile NAACP resolution on Tea Party racism. Divide and conquer. Blacks have been the slaves in the Islamic world for centuries: in Arabic, the word for “black” and for “slave” are the same: abeed. Slavery continues today in some Muslim countries, but no one speaks of it because it is against sharia to insult Islam. (Whether or not it’s true is irrelevant. Just shut up and dig, kuffar.)

Predator Louis Farrakhan joined in this malevolent campaign when he sent a three-page letter along with two books to the heads of sixteen Jewish organizations. In it, he charges Jews with being “anti-Black” and demands reparations — in the spirit of making amends for the injustices Jews have supposedly done to blacks.

Farrakhan’s idea of amends is another six million Jews to the pyre.

These are the leading insurgents in the war against America. The objective is to pit American against American. The post-American president is sowing the seeds of hate and racism, creating divides that never existed before his presidency.

Nothing is static. Everything is fluid, and where this is leading is not going to be pretty.

Pamela Geller is the editor and publisher of the Atlas Shrugs website and former associate publisher of the New York Observer. She is the author of The Post-American Presidency (coming July 27 from Simon & Schuster).

Obama Must be Impeached: He’s Either Incompetent, or Purposely Failing

Source: Canada Free Press

By Kelly O’Connell  Sunday, July 18, 2010

Is there a single American who secretly thinks Obama’s up to the task of the presidency? Or, does anyone believe Barack does not take bad situations and worsen them to magnify his power? These are rhetorical questions, of course. The only way Barack is an acceptable president is if you’re an opponent of America’s greatest achievements.

Therefore, if you support Obama it means you want to revolutionize the US. But no democratic country knowingly elects leaders to debase their country, give away power, bankrupt the treasury, incorporate socialism, dissolve constitutional rights, cripple capitalism, and menace every citizen with reckless policies. That would be ridiculous and anti-American. Barack has done all these things. Therefore, he must be impeached.

Obama’s habit of casually blaming all problems on the sins of his predecessor recalls a quote by Joseph Conrad, “The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness.” Similarly, Barack has revealed enough willful stupidity, ignorance, and crafty sabotage to explain every lingering crisis in America; he no longer need invoke the Devil Bush.

Probably most persons presently believe the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue can’t be impeached for anything he has done. Those persons would be wrong. According to a recent book, “The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis,” by Michael J. Gerhardt, impeachment is ultimately a political question which cannot be framed off a simple criminal analysis. This essay offers a brief overview of the federal impeachment process and proposes an analysis of Obama’s actions which place them into the impeachable category.

I. General Impeachment Process

Impeachment, according to the ABA website: “Is a process, authorized by the Constitution, to bring charges against certain officials of the federal government for misconduct while in office. “

The standard route that an impeachment follows is well-established. Here is a brief explanation from the Legal Information Institute:

The process roughly resembles a grand jury inquest, conducted by the House, followed by a full-blown trial, conducted by the Senate with the Chief Justice presiding. Impeachment is not directed exclusively at Presidents. The Constitutional language, “all civil officers,” includes such positions as Federal judgeships. The legislature, however, provides a slightly more streamlined process for lower offices by delegating much of it to committees. See Nixon v. US, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)(involving removal of a Federal judge). Presidential impeachments involve the full, public participation of both branches of Congress.

The Impeachment Process in a Nutshell

  1. The House Judiciary Committee deliberates over whether to initiate an impeachment inquiry.
  2. The Judiciary Committee adopts a resolution seeking authority from the entire House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry. Before voting, the House debates and considers the resolution. Approval requires a majority vote.
  3. The Judiciary Committee conducts an impeachment inquiry, possibly through public hearings. At the conclusion of the inquiry, articles of impeachment are prepared. They must be approved by a majority of the Committee.
  4. The House of Representatives considers and debates the articles of impeachment. A majority vote of the entire House is required to pass each article. Once an article is approved, the President is, technically speaking, “impeached”—that is subject to trial in the Senate.
  5. The Senate holds trial on the articles of impeachment approved by the House. The Senate sits as a jury while the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial.
  6. At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate votes on whether to remove the President from office. A two-thirds vote by the Members present in the Senate is required for removal.
  7. If the President is removed, the Vice-President assumes the Presidency under the chain of succession established by Amendment XXV.

II. Reasons for Impeachment

A. Political Crimes

Gerhardt’s book “The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis,” is an excellent source to begin analyzing the proper foundation of impeachment. Gerhardt’s work arguably centers on chapter 9, titled “The Scope Of Impeachable Offenses.” He sums up the issue: “The major disagreement is not over whether impeachable offenses should be strictly limited to indictable crimes, but rather over the range of non-indictable offenses on which an impeachment may be based.” In other words, outside of a clear instance of serious crime, the question of whether an official can be impeached rests upon one question. This is—What kinds of acts, which would not normally lead to an arrest, could still form a basis for an impeachment?

Gerhardt’s study focuses upon the fact that impeachment is inevitably a “political” undertaking, as understood by how the old British system viewed the term “political.” Raoul Berger, in his Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems, studied instances of impeachment procedure occurring before the US Constitution was written. He found the British viewed the process as involving “high crimes and misdemeanors as a category of political crimes against the state.” Further, Berger isolated the use of “political,” in this sense, and “against the state” as being identical in meaning. In essence, when the Brits called an action “politically suspect,” it was meant as an injury to the state, that is—an attack against England.

William Blackstone, chronicler of the British common law, differentiates “high treason” from “low treason,” the latter being disloyalty to an equal or lesser. So high treason was disloyalty to a superior person or entity. According to Arthur Bestor, this differentiation between high and low treason was a key concept to understand for a proper impeachment analysis. Bestor describes how a fair impeachment proceeding would be founded upon a profound assault to the state itself.

The American constitutional Framers understood this difference between high and low treason, according to Gerhardt, believing impeachment dealt with high treasons in the form of attacks against the state. For example, Signator George Mason felt impeachments should be limited to acts that “attempt to subvert the Constitution,” among which he felt should include “maladministration.” While James Madison felt this term was too vague, Gerhardt claims all the Founders believed impeachment was not simply a process to deal with straightforward crimes. He writes, “In short, the debates at the constitutional convention show at least that impeachable offenses were not limited to indictable offenses, but included offenses against the state.”

The ratification debates on the Constitution certainly compassed beyond mere crimes as reason for impeachment. “Great” offenses included when an executive “deviates from his duty” or that he “dare to abuse the power vested in him by the people.” Framer, Signator and First US Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton wrote upon this topic in Federalist 65, writing:

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

Founder, Signator and US Supreme Court Justice James Wilson agreed with Hamilton’s assessment, calling impeachable offenses… “political crimes and misdemeanors.” Harvard Constitutional scholar and US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Storyand impeachment authority—agreed, according to the record in “Proceedings in the Cases of the Impeachment of Charles Robinson, et al…” He wrote,

The subject (of impeachment) is full of intrinsic difficulty in a government purely elective. The jurisdiction is to be exercised over offenses which are committed by public men in violation of their public trusts and duties. Those duties are, in many cases, political; and, indeed, in other cases, to which the power of impeachment will probably be applied…the power partakes of a political character… Political injuries to be of such kinds of misdeeds…as to peculiarly injure the commonwealth by the abuse of high offices of trust.

Justice Story also stated that a particular action did not have to have a previously existing law against the impeachable offense, writing “…no previous statute is necessary to authorize an impeachment for any official misconduct.” This was considered crucial since no exhaustive statutes could ever be drafted so well as to foresee every single future event threatening the Republic. He said, “Political offenses are of so various and complex a character, so utterly incapable of being defined, or classified, that the task of positive legislation would be impracticable, if it were not absurd to attempt it.” According to Gerhardt, this means Story and Hamilton agreed future generations “would have to define on a case-by-case basis the political crimes comprising impeachable offenses to replace the federal common law of crimes that never developed.”

B. Non-Indictable Impeachable Offenses

The hardest category for impeachments is defining actions that are not obvious crimes, but reveal such a lack of character or such ill-will or indifference to America’s safety that they become impeachable offenses, ipso facto. Lawrence Tribe, in his “American Constitutional Law” mentions some such examples, writing “…a deliberate presidential decision to emasculate our national defenses or to conduct a private war in circumvention of the Constitution” could form the basis for a non-indictable, impeachable action against the state. Now, simple un-indictable crimes such as jaywalking, smoking in a restaurant, or failing to use a turn signal are examples of actions that would not support an impeachment.

III. Do Obama’s Crimes Rise to Impeachment?

Do any of Obama’s actions rise to the level of his being impeached? Following are Barack acts that various persons believe are illegal, treasonous, or clearly impeachable. (Forgive the omission of many other serious Obama offenses)

A. Environmental Disaster

Gulf Oil Spill: Barack could have moved much more quickly to sop up the oil in the Gulf. His actions were obviously dilatory, especially refusing foreign aid and not using, to this day, 4 months after the spill started, all of America’s 2,000 oil skimmers. How many millions of gallons of petroleum did this add to Louisiana’s and Mississippi’s and Alabama’s fragile wetlands? And Obama is “dedicated” to the environment? Please!

Barack also battled various governors when they tried to protect their states, like LA’s Bobby Jindal, a potential future political opponent. This ridiculous foot-dragging greatly exaggerated the oil pollution’s effects, presumably to strengthen Barack’s political hand against future petroleum use. In fact, one could claim Obama is the least environmentally sound US president ever. So, does this rise to an impeachable offense? See how Incompetence has turned the Gulf oil tragedy into “Obama‚Äôs Katrina.”

B. Economic Failure

  1. Socialism: Socialism is not an American ideology because it destroys capitalism, which the Founders chose as our model. But we know Obama opposes this when he said to Joe the Plumber: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it‚Äôs good for everybody.”
  2. Government Bailouts: The Constitution protects private property, especially the Contracts Clause. Obama’s people unfairly favored the unions in the Detroit auto bailout, breaking this clause. Further, Obama had no mandate to bailout Detroit in general.
  3. “Stimulus” Lies: Barack said if the Stimulus was not passed the economy would tank (some disagreed), despite not having helped draft it or even knowing what was in the bill. Stimulus Bill Too Lengthy to Read—But Not To Sign. Is a president touting a bill he doesn’t know impeachable conduct?
  4. Unparalleled Deficit Spending: Just because Keynes had a theory about deficit spending does not make this the answer to all problems. Barack seems to wantonly waste money. Why? Plus, it would appear a great deal of TARP/bailout/stimulus money has been stolen, undoubtedly given for political gifts. Is this not, at least, impeachable?
  5. Obama is demanding Cap’n-Trade, even after Global Warming has been proved a hoax. That’s theft.
  6. Reason Magazine Lists Obama’s “Five Lies About the American Economy

C. Republican Form of Government Under Attack

  1. Representative Government: The Declaration of Independence says: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” Yet Obama continually passes legislation without support of a majority, like Obamacare. Is this impeachable conduct?
  2. Attempts to Throw Out Filibuster. God forbid anything in the US government not be based upon pure democracy so to make it easier for mob rule! Read about Biden’s hypocrisy!

D. Sovereignty

  1. Should America hand over sovereignty to world bodies? America cedes sovereignty at Copenhagen?
  2. Should Obama honor deals made with our allies? Canceling Polish Missiles for Russia
  3. Should Barack bow to every despot in the world? If so, why? Bowing to Foreign Leadership.
  4. Should Obama use foreign leaders as proxies to attack American state’s policies? Obama Brings Foreign Leaders to Talk Down America

E. Political Crimes

Can the White House dictate who runs for office?

  1. Did WH Sestak Cabinet offer break law? Was Sestak offered a job to not run? Is that election tampering?
  2. Did the WH break the law when CO’s Romanof was offered a job to drop out?
  3. Did Obama try to get Valerie Jarret in his old senate seat?
  4. Where did Obama’s Internet election millions come from?
  5. Isn’t appointing un-vetted, Marxist czars simple un-American? Isn’t it impeachable?

F. Bill of Rights

  1. Free Speech. Obama thugs were disrupting town hall meetings before the Obamacare vote. Also, Obama has a problem with free speech he’d like the Court to address. And Elena “Mister” Kagan, Obama’s candidate for the SCOTUS opening, thinks free speech should be curtailed.
  2. Property Right: Obama salivates on thinking of wealth redistribution!
  3. Internet Freedom: Obama plans to limit free speech on the Net and now will have a “kill switch” to turn it off during “emergencies.”
  4. Religious Freedom: Some critics don’t think Obama cares about any religious freedom but Islamic.

G. Supporting Global Democracy:

Bearing in mind American policy was always to support greater global freedom and democracy, to make the world better and safer, should Obama unilaterally change this policy? Isn’t that impeachable?

  1. Obama is an enormous critic of Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East. But Barack claims Israelis don’t like him because of his Muslim name, as opposed to his dreadful policies!
  2. Barack refused to take a strong stand against the Iranian democracy crackdown. Why? Doesn’t Obama care about Iranian freedom advocates?
  3. Obama refused to stand up for Honduran constitutionalism. But why not? Isn’t he a US constitutional scholar? Barack even terminated aid to Honduras for defending their constitution!

H. Illegal Immigration

  1. Obama refuses to strongly support border security, despite grave dangers.
  2. But when individual states act to stop illegal entries, Barack attacks their laws and sues them.
  3. Barack lashes out self-righteously against the law which mirrors his own federal statutes.
  4. Obama’s dense attorney general also rages, despite admitting never having read the law.

I. Pro Islam

  1. Obama is Refusing to Call Jihadists “Muslim Terrorists.Barack believes if he is “polite” to murderous Islam they will leave us alone.
  2. Using NASA to Help Islam. This may be Barack’s all-time craziest idea: Announce the American’s space program’s real mission is to help promote Islam. Wow!
  3. Obama once practiced Islam, according to Islam expert Daniel Pipes.

J. Honesty, Religion & Political Beliefs

Barack has transparently lied about many important topics. Is being a habitual liar impeachable?

  1. Obama religious beliefs: His 20-year “minister” Rev Wright is a Marxist radical who hates Whites and Jews. Note the emergence of President Obama’s Muslim Roots.
  2. Obama’s political views: He used to be a garden variety Marxist at Occidental College! More… In an interview with Dr John C. Drew, Obama was described as a vain, stylish, gay socialist who hung out with another male student who footed his bills.
  3. Barack says he’s not a socialist, but he only makes government bigger and more expensive.

IV Bonus Section: Barack Birth Certificate

I don’t claim to know where Barack Obama was born. But the fact the guy cannot produce an original birth certificate, yet refuses to admit this obvious fact—is strange. I mean, why does he post a replacement certificate online as if it were the original? That’s an idiotic maneuver. Further, wasting millions of tax payer of dollars fighting Birther lawsuits gives one no confidence in his origins.

But the real importance of the Birther movement is to continually highlight the very alien nature of Obama, and how opposed he is to everything traditionally American. Undoubtedly, the desire to fend off strange and un-American personalities who did not grow up in the US and therefore cannot hope to identify with our history of rugged individualism and freedom-loving ways was key to the Founders not allowing foreign-born presidents. And Obama is an alien to American ideals and freedoms, regardless of where he was born.

Conclusion

Should Obama be impeached? Each reader must work through the issues for themselves on this key question. The argument for doing so is to protect America, knowing each successive day Barack stays in office, is another day of rape, humiliation and plunder of this great land. It seems certain Obama is at least a socialist, and further, a lawless individual who will do anything he wants to break America’s institutions to force Americans into accepting Marxism. Undoubtedly, he believes he would be helping the world to do so. But sincerity does not cure the great harm he is inflicting by his socialist delusions.

Therefore, because Barack is clearly doing many things to unilaterally harm and “change” America towards more socialism, and perhaps communism—he must be impeached. This is not just for purposely sabotaging our economy like a good Marxist, but for the wicked human rights disasters that have occurred in all far-leftist countries. Further, we can see quite clearly if a US president is obviously trying to harm America, for whatever reason, they can be impeached based upon the historic meaning of the process. All we need conclude is the president is doing a “political” attack—that is a purposeful assault against the US to harm the country. And Obama surely is doing so.

But we must wait for the November 2010 elections and see the fear in Democrat eyes, after they suffer historic defeat, and then pounce on the opportunity to drive this leftist maniac from power forever. We may never have another chance to save the home of global freedom. As Reagan once said, “Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.” ~ Ronald Reagan, from his first inaugural speech as governor of California, January 5, 1967.

Thank you and shalom.

Kelly

Why the silence from The Post on Black Panther Party story?

Source: Washington Post

By Andrew Alexander
Ombudsman
Sunday, July 18, 2010

Thursday’s Post reported about a growing controversy over the Justice Department’s decision to scale down a voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party. The story succinctly summarized the issues but left many readers with a question: What took you so long?

For months, readers have contacted the ombudsman wondering why The Post hasn’t been covering the case. The calls increased recently after competitors such as the New York Times and the Associated Press wrote stories. Fox News and right-wing bloggers have been pumping the story. Liberal bloggers have countered, accusing them of trying to manufacture a scandal.

But The Post has been virtually silent.

The story has its origins on Election Day in 2008, when two members of the New Black Panther Party stood in front of a Philadelphia polling place. YouTube video of the men, now viewed nearly 1.5 million times, shows both wearing paramilitary clothing. One carried a nightstick.

Early last year, just before the Bush administration left office, the Justice Department filed a voter-intimidation lawsuit against the men, the New Black Panther Party and its chairman. But several months later, with the government poised to win by default because the defendants didn’t contest the suit, the Obama Justice Department decided the case was over-charged and narrowed it to the man with the nightstick. It secured only a narrow injunction forbidding him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of Philadelphia polling places through 2012.

Congressional Republicans pounced. For months they stalled the confirmation of Thomas E. Perez, President Obama’s pick to head the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, while seeking answers to why the case had been downgraded over the objections of some of the department’s career lawyers. The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility launched an investigation, which is pending. The independent, eight-member Commission on Civil Rights also began what has become a yearlong probe with multiple public hearings; its report is due soon. Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), a prominent lawmaker in The Post’s circulation area, has been a loud and leading critic of how the case was handled. His office has “aggressively” sought to interest The Post in coverage, a spokesman said.

The controversy was elevated last month when J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department lawyer who had helped develop the case, wrote in the Washington Times that his superiors’ decision to reduce its scope was “motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law.” Some in the department believe “the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation,” he wrote. Adams recently repeated these charges in public testimony before the commission.

The Post didn’t cover it. Indeed, until Thursday’s story, The Post had written no news stories about the controversy this year. In 2009, there were passing references to it in only three stories.

That’s prompted many readers to accuse The Post of a double standard. Royal S. Dellinger of Olney said that if the controversy had involved Bush administration Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, “Lord, there’d have been editorials and stories, and it would go on for months.”

To be sure, ideology and party politics are at play. Liberal bloggers have accused Adams of being a right-wing activist (he insisted to me Friday that his sole motivation is applying civil rights laws in a race-neutral way). Conservatives appointed during the Bush administration control a majority of the civil rights commission’s board. And Fox News has used interviews with Adams to push the story. Sarah Palin has weighed in via Twitter, urging followers to watch Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly’s coverage because “her revelations leave Left steaming.”

The Post should never base coverage decisions on ideology, nor should it feel obligated to order stories simply because of blogosphere chatter from the right or the left.

But in this case, coverage is justified because it’s a controversy that screams for clarity that The Post should provide. If Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and his department are not colorblind in enforcing civil rights laws, they should be nailed. If the Commission on Civil Rights’ investigation is purely partisan, that should be revealed. If Adams is pursuing a right-wing agenda, he should be exposed.

National Editor Kevin Merida, who termed the controversy “significant,” said he wished The Post had written about it sooner. The delay was a result of limited staffing and a heavy volume of other news on the Justice Department beat, he said.

Better late than never. There’s plenty left to explore.

Andrew Alexander can be reached at 202-334-7582 or at ombudsman@washpost.com. For daily updates, read the Omblog.

2010/07/17

The Russian Agents, Obama, and the Cover-up

Source: Canada Free Press

By Cliff Kincaid

Our media do not seem to be interested in the curious matter of why the Russian agents accused of trying to acquire sensitive nuclear information from the U.S. Government were so quickly released. Why were they were sent back to Moscow less than two weeks after they were arrested?

It is certainly the case that a continuing spy scandal threatened to undermine U.S.-Russia business “opportunities” and “cooperation.” It is also true that there is evidence that the Russian agents targeted the Obama Administration and former Clinton Administration officials.

Just before the scandal broke, a $4 billion deal had been announced between Boeing and a Russian firm. During the visit of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to the U.S., Cisco Systems had announced it was going to spend $1 billion in Russia, in part to develop a Moscow version of Silicon Valley. The United States Export-Import Bank had also announced a new deal to underwrite, with U.S. taxpayer dollars, U.S. business exports to Russia.

Plus, Obama had submitted a U.S.-Russian nuclear cooperation agreement, backed by powerful business interests, to the U.S. Congress.

All of this was clearly in jeopardy if the Russian spy scandal led to additional revelations of Russian spying on the American government and businesses. So the scandal had to go away—and quickly.

The exchange was hammered out so quickly and was so advantageous to the Kremlin, however, that it should have become apparent to some journalist somewhere that there was much more to the story. But the issue was just as quickly dropped by the media, liberal and conservative alike.

Fortunately, some people are paying critical attention to what has transpired.

Writing on the website of World Affairs, Vladimir Kara-Murza says that Yelena Bonner, the widow of academician Andrei Sakharov and a prominent advocate of human rights in Russia, “called the swap a missed opportunity and denounced the Obama administration not only for agreeing to an unequal exchange (ten for four) but, more importantly, for not requesting the freeing of more political prisoners, of whom there are scores in today’s Russia.”

One of those released by Russia in exchange for its agents was a political prisoner, historian and researcher Igor Sutyagin.

Funny Business

On “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno,” Vice President Joseph Biden called the exchange a “good deal” and said that he would have preferred keeping the good-looking Russian woman spy and giving Rush Limbaugh to the Kremlin.

Has the possible penetration of the U.S. Government by foreign spies become a laughing matter for the Obama Administration? Are they fearful that a realistic review of what the Russian agents were doing would lead to the conclusion that Obama’s foreign policy plays into the hands of the Russian government and has in fact been manipulated by the Kremlin?

Documents in the scandal demonstrate, as we have reported, that the Russian intelligence service, the SVR, was interested in penetrating “think tanks” with influence over U.S. foreign policy. The SVR, the successor to the KGB, was especially interested in nuclear weapons-related information.

What we do know, based on public reports, is that one Russian agent had a job at Microsoft, another had been trying to cultivate a fundraiser for and friend of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and another had claimed contacts with a Clinton Administration official by the name of Leon Fuerth, who had been Vice President Al Gore’s top national security aide.

Obama and Democratic Party officials had been targeted in this intelligence operation

So we quickly found out that top Obama and Democratic Party officials had been targeted in this intelligence operation. Is this why the scandal had to go away?

The hastily-arranged “spy swap” ended any chance of finding out in detail in a public forum what kind of information the Russian intelligence service had been collecting and who in the U.S. Government had possibly been recruited or used as assets and contacts.

Scratching the surface of the scandal, Walter Pincus of The Washington Post wonders if all of the Russian agents have been rounded up.

He writes, “The best public indication of the extent of Moscow’s efforts comes from the late Sergei Tretyakov, the former Russian intelligence officer who under the guise of a press officer at the U.N. Mission ran espionage operations in New York City from 1995 to 2000. He served the last three of those years as a double agent for the FBI until he defected to the United States. As Tretyakov told author Pete Earley in the book ‘Comrade J,’ at one time he had more than 60 SVR officers working inside the United Nations and more than 160 contacts made up of illegals, outright spies, and other people who knowingly or unknowingly could supply information useful to Russia.”

According to Earley, Tretyakov died “unexpectedly” on June 13. The circumstances were so suspicious that an autopsy was performed under the supervision of the FBI.

The Strobe Talbott Case

But there is something else that Pincus did not mention. It has to do with those “other people” targeted and used by Tretyakov and the Russians.

The book, Comrade J, identifies Strobe Talbott, a former high-ranking Clinton State Department official and the current president of the Brookings Institution, a major liberal think tank, as having been a trusted contact of the Russian intelligence service. Talbott has denied serving as a Russian agent, but when he was up for his State Department job in the Clinton Administration, he admitted a relationship with Soviet “journalist” and KGB agent Victor Louis.

The Talbott case is consistently ignored by the major media because he is respected and trusted by his colleagues in the press. He is also trusted by Senator Richard Lugar, who served as Obama’s mentor when Obama was in the U.S. Senate and traveled to Russia, only to be detained and have his passport examined by Russian authorities. Obama joked about the detention, saying he wasn’t in the Gulag.

Pincus asked, “What will the Russians do now?” He noted that Tretyakov had said that when the Cold War was over, “the United States asked Russia to stop the KGB’s covert propaganda activities that portrayed Washington in foreign media as carrying out terrible activities, such as saying the United States was spreading HIV in Africa.”

In response, Pincus noted that Tretyakov said that the KGB closed down “Department A,” which ran the propaganda and disinformation operations, but then established another program which did the same thing. “Nothing changed,” Tretyakov said.

So the propaganda and disinformation activities continue. Indeed, that is what the Kremlin-financed global Russia Today television channel is all about. It has a major presence in the U.S.

But wait. Didn’t the Reverend Jeremiah Wright repeat the KGB disinformation that the U.S. was spreading AIDS? Indeed he did. In fact, Wright, who was Barack Obama’s pastor for 20 years, actually claimed at a National Press Club appearance during the 2008 presidential campaign that the U.S. Government had manufactured the AIDS virus to kill black people.

So we have one identified channel of influence whereby Soviet propaganda and disinformation was spewing from the mouth of someone with direct influence over the President of the United   States. But few in the major media were interested then—or now—as to whether or not Obama believed any of that nonsense.

Holder’s Absurd Claims

One possible reason for quickly deporting the spies, from the point of view of the Obama Administration, is that they had explosive information about Russian influence over the U.S. Government that would have been too incriminating to reveal in a public court case. “Russia considered these people very important to their intelligence-gathering activities,” Attorney General Eric Holder admitted. “They didn’t pass any classified information,” Holder insisted.

Are we supposed to take his word for it? This is one of the most political appointees that Obama has put in power. He is the official suing Arizona over its immigration policy and letting the Black Panthers off the hook for making threats at a polling station. When he was in the Clinton Justice Department, he helped orchestrate pardons for members of terrorist groups.

It is widely assumed, since they were not charged with espionage, that the Russians were agents of influence who were trying to affect or obtain information about U.S. foreign policy. But this doesn’t mean that they did not do significant damage. The documents in the case cite secret money drops and secret messages to “Moscow Center.”

“We did actually make contact with certain people and did obtain certain information from people who were unwitting in their interaction with these people,” Holder acknowledged. Who were these “unwitting” people? Were they dupes of Moscow? Were they in the Obama Administration? Were they in the think tanks that we know the Russians targeted?

Holder had no real answer to CBS “Face the Nation” host Bob Schieffer’s question of why, after spending so many years following these agents, they were not prosecuted. Holder could only claim that the 10 were somehow not as valuable as the four we got. In terms of math alone, it just doesn’t add up.

Documents in the case, as we have reported, demonstrate that the Russian agents were seeking information about the proposed arms treaty with Russia and other nuclear weapons information. That treaty, the New START, has now been signed and submitted to the Senate for ratification. It is being criticized by conservatives for giving Russia a strategic and tactical advantage in nuclear weapons.

One document says four Obama Administration officials were specifically targeted in the intelligence-gathering effort. But their names were omitted from the Justice Department documents about the case. If they actively conspired with the Russians, shouldn’t they be identified and arrested and prosecuted?

However, there is another possible reason for the quick release of the Russian agents. It is that powerful U.S. business interests told the Obama Administration that an unfolding spy scandal—and a public court case—could damage their business dealings with the Russian government.

Bad Timing for Business

There is no question that the timing of the scandal was bad news for these business interests. Before it broke on June 28, a major push had been launched by an entity called the Coalition for a U.S.-Russia Civilian Nuclear Partnership to have Congress approve a Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement with Russia as “a natural next step in deepening the relationship and trade ties between the U.S. and Russia.”

The coalition is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the U.S.-Russia Business Council, the National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC), and Tenex, a Russian company described as theworld’s leading exporter of nuclear fuel cycle products and services

The NFTC, an association of some 300 major American multinational corporations, is also behind a “New Strategy of Engagement” with Communist Cuba, including aid and trade for the Castro regime.

General Electric, a key member of the U.S.-Russia Business Council, has worked in Russia since the 1920s “to develop the country’s energy infrastructure,” it boasts. GE owns NBC and MSNBC. In fact, NBC is itself a member of the U.S.-Russia Business Council.

Is this why GE-owned media properties have not seen fit to do any in-depth investigative reporting on the Russian spy scandal?

It is interesting to note that Jeffrey Immelt, CEO and Chairman of General Electric, met with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on April 6 of this year. The topic was business in Russia.

Immelt sits on Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

Even more significant, just four days before the Russian spy scandal broke, the U.S-Russia Business Summit was held, coinciding with the meeting between U.S. President Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev in Washington, D.C. The June 24 event, which featured the chief executive officers of U.S. and Russian companies and business associations, included the announcement that Boeing and Russian Technologies were moving forward with a $4 billion deal on 50 Boeing 737s.

Other announced deals included:

  • U.S. engine manufacturer Cumminsand Russian truck-builder Kamaz are going to jointly produce a lower-emission engine in Russia.
  • The United States Export-Import Bank and Russia’s VneshEconomBank signed a Memorandum of Understanding on cooperation to “finance U.S. sales of medical equipment, energy efficiency equipment and other goods and services to support Russia’s economic and technological growth, and U.S. exports and jobs.”

On June 13, as part of his U.S. tour, Medvedev visited the headquarters of Cisco Systems in San Jose, California. Cisco CEO John Chambers used the occasion to announce that it would commit $1 billion to “the Russian technology innovation agenda over the coming decade,” including a high-tech innovation center outside of Moscow, a Russian version of Silicon Valley.

But there’s more.

Russia’s Anti-American Duplicity

The Bush Administration had submitted a nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia but it was withdrawn after Russia’s 2008 military invasion of Georgia. The Bush Administration came to the belated realization that Putin’s Russia was not to be trusted.

Today, however, Russian forces continue to occupy regions of Georgia, even though the Obama Administration claims to be opposed to this Russian aggression, and are even building military bases there.

Nevertheless, the Obama administration re-submitted this U.S.-Russian agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation to Congress on May 10, 2010. In justifying the measure, Obama said there had been had been enough “significant progress” in the U.S.-Russia nuclear relationship, including on thwarting the Iranian nuclear weapons program, that it was now appropriate “to move forward with this Agreement for cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.”

Does this claim have any credibility?

No matter how unbelievable Obama may be, the agreement automatically enters into force after 90 days unless both the House of Representatives and Senate vote to stop it.

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.), co-founder of the Congressional Nuclear Security Caucus, and Congressman Edward Markey (D-Mass.), founder of the House Bipartisan Task Force on Nonproliferation, have introduced H. J. Res. 85, a resolution of disapproval for the United States-Russia civil nuclear cooperation agreement.

In a “Dear Colleague” letter, they point out:

  • “Russia continues to assist Iran’s controversial nuclear program. Russia has a $1 billion contract for the construction of Iran’s large nuclear reactor at Bushehr, which is scheduled to become fully operational this year.
  • “Russia has sold Iran advanced conventional weapons and air-defense systems, and assisted Iran’s ballistic missile production program.
  • “Russian entities continue to sell WMD-related technologies to Iran and other countries of concern, resulting in U.S. sanctions. Since 2001, the U.S. Government has sanctioned at least 10 Russian entities on 11 separate occasions, including the state-designated arms exporter, Rosoboronexport.
  • “Russia still occupies parts of Georgia.
  • “Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Syrian President Bashar Assad recently discussed the possibility of Russian-Syrian nuclear cooperation.”

A previous Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the proposed agreement that was presented—and then withdrawn—by the Bush Administration outlined what Democratic lawmakers then said were “significant problems within the executive-branch process for evaluating Russia’s nuclear proliferation activities…”

Is there any evidence that the Obama Administration is better able to monitor Russian nuclear proliferation activities?

Will the Democrats this time give the administration a pass, since the President is a member of their own political party?

If so, then relations with Russia, despite the spy scandal, will be back on track and business-as-usual will continue with the Kremlin. Human rights in Russia will continue to suffer and political prisoners will continue to languish in jail. More importantly, Russian intelligence operations, run mainly out of the United Nations in New York, will continue.

Obama’s next step, also certain to please the Kremlin, is to seek the 67 votes he needs for passing his new arms deal with Moscow.

More evidence of Justice racism

Source: WND

Attitude to race-neutral enforcement of voting rights act described as ‘hostile’

By Brian Fitzpatrick
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Two former U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have corroborated key elements of the explosive allegations by a third former attorney that the Voting Section of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division is refusing to enforce the law against black defendants.

On July 6, former DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that the Voting Section is dominated by a “culture of hostility” toward bringing cases against blacks and other minorities who violate voting rights laws.

One of Adams’ DOJ colleagues, former Voting Section trial attorney Hans A. von Spakovsky, told WND he saw Adams was being attacked in the media for lack of corroboration. He said he knew Adams was telling the truth, so he decided on his own to step forward.

In an affidavit dated yesterday, von Spakovsky stated, “I can confirm from my own experience as a career lawyer that there was a dominant attitude within the Division and the Voting Section of hostility towards the race-neutral enforcement of voting rights law.”

Von Spakowsky also asked another old colleague, former DOJ Special Counsel for Voting Matters Karl S. Bowers Jr., to go on the record. Bowers is now in private practice in South Carolina.

In his own affidavit, Bowers stated: “In my experience, there was a pervasive culture in the Civil Rights Division and within the Voting Section of apathy and in some cases outright hostility, towards race-neutral enforcement of voting rights laws among large segments of career attorneys.”

In his affidavit, von Spakovsky, now a Senior Legal Fellow in the Center for Legal & Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., backed up Adams’ testimony that Voting Section staff lawyers were harassed by their colleagues for working on a case brought against a black activist.

According to von Spakovsky, former Voting Section Chief Christopher Coates was harassed “over his work on the Brown case because they did not believe that the Justice Department should file any lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act against black defendants, no matter how egregious their violations of the law.”

Von Spakovsky also confirmed Adams’ allegations that the DOJ has brought “hundreds” of cases against white defendants but only two cases against black defendants. He agreed with Adams that DOJ’s dismissal of most charges in one of the cases after the Obama administration took over in 2009, the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case, was “unprecedented.”

In his affidavit, von Spakovsky further confirmed Adams’ allegation that the DOJ is deliberately refusing to enforce Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act, widely known as the “Motor Voter” law. Section 8 requires state and local election officials to remove ineligible voters from voter lists.

According to Adams, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes, an Obama appointee, told Voting Section employees the department “has no interest in enforcing” Section 8 because “it has nothing to do with increasing turnout.”

Von Spakovsky told WND the administration’s refusal to enforce Section 8 is politically motivated.

“The left doesn’t like Section 8, because they want as many people on the rolls as possible, even if they’re ineligible.”

Von Spakovsky contended that enough ineligible felons voted in Minnesota to catapult the Democratic candidate, comedian Al Franken, to victory in the razor-thin 2008 U. S. Senate race.

Adams, now a PajamasMedia blogger, alleged in a blog post yesterday: “The Department is not allowing Christopher Coates to comply with his subpoena [from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission]. These two affidavits give you an abbreviated understanding about why that is. If he were permitted to appear and tell the truth, the lid blows off.”

Von Spakowsky said the DOJ was placing Coates in an “untenable” position by ordering him not to comply with the subpoena, forcing him to choose between exposing himself to legal jeopardy and keeping his job.

Adams resigned from the department now run by Attorney General Eric Holder after Adams was ordered by his superiors to drop a case prosecutors already had won – the notorious New Black Panther Party intimidation of voters in a majority-black precinct in urban Philadelphia on Election Day in 2008.

Amateur videographers had caught New Black Panther Party activists on video wielding a baton, intimidating the elderly black man serving as the Republican poll watcher.

One of the four New Black Panther Party members charged in the case is also an elected Democrat holding a local office.

When they were ordered to stop prosecution, Adams and the team of DOJ lawyers had already won the case by default because the New Black Panthers declined to defend themselves in court. At that point in the proceedings, the DOJ team was simply waiting for the judge to assign penalties against the New Black Panthers.

Adams claimed that the decision to drop the case was made by Obama political appointees. Dropping a case that was already won was “unprecedented,” he said.

Adams alleged that many DOJ employees, both career civil servants and political appointees, have told him that the DOJ “doesn’t have the resources” to enforce the voting-rights laws in a “race-neutral” manner by bringing cases against members of minority groups who violate the law. Others have refused to work on either of the two cases against black perpetrators, saying, “I didn’t join the voting-rights division to sue black people.”

Adams said one DOJ staffer told his former superior, Christopher Coates, then the chief of the DOJ’s Voting Section, “Can you believe we’re being sent down to Mississippi to defend white people?” He reported another staffer told Coates, “the Brown case has gotten us into so much trouble with civil-rights groups.”

According to Adams, some members of the DOJ Voting Section staff were “harassed” by other members “for working on the Brown case.” An internal department investigation led to sanctions against some staffers for “badgering” others because they worked on the Brown case and held “evangelical religious views.”

According to Adams, Coates suffered humiliation and the gradual loss of his power because he supported the case against the New Black Panther Party. Adams repeatedly urged the members of the commission to bring Coates in to testify about the department’s hostility toward bringing cases against minority members.

As WND reported, the Justice Department originally brought the case against four armed men who witnesses say derided voters with catcalls of “white devil” and “cracker” and told voters they should prepare to be “ruled by the black man.”

One poll watcher called police after he reportedly saw one of the men brandishing a nightstick to threaten voters.

“As I walked up, they closed ranks, next to each other,” the witness told Fox News at the time. “So I walked directly in between them, went inside and found the poll watchers. They said they’d been here for about an hour. And they told us not to come outside because a black man is going to win this election no matter what.”

He said the man with a nightstick told him, “‘We’re tired of white supremacy,’ and he starts tapping the nightstick in his hand. At which point I said, ‘OK, we’re not going to get in a fistfight right here,’ and I called the police.”

Judicial Watch, which investigates and prosecutes government corruption, filed a lawsuit seeking the government’s documentation about the case.

The 2008 election incident in Philadelphia has appeared on video on YouTube:

As WND reported, two men, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson, wearing paramilitary uniforms and armed with a nightstick, blocked a doorway to a polling location to intimidate voters. Shabazz is leader of the Philadelphia chapter of the New Black Panther Party.

The Justice Department’s complaint was under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 against four defendants: the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense and its leader, Malik Zulu Shabazz, and the two men who appeared at the Philadelphia polling place Nov. 4, 2008. The complaint accused them of attempting to engage in, and engaging in, both voter intimidation and intimidation of individuals aiding voters.

A federal judge ordered default judgments against the Panthers after party members refused to appear in court. The Washington Times reported the Justice Department was seeking sanctions when Loretta King, acting assistant attorney general who had been granted a political appointment by President Obama in January 2009 to temporarily fill the position, ordered a delay in the proceedings. According to the report, the ruling was issued after King met with Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, the department’s No. 3 political appointee, who approved the decision.

The case was dismissed May 15, 2009, Adams told Fox News.

“All the charges were dropped against three of the defendants and the final order against one of the defendants was a timid restraint.”

Only one of four defendants faced punishment: a temporary injunction against appearing at Philadelphia polls with a weapon. The department stopped at the injunction and didn’t call for criminal penalties, monetary damages or other civil penalties.

“We were ordered to dismiss the case,” Adams said. “I mean, we were told drop the charges against the New Black Panther Party.”

The Department of Justice said it made a decision based on evidence that the case could not go forward.

Reacting to Adams’ statement the DOJ told Fox News:

The department sought and obtained an injunction against the Black Panther who had a nightstick at the polling station. After a thorough review, the facts did not support the case against the other defendants in the case. It is not uncommon for attorneys within the department to have good-faith disagreements about the appropriate course of action in a particular case, although it is regrettable when a former department attorney distorts the facts and makes baseless allegations to promote his or her agenda.

But Adams said high-ranking DOJ officials did not review the facts of the case nor the briefs before making that call.

View this document on Scribd
View this document on Scribd

Presidents Calderon and Obama cover up brutality in Mexico

Source: Examiner

By Jim Kouri – Public Safety Examiner

If the news media were truly unbiased in their reportage of Mexican illegal immigration and told the whole story, Americans would be shocked at the degree of President Felipe Calderon’s hypocrisy.

For instance, Calderon’s government is filing a lawsuit against Arizona over their new immigration enforcement law. Calderon himself during a visit to Washington, DC scolded the state of Arizona and its citizens and received a standing ovation from Democrat members of Congress.

However, Calderon and his government appear to be unwilling to acknowledge their own hypocrisy in dealing with illegal immigrants who enter Mexico from Central American countries. Considered felons by the Mexican government, these immigrants fear detention, rape and robbery. Police and soldiers hunt them down at railroads, bus stations and fleabag hotels. Sometimes they are deported; more often officers beat them and simply take their money and possessions.

Anyone who doesn’t believe the above treatment of illegal aliens by Mexican authorities should peruse reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

“This 128-page report examines the commission’s work on more than 40 human rights cases, including recent abuses by soldiers involved in law enforcement operations, police crackdowns against demonstrators in Guadalajara and San Salvador de Atenco, and the killings of women in Ciudad Juárez over the past decade, among others. The report also examines the commission’s role in addressing abusive laws, including restrictions on freedom of expression, and responding to important reforms…” states the Human Rights Commission report’s preface. < http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2008/02/12/mexico-s-national-human-rights-commission-0 > (PDF Copy is Below)

Besides the news media’s overall silence on illegal immigrants being terrorized, robbed and killed by Mexican authorities, the Obama Administration and US lawmakers are equally silent.

“They allow Calderon and his flunkies to denigrate and scold Americans who call for tougher border security and a sane immigration policy while the blood of Central Americans who’ve entered or attempted to enter Mexico across its southern border stains their own hands,” says former military intelligence officer, and NYPD detective, Sid Franes.

While illegal immigrants in the United States have held huge rallies in the U.S., without any consequences, the thousands and thousands of undocumented Central Americans in Mexico endure their inhumane treatment in silent fear. In fact, Mexico’s constitution prohibits non-citizens from participating in protests or other public demonstrations against the Mexican government.

And while President Calderon demands humane treatment for his countrymen who break US immigration laws to enter and remain in the US, Mexico provides few — if any — protections for its own illegal immigrant population.

The level of police brutality Central American illegal immigrants endure in Mexico was apparent, when a police raid near a rail yard outside Mexico City ended in the death of an innocent man. Mexican cops shot and killed a local man, because the poor soul’s appearance made officers think he was a immigrant.

Undocumented Central Americans complain much more about how they are treated by Mexican officials than about authorities on the US side of the border, where aliens may resent being caught but often praise the professionalism of the agents scouring the desert for their trail, according to this writer’s sources within the intelligence community.

If an immigrant is carrying any money, Mexican police officers or soldiers take it from the hapless illegal immigrant. And it’s not just local cops: Federal (Federales) and state police officers are equally corrupt and brutal. There is no such thing as a sanctuary city in Mexico. And the illegal immigrants are lucky if the are confronted by police officers; the soldiers are far worse in their treatment of these foreigners.

While most countries including the United States have some police corruption, the level of corruption in Mexico is shocking. To many, the only difference between Mexican organized crime gangs and the police is that the cops wear uniforms and badges.

While the Obama Administration praises Mexican cooperation with fighting a war on drugs, most law enforcement commanders know better. The Mexican government has been bought and sold by the drug gangs. The only time there is a crackdown on a drug gang is when a rival drug gang “requests” police action in order to eliminate their competition.

Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon has called US residents’, who live along the US-Mexico border, plans to build a fence along their properties “shameful.” What’s shameful, Mr. President, is your hypocrisy, lies and corruption.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a columnist for The Examiner (examiner.com) and New Media Alliance (thenma.org).  In addition, he’s a blogger for the Cheyenne, Wyoming Fox News Radio affiliate KGAB (www.kgab.com). Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.  He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.   Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer and columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com.   Kouri appears regularly as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Fox News Channel, Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, etc.

To subscribe to Kouri’s newsletter write to COPmagazine@aol.com and write “Subscription” on the subject

View this document on Scribd
Older Posts »