Posts Tagged ‘Michelle Obama’

White House Whitewash Sestak Cover-Story Falling Apart

June 1, 2010

Pennsylvania Democrat Governor Ed Rendell had this to say about the Sestak contoversy:

“Stonewalling it for months — yes, not smart. This explanation is perfectly reasonable. They should have put it out there at the beginning.”

So we have an acknowledgment that the White House has been stonewalling for months.  That much is correct.

What ISN’T correct is that the “explanation is perfectly reasonable.”  It isn’t reasonable at all.

First of all, the White House itself refutes the notion that the Bill Clinton telephone offer of a non-paying position in exchange for Sestak dropping his Senate bid was all there was to this story.

The White House memo uses the plural word “discussions.”  As in “discussions between White House staff and Congressman Joe Sestak.”  And these discussions took place between June and July.  Which means unless Bill Clinton called Joe Sestak in June and hung up the phone two months later, this call clearly wasn’t all there was.

So we’re not just talking about one conversation with Bill Clinton.  Nor is Bill Clinton a member of the White House staff.  The White House itself acknowledges that a member or members of the White House staff contacted Joe Sestak.  Which member of the White House staff?  When?  And regarding what?

And the memo also says:

“Efforts were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch advisory board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high level advisory capacity for which he was highly qualified.”

Wow.  They really make that advisory position sound like “something of value,” i.e., something which would be illegal to offer in the first place.

But the claim that Sestak could serve on the presidential board and retain his seat in the House of Representatives is simply factually incorrect.

Rep. Joe Sestak would in fact NOT have been able to serve in the House of Representatives and serve on a presidential or “executive” advisory board.  Ever hear about a little thing called “the Separation of Powers”?

May 29, 2010
Sestak cover story starts to unravel
Ed Lasky

Crafting a cover story that is consistent with awkward facts is hard. Did the best and the brightest miss this? Sestak was not eligible to serve on the Intelligence Advisory Board. Byron York of the Washington Examiner reports:

In a little-noticed passage Friday, the New York Times reported that Rep. Joe Sestak was not eligible for a place on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, the job he was reportedly offered by former President Bill Clinton.  And indeed a look at the Board’s website reveals this restriction:
The Board consists of not more than 16 members appointed by the President from among individuals who are not employed by the Federal Government. Members are distinguished citizens selected from the national security, political, academic, and private sectors.

As a sitting member of Congress, Sestak was not eligible for the job. [….]


The statement from White House counsel Robert Bauer did not specifically mention the intelligence board, but speaking to reporters Friday, Sestak said of his conversation with Clinton, “At the time, I heard the words ‘presidential board,’ and that’s all I heard…I heard ‘presidential board,’ and I think it was intel.” In addition, the Times reported that “people briefed on the matter said one option was an appointment” to the intelligence board. But the White House could not legally have placed Sestak on the board.

An already implausible story has become much harder to believe.

How “reasonable” is this story, Governor Rendell?  And THIS is the story that justifies what you yourself acknowledge was MONTHS of STONEWALLING???

It is hard to imagine that anyone believed for a second that Joe Sestak would pass up a unique opportunity to become a United States Senator in exchange for such a flimsy offer.  It is even more ridiculous to believe that Bill Clinton – a former president – would be called upon to make such a transparently ridiculous offer.  And it is even more ridiculous yet that neither the White House, or Bill Clinton, or Rep. Sestak would have been so completely unaware that the very basis of the offer – a position which would allow Sestak to serve in the House AND serve on a presidential board – was in fact completely false.

You want to know what makes a lot more sense?  The White House stonewalled for months because they had no legitimate answer to the Joe Sestak bribe offer, and then a White House lawyer thought fast and crafted a transparently false explanation.

For the record, Joe Sestak affirmed several important points: 1) that he was offered a “federal job.”  A federal job is the kind of thing that pays.  2) Sestak affirmed that the “federal job” was “high ranking.”  3) Sestak affirms that it was the “White House” that made the “high ranking” “federal job” offer.

The current White House Whitewash fails to deal with all three points.  And then on top of that, they acknowledge that “discussions” (plural) took place over a two month period while only releasing an account of only ONE discussion.  And that these discussions were between the White House staff and Congressman Sestak.  And that the basis of the job offer was something that Sestak could do while retaining his job as Congressman – which has clearly been refuted.

And this was the best thing that the White House could come up with after three months of stonewalling.

This is clearly a cover story.

Something really stinky is going on.

This is clearly a serious violation of the law.

And this is also part of a clear PATTERN OF CORRUPTION:

Sestak-gate: White House Offered Romanoff Job, Too
Wednesday, 26 May 2010 08:18 PM
By Jim Meyers

Allegations that the White House offered Joe Sestak a job in exchange for dropping out of the Pennsylvania Senate race echo an earlier report of a job offer to candidate Andrew Romanoff in Colorado.

On Sept. 27, 2009, the Denver Post reported that the Obama administration offered Senate candidate Romanoff a position if he canceled plans to run for the Democratic nomination against incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet.

The paper said the job offer, which specified particular jobs, reportedly was delivered by Jim Messina, Obama’s deputy chief of staff. One position the Post cited was a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency.

And do I need to invoke the name of “Blagojevich” and his attempt to sell Barack Obama’s Senate Seat?

The Chicago way is a very, very ugly way.  And Obama has been in it up to his eyeballs.  Chicago is a dirty place filled with dirty politicians – and Obama was perfectly at home with all the dirt.

That Chicago corruption extends right into Obama’s home, by way of his wife Michelle.  This is a woman who sat on high-paying boards in direct quid-pro-quo consequences of Obama advancing in public office.  And in some of those boards, she participated in the worst kind of hospital patient-dumping.

Here’s a video of Michelle Obama you ought to watch – if you can stand the revelations:

Too bad we voted to nationalize the Chicago Way.

How’s Obama Doing In Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq? Not So Good

April 7, 2010

Let’s take them in alphabetical order.  First, How’s Obama doing in Afghanistan?

Not so good.  Our foreign policy is so deteriorated there that Obama is refusing to even acknowledge whether or not the leader of the country we are fighting in is an ally:

White House won’t say if Karzai is still an ally
By Jordan Fabian & Sam Youngman – 04/06/10 02:00 PM ET

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs would not say Tuesday if the Obama administration considers Afghan President Hamid Karzai an ally.

Gibbs criticized the Afghan president after Karzai took a shot at Western leaders and the United Nations for election fraud in his country during last year’s presidential contest.

Administration officials said Tuesday that they will continue to “evaluate” remarks made by  Karzai, and that the evaluation could result in Karzai’s May invitation to the White House being revoked.

President Barack Obama extended an invitation for Karzai to visit the White House on May 12, but that could be in jeopardy if Karzai continues to make “troubling and untruthful” comments.

Asked at the daily press briefing if the U.S. considers Karzai an ally, Gibbs said “Karzai is the democratically elected leader of Afghanistan.”

Pressed on the issue, Gibbs said that “the remarks he’s made I can’t imagine that anyone in this country found them anything other than troubling…when the Afghan leaders take steps to improve governance and root out corruption, then the president will say kind words.”

Gibbs added that the administration will continue to use “stern language” with Karzai if it doesn’t take steps to root out corruption and questioned the rationale behind Karzai’s controversial statements.

“Whether there’s some domestic political benefit that he’s trying to gain, I can’t say,” Gibbs said.

So Karzai defends his country’s elections, and his own political credibility, from foreign attacks and demagoguery, and as a result Obama snubs him in what seems like a rather petty emotional response.

Maybe Karzai should start meddling in Obama’s election-status by pointing out that Obama’s own wife strongly suggested Obama was not born in the United States when she remarked that she and Obama visited “his home country in Kenya.”  Which of course is what the birthers who say Obama was not an American-born U.S. citizen have been saying all along.  Even the Associated Press at one point described Obama as “Kenyan-born” before it became inconvenient to so-describe him.

Given that Obama is becoming unglued over Karzai defending himself over attacks regarding the legitimacy of his election, it would be interesting if we could see how Obama would handle attacks over the legitimacy of his election.

In any event, things aren’t going so well when we have hundreds of thousands of troops fighting in a country while our president openly doubts whether the leader of said country is an ally.

That was the first thing that went truly, truly wrong in Vietnam, you know.

How’s Obama doing in Iran?  Really, really bad.  It has become abundantly obvious that Iran WILL have nuclear weapons under Obama’s watch.

How does this Washington Times headline grab you?

CIA: Iran capable of producing nukes

And what is Obama’s reaction to this intolerable and incredibly dangerous development?  Try acceptance.

I know, I know.  Iran was supposed to reflect upon the sheer, transcendent wonderfulness of Obama, and agree that Obama’s empty words really were more important than reality, and abandon it’s nuclear weapons program.  But somehow something went wrong in Obama’s calculation that Iran and the ayatollahs would decide to embrace Obama’s narcissism.

Who would have ever thunk it?

Oh, wait.  I would have.  I wrote an article in August, 2008 patiently explaining why a vote for Obama was tantamount to a vote for a nuclear-armed Iran.

In another August 2008 article predicting that “President Obama” equaled “nuclear Iran,” I wrote:

This is the question that will effect – and possibly haunt – American foreign policy for generations to come.

If we elect Barack Obama, we are tacitly choosing to allow Iran to develop the bomb. Any of his tough-sounding rhetoric aside, you need to realize that Barack Obama has already repeatedly philosophically condemned the very same sort of preemptive attack that would be necessary to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Heck, I can go back to April 2008, when I was already explaining why electing either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton over John McCain guaranteed a nuclear-armed Iran.

When Iran obtains nuclear weapons, the world will dramatically change.  We will not be able to control this rogue terrorist nation – a nation with a radically apocalyptic view of the world – which has repeatedly threatened to “wipe Israel off the map.”  When Iran develops the bomb, they will be able to block the Strait of Hormuz and shut off the oil supply, skyrocketing gasoline prices to over $14 a gallon.  When Iran gets nukes, it will be able to launch a global terrorist jihad without fear of being attacked.  When Iran has the bomb, it will result in a nuclear-arms race in the craziest region in the history of the world.

Ultimate Armageddon will be guaranteed when Iran gets the bomb.  And it will get the bomb because of Barack Hussein Obama.

How about Iraq?  Well, things are hardly looking up there under Obama, either.

A few weeks ago, Joe Biden was ridiculously asserting that Iraq “could be one of the great achievements of this administration.”  What was asinine about that statement was that it utterly ignored the Bush administration, that deserves all the credit, and instead assign credit to two men who foolishly tried to undercut everything that Bush did which led to the success we attained in Iraq.

But things were clearly going well in Iraq, such that Joe Biden tried to steal credit for it.

Not so much now.

From the New York Times:

Baghdad Bombing Streak Stokes Fear of New Round of Sectarian Violence
By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS and YASMINE MOUSA
Published: April 6, 2010

BAGHDAD — Deadly blasts shook Baghdad for the second time in three days on Tuesday, deepening fears of a new outbreak of insurgent and sectarian violence.

At least seven bombings of residential areas of the Iraqi capital, both Shiite and Sunni, killed 35 people and wounded more than 140. The violence came against a backdrop of continuing political instability after March 7 parliamentary elections left no single group able to form a government, forcing a scramble to form coalitions.

A similar political void after the 2005 parliamentary vote preceded Iraq’s bloody sectarian warfare of 2006 and 2007, from which the country has only begun to emerge.

There are also new concerns that Iraq’s army and police may drift back into sectarianism.

It’s logically impossible for the Obama administration to one day say Iraq will be one of their “greatest achievements,” and the next day blame Bush for the failure of Iraq.  That said, I guarantee you that that is precisely what Obama will try to do if Iraq turns sour on him.

Ayad Allawi, the likely next prime minister of Iraq, had this to say only yesterday:

ALLAWI: The process of democracy where you would have a stable Iraq is being hijacked.  And because it’s being hijacked, it’s going to throw this country into violence. And once this country is thrown again into violence as before, then this will spill over to the region and vice versa. Problems around the region will be transferred here also.

I bold and red-font the statements that it is “being” hijacked.  It is something that is beginning to happen just now.  And Iraq is being “thrown again into violence as before.”  Obama can’t blame Bush for this increasing violence.  He can only blame himself (not that he ever actually WILL blame himself).

We are beginning to escalate our withdrawal out of Iraq, and lo and behold, the Islamic jihadists are determined to make it appear as though we are withdrawing with our tails between our legs.  They are also making it rather obvious that when we leave, they will be present to fill the newly created vacuum with their poisonous presence.

Allawi is pleading with the United States to discontinue the timetable for withdrawal and remain through this difficult period.  But the report by correspondent Dominic Di-Natale concludes by saying, “Ayad Allawi’s call for a troop withdrawal suspension will fall on deaf ears for the time being even if it is a serious plea for help. ”

One of the fears is that Obama is tunnel-vision focused on getting the hell out of Iraq, and is ignoring the delicate state-of-affairs there.

So how’s Obama doing in Afghanistan, in Iran, and in Iraq?  Pretty darn horrendously.

An article that encapsulates the Obama disaster of a foreign policy is “The Karzai Fiasco” by the Wall Street Journal.

Obama’s Backdoor Taxation And The Coming Consequences Of Obamanomics

February 2, 2010

Remember Obama’s ubiquitous campaign pledge that 95% of Americans wouldn’t see their taxes go up one single dime? Oops.

Reuters ran a story that they titled, “Backdoor Taxes To Hit Middle Class.”  The Obama administration whined, pleaded, threatened, and intimidated Reuters to the point that Reuters took the story down.

Fortunately, the International Business Times is running pretty much the story under the same title:

Backdoor taxes to hit middle class

By Terri Cullen
01 February 2010 @ 06:16 pm ET
Next Politics & Policy Article

NEW YORK – The Obama administration’s plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.

In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year — effectively a tax hike by stealth.

While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.

The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration’s Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.

If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 — though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.

Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a “patch” that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.

Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year’s levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy — the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.

Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:

* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;

* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;

* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;

* Individuals who don’t itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;

* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.

Notwithstanding that punishing the rich actually punishes the poor by punishing economic growth (the poor get their jobs because the rich create them, rather than vice versa), it was always a lie that Obama was only going to tax the rich.  People like me were pointing that out throughout the 2008 election campaign.

A couple examples:

Obama-Biden Will Come After Middle Class With Taxes

Obama WILL Raise Your Taxes And Your Living Costs

That Obama’s promise to tax only the rich was such a transparent lie that even the biased leftist New York Times reported on it.  The final paragraph in their article entitled, “Obama’s Pledge to Tax Only the Rich Can’t Pay for Everything, Analysts Say” reads as follows:

“There is no way we can pay for health care and the rest of the Obama agenda, plus get our long-term deficits under control, simply by raising taxes on the wealthy,” said Isabel V. Sawhill, a former Clinton administration budget official. “The middle class is going to have to contribute as well.”

The Wall Street Journal expressed the same point better (as usual) in analyzing Obama’s tax and spend demagoguery:

This is going to be some trick. Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can’t possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama’s new spending ambitions.

The WSJ goes on to say:

as a thought experiment, let’s go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That’s less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable “dime” of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.

We voted for a liar based on the huge pack of lies he offered us.

If you actually believed Obama’s “hope and change” that you would be able to get a free ride as Someone Else picked up your tab forever, you are a genuine fool.

Joe Biden summed up the Obama populist demagoguery by suggesting that paying excessively high taxes was the “patriotic duty” of the rich – which basically means that the middle classes and the poor either aren’t patriots or that they have no patriotic duties.

Liberals talk about “fairness,” as though its somehow “fair” that nearly half the country pay should pay no federal income taxes at all, while 1% of the American people should be compelled to pay 40% of all federal income tax.  They think it’s “fair” that the top 1% of earners pay more in taxes than the bottom 95% of Americans COMBINED.

This is America, where you have the right to sit on your fat ass while someone else works for the bon bons you stuff in your face while you vegetate in front of the boob tube.  Why SHOULD you work when you can saddle that burden on Someone Else?

Rich people study harder in their formative years.  They postpone prosperity longer to pursue more college education.  They work longer hours.  They save more.  They pursue jobs that are more demanding and more stressful. They invest when others consume, and then consume some more, and then some more.  And when they finally start to achieve, Mr. or Ms. bon bon feels entitled to confiscate their prosperity and redistribute it to the do nots.

And that’s “fair.”

Well, under Obama, your “fairness” is going to come home to roost.

Obama is considered “anti-business” by a whopping 77% of investors. whose investments stimulate economic growth.  Obama has gone to war with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce whose businesses create jobs.  Obama has gone to war with the banks that lend money to businesses.

Many businesses simply afraid to hire new workers because of Obama’s new taxes and rules, and the sheer atmosphere of doubt that he’s created.

We  are descending into a command-and-control economy with the government pulling the strings, according to a study.  And that is going to have severe consequences.

On top of Obama’s approach of punishing and discouraging businesses and investment, Obama took the Democrat Marxist-based economic philosophy of redistributionism and ran with it so far down the field that we could never hope to pay for it by taxing the rich even if we sucked them all dry.

Obama is spending vastly more money as a percentage of GDP than FDR ever did.  All of this spending is doing little to stimulate the economy (and what little it IS doing is both artificial and temporary), and the American people are going to have to pay dearly for all this never-before-seen-in-the-history-of-the-human-race spending very shortly down the road.

Now Mr. Middle Class and even Mr. Minimum Wage is going to have to pay for Obama’s massive government excesses, too.  Or else the whole Ponzi scheme we call our federal government will fall apart.

This hearkens to the words of Michelle Obama:

“Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

I see those words, “Barack Obama will require you to work,” and I see a bunch of communist proletariats in a mandatory labor pool squatting over their forced labor.

I came across an article entitled, “A New Slavery: Forced Labor, the Communist Betrayal of Human Rights.”  Oh oh.  Barack Obama isn’t the first Marxist who ever decided to “require you to work.”

Obama has created such gigantic deficits through his gigantic “government as God” approach that we will have unsustainable trillion dollar deficits through 2020.

Barack Obama will require you to work,” Michelle Obama assured us.  “Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

That means no more boob tube and bon bons for you, Obama voters.  Get off your fat, lazy, worthless asses and work off your Dear Leader’s deficits.

Don’t wait for Obama to start a forced labor camp in your neighborhood.  “Move out of your comfort zones” and start one of your own.  Maybe you cold begin by collecting your family’s feces to produce Toebee (compost) like the other Dear Leader requires his people to do in North Korea.

Rampant Democrat Corruption Extends To Most Powerful Leaders

July 29, 2009

Right now, three of the most powerful Democrats are documented corrupt scumbags.

Charles Rangel, Chairman of the powerful tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee is a tax cheat.  Chris Dodd, the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, took corrupt mortgage loans from a corrupt mortgage lender at the epicenter of the mortgage meltdown crisis.  Kent Conrad, the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, also took such loans.

These men are incredibly influential in the writing of laws and legislation that will absorb most of the economy under their power.  And they are corrupt.

We were entertained at the beginning of the Obama administration as it became painfully obvious that it was hard to find an honest Democrat who actually paid the taxes that they hypocritically wanted everyone else to pay.  Many fell by the wayside, but “Turbo Tax” Tim Geithner’s personal dishonesty in paying his taxes didn’t stand in the way of his being Obama’s choice to become the Treasury Secretary in charge of enforcing tax laws.

Let’s start with the man who writes your tax laws but doesn’t want to follow his own laws and pay his own taxes: Charles Rangel.

The man has all kinds of issues, such as selfishly and greedily taking rent-controlled property meant for poor people.  It’s hard to say which is worse, but don’t forget to consider what he did in buying pricey beachfront rental property and then refusing to pay taxes on his substantial income:

JULY 27, 2009, 4:28 P.M. ET

Morality and Charlie Rangel’s Taxes
It’s much easier to raise taxes if you don’t pay them.

Ever notice that those who endorse high taxes and those who actually pay them aren’t the same people? Consider the curious case of Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, who is leading the charge for a new 5.4-percentage point income tax surcharge and recently called it “the moral thing to do.” About his own tax liability he seems less, well, fervent.

Exhibit A concerns a rental property Mr. Rangel purchased in 1987 at the Punta Cana Yacht Club in the Dominican Republic. The rental income from that property ought to be substantial since it is a luxury beach-front villa and is more often than not rented out. But when the National Legal and Policy Center looked at Mr. Rangel’s House financial disclosure forms in August, it noted that his reported income looked suspiciously low. In 2004 and 2005, he reported no more than $5,000, and in 2006 and 2007 no income at all from the property.

The Congressman initially denied there was any unreported income. But reporters quickly showed that the villa is among the most desirable at Punta Cana and that it rents for $500 a night in the low season, and as much as $1,100 a night in peak season. Last year it was fully booked between December 15 and April 15.

Mr. Rangel soon admitted having failed to report rental income of $75,000 over the years. First he blamed his wife for the oversight because he said she was supposed to be managing the property. Then he blamed the language barrier. “Every time I thought I was getting somewhere, they’d start speaking Spanish,” Mr. Rangel explained.

Mr. Rangel promised last fall to amend his tax returns, pay what is due and correct the information on his annual financial disclosure form. But the deadline for the 2008 filing was May 15 and as of last week he still had not filed. His press spokesman declined to answer questions about anything related to his ethics problems.

Besides not paying those pesky taxes, Mr. Rangel had other reasons for wanting to hide income. As the tenant of four rent-stabilized apartments in Harlem, the Congressman needed to keep his annual reported income below $175,000, lest he be ineligible as a hardship case for rent control. (He also used one of the apartments as an office in violation of rent-control rules, but that’s another story.)

Mr. Rangel said last fall that “I never had any idea that I got any income’’ from the villa. Try using that one the next time the IRS comes after you. Equally interesting is his claim that he didn’t know that the developer of the Dominican Republic villa had converted his $52,000 mortgage to an interest-free loan in 1990. That would seem to violate House rules on gifts, which say Members may only accept loans on “terms that are generally available to the public.” Try getting an interest-free loan from your banker.

The National Legal and Policy Center also says it has confirmed that Mr. Rangel owned a home in Washington from 1971-2000 and during that time claimed a “homestead” exemption that allowed him to save on his District of Columbia property taxes. However, the homestead exemption only applies to a principal residence, and the Washington home could not have qualified as such since Mr. Rangel’s rent-stabilized apartments in New York have the same requirement.

The House Ethics Committee is investigating Mr. Rangel on no fewer than six separate issues, including his failure to report the no-interest loan on his Punta Cana villa and his use of rent-stabilized apartments. It is also investigating his fund raising for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York. New York labor attorney Theodore Kheel, one of the principal owners of the Punta Cana resort, is an important donor to the Rangel Center.

All of this has previously appeared in print in one place or another, and we salute the reporters who did the leg work. We thought we’d summarize it now for readers who are confronted with the prospect of much higher tax bills, and who might like to know how a leading Democrat defines “moral” behavior when the taxes hit close to his homes.

Charlie Rangel is a man who has been patently dishonest for his entire public life.  Not that it matters to Democrats.  If you’re a Democrat, you can be caught red-handed with $90,000 of FBI bribe money in your freezer like William Jefferson and actually get re-elected the following year.

That leaves Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad (at least, for me today).

AP IMPACT: Dodd, Conrad told deals were sweetened

By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer Larry Margasak, Associated Press Writer – Mon Jul 27, 9:52 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Despite their denials, influential Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad and Chris Dodd were told from the start they were getting VIP mortgage discounts from one of the nation’s largest lenders, the official who handled their loans has told Congress in secret testimony.

Both senators have said that at the time the mortgages were being written they didn’t know they were getting unique deals from Countrywide Financial Corp., the company that went on to lose billions of dollars on home loans to credit-strapped borrowers. Dodd still maintains he got no preferential treatment.

Dodd got two Countrywide mortgages in 2003, refinancing his home in Connecticut and another residence in Washington. Conrad’s two Countrywide mortgages in 2004 were for a beach house in Delaware and an eight-unit apartment building in Bismarck in his home state of North Dakota.

Robert Feinberg, who worked in Countrywide’s VIP section, told congressional investigators last month that the two senators were made aware that “who you know is basically how you’re coming in here.”

“You don’t say ‘no’ to the VIP,” Feinberg told Republican investigators for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, according to a transcript obtained by The Associated Press.

The next day, Feinberg testified before the Senate Ethics Committee, an indication the panel is actively investigating two of the chamber’s more powerful members:

Dodd heads the Banking Committee and is a major player in two big areas: solving the housing foreclosure and financial crises and putting together an overhaul of the U.S. health care system. A five-term senator, he is in a tough fight for re-election in 2010, partly because of the controversy over his mortgages.

Conrad chairs the Budget Committee. He, too, shares an important role in the health care debate, as well as on legislation to curb global warming.

Both senators were VIP borrowers in the program known as “friends of Angelo.” Angelo Mozilo was chief executive of Countrywide, which played a big part in the foreclosure crisis triggered by defaults on subprime loans. The Calabasas, Calif.-based company was bought last July by Bank of America Corp. for about $2.5 billion.

Mozilo has been charged with civil fraud and illegal insider trading by the Securities and Exchange Commission. He denies any wrongdoing.

Asked by a House Oversight investigator if Conrad, the North Dakota senator, “was aware that he was getting preferential treatment?” Feinberg answered: “Yes, he was aware.”

Referring to Dodd, the investigator asked:

“And do you know if during the course of your communications” with the senator or his wife “that you ever had an opportunity to share with them if they were getting special VIP treatment?”

“Yes, yes,” Feinberg replied. […]

Countrywide VIPs, Feinberg told the committees, received discounts on rates, fees and points. Dodd received a break when Countrywide counted both his Connecticut and Washington homes as primary owner-occupied residences — a fiction, according to Feinberg. Conrad received a type of commercial loan that he was told Countrywide didn’t offer.

“The simple fact that Angelo Mozilo and other high-ranking executives at Countrywide were personally making sure Mr. Feinberg handled their loans right, is proof in itself that the senators knew they were getting sweetheart deals,” said Feinberg’s principal attorney, Anthony Salerno.

Two internal Countrywide documents in Dodd’s case and one in Conrad’s appear to contradict their statements about what they knew about their VIP loans.

At his Feb. 2 news conference, Dodd said he knew he was in a VIP program but insisted he was told by Countrywide, “It was nothing more than enhanced customer service … being able to get a person on the phone instead of an automated operator.”

He insisted he didn’t receive special treatment. However, the assertion was at odds with two Countrywide documents entitled “Loan Policy Analysis” that Dodd allowed reporters to review the same day.

The documents had separate columns: one showing points “actl chrgd” Dodd — zero; and a second column showing “policy” was to charge .250 points on one loan and .375 points on the other. Another heading on the documents said “reasons for override.” A notation under that heading identified a Countrywide section that approved the policy change for Dodd.

Mortgage points, sometimes called loan origination fees, are upfront fees based on a percentage of the loan. Each point is equal to 1 percent of the loan. The higher the points the lower the interest rate.

Dodd said he obtained the Countrywide documents in 2008, to learn details of his mortgages.

In Conrad’s case, an e-mail from Feinberg to Mozilo indicates Feinberg informed Conrad that Countrywide had a residential loan limit of a four-unit building. Conrad sought to finance an eight-unit apartment building in Bismarck that he had bought from his brothers.

“I did advise him I would check with you first since our maximum is 4 units,” Feinberg said in an April 23, 2004, internal e-mail to Mozilo.

Mozilo responded the same day that Feinberg should speak to another Countrywide executive and “see if he can make an exception due to the fact that the borrower is a senator.”

Feinberg said in his deposition with House Oversight investigators last month that exceptions for the type of loan Conrad received were not allowed for borrowers outside the VIP system.

“If there was a regular customer calling, and of course you say, ‘No, we’re a residential lender. We cannot provide you with that service,'” Feinberg said.

Feinberg also told House investigators that Countrywide counted both of Dodd’s homes as primary residences.

“He was allowed to do both of those as owner-occupied, which is not allowed. You can only have one owner-occupied property. You can’t live in two properties at the same time,” he said.

Normally, Feinberg said, a second home could require more equity and could have a higher mortgage rate.

Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the senior Republican on the House Oversight Committee, had his investigators question Feinberg as part of a broader investigation into Countrywide’s VIP program.

Other names that have surfaced as “friends” of Mozilo include James Johnson, a former head of Fannie Mae who later stepped down as an adviser to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, and Franklin Raines, who also headed Fannie Mae. Still other “friends” included retired athletes, a judge, a congressional aide and a newspaper executive.

Conrad initially said in June 2008, “If they did me a favor, they did it without my knowledge and without my requesting it.”

The next day, Conrad changed course after reviewing documents showing he got special treatment, and said he was donating $10,500 to charity and refinancing the loan on the apartment building with another lender. He also said then it appeared Countrywide had waived 1 point at closing on the beach house.

Gaddie said Feinberg has previously made statements to the news media that Countrywide waived 1 point without the senator’s knowledge.

Feinberg testified that VIPs usually were not told exactly how many points were being waived, but it was made clear to them that they were getting discounts.

And, of course, Barack Obama has his own sweetheart mortgage deal with his own scumbag, Tony Rezko.  Not to mention all kinds of other skeletons in his “Chicago Way” closet that were never investigated by a clearly biased press.  A lot of the most obvious corruption occurs through his wife Michelle Obama, who kept getting paid more and more on hospital boards as Obama advanced politically.  On hospitals that did some really nasty things, such as patient dumping which she might have participated in.

Democrats cry day after day that what the world needs is more government.

But consider something: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

No entity wields more absolute power, or is more corrupt, than government.

Democrats tell us every day that they are out to save us from evil big businesses.  But there is no one to save us from Democrats, or the intrusive giant octopus federal government behemoth they are seeking to create and empower to rule over virtually every aspect of our lives.

Obama’s Vicious ‘Elder Abuse’ Political Attack Against IG Gerald Walpin

June 18, 2009

Last year Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which was designed to strengthen protections for IGs, who have the responsibility of investigating allegations of waste, fraud and abuse within federal agencies, against interference by political appointees or the White House.  Two things the act provided was 1) that Congress be given 30 days notice before any firing; and 2) that specific cause for firing be given.

Barack Obama co-sponsored that act.  But now that he’s president, he apparently thinks himself to be above such petty limits, given his reaction to an Inspector General whose investigation just concluded that one of Obama’s personal friends had abused nearly $900,000 in government funds.

According to Washington Examiner journalist Byron York, “Walpin was told that he had one hour to either resign or be fired.  Senate sources say Walpin asked why he was being fired and, according to one source, “The answer that was given was that it’s just time to move on.  The president would like to have someone else in that position.”  Walpin declined to resign.”  The White House tried to muscled Walpin out of his job, and only began to follow the law after Walpin refused and public pressure was placed on them.

Sen. Chuck Grassley sent a letter to the White House:

“I was troubled to learn that [last Wednesday] night your staff reportedly issued an ultimatum to the AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin that he had one hour to resign or be terminated,” Grassley wrote.  “As you know, Inspectors General were created by Congress as a means to combat waste, fraud, and abuse and to be independent watchdogs ensuring that federal agencies were held accountable for their actions.  Inspectors General were designed to have a dual role reporting to both the President and Congress so that they would be free from undue political pressure.  This independence is the hallmark of all Inspectors General and is essential so they may operate independently, without political pressure or interference from agencies attempting to keep their failings from public scrutiny.”

The Democratic Senator who actually authored the law that mandates that the president give Congress 30 days’ notice before dismissing an Inspector General, along with an explanation of cause, Senator Claire McCaskill, said as of June 16:

The White House has failed to follow the proper procedure in notifying Congress as to the removal of the Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service.  The legislation which was passed last year requires that the president give a reason for the removal. ‘Loss of confidence’ is not a sufficient reason.  I’m hopeful the White House will provide a more substantive rationale, in writing, as quickly as possible.”

When Gerald Walpin was told about the “loss of confidence” explanation, he said, “That’s a conclusion, not a cause.”

And that’s when the White House issued a different reason for removing Inspector General Walpin.  White House special counsel Norman Eisen on June 15 said:

Mr. Walpin was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions, and exhibited other behavior that led the board to question his capacity to serve.”

Which is essentially an argument that Gerald Walpin is too senile to do his job.  The Washington Times points out that this answer as to cause by the White House “treads on exceedingly shaky ground that raises the specter of improper age discrimination.”

Glenn Beck, during the course of his TV program on June 17, pretty much proves that it is nothing SHORT of a vicious personal attack as well as “improper age discrimination.”

Beck: You had this meeting [the meeting in which Walpin was called ‘confused’ and ‘disoriented’] in May.  And then they asked you to give a 20 minute speech, where you got more time than the head of the corporation, right?

Walpin: That is correct.  That’s what I was told.

Beck: So why would they do that if you were confused?

Walpin: It’s idiotic.

Beck: They’re trying to besmirch this man.  So what I’m going to do is I’m going to give you the test.  This is the state examination.  If Grandpa comes in and he’s like, “Ooh, I’m drooling and I’m – peanuts? Where did I lost my shoes?” That’s when you go to the hospital and they give Grandpa this test.  Let’s do it.  I’m going to do it exactly the way they do it in the hospital.

Beck proceeded to give Walpin the assessment test live on the air.  And Gerald Walpin demonstrated rather conclusively that he was neither ‘confused’ nor ‘disoriented.’

Personally, I think the American people should use the same line of reasoning, citing Obama’s mention of having visited all 57 states as proof that he is too confused and disoriented to do HIS job.

The Washington Times has an article entitled, “IG Witness Blows Up White House Excuse” that reveals the shocking pattern of transparent deceit used to try to destroy a good and honest man.

HotAir offers the following concise account as to what happened prior to Gerald Walpin being dismissed for being older than retarded:

Let’s unwind the timeline a bit to test this new allegation.  Walpin pressed hard to prosecute Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson for defrauding the government over more than $400,000 in community service grants.  Johnson, an Obama supporter, got a deal from the White House that allowed him to manage federal funds again and avoid paying back at least half of the grant money he used illegally.  The White House cut Walpin out of those negotiations, and Walpin went to Congress about it.

At that point, the White House called Walpin and told him he had an hour to resign or be fired.  Now, if the White House thought that Walpin was somehow incapacitated or disoriented, why bother to make that call at all?  In fact, wouldn’t an employer with an ounce of empathy send the employee to a physician for diagnosis first?  Even without the empathy, the proper course would have been to address the issue with Congress first instead of making an intimidation attempt to someone the White House now paints as all but senile.

This is nothing more than a bare-knuckled smear job, a despicable attempt to use allegations of mental illness to discredit someone who ran afoul of Barack Obama for taking the independence of his job seriously.  That may play in Chicago, and it used to play in Moscow, but it shouldn’t play in Washington DC and America.

Michelle Malkin further unloads on Obama:

Far from being “confused” and “disoriented,” Walpin is clear as day. Anyone who actually reads through his audits and investigative reports knows that. You can, should, and must read Walpin’s reports both on CUNY funding abuse and on the Johnson scandal here.

I also continue to hammer at the Michelle Obama angle. Her vested interest in propping up the government-subsidized volunteer industry stretches back to her days leading the Chicago non-profit Public Allies (scroll down to the end of my column for what the AmeriCorps’ inspector general found while investigating money troubles at Mrs. O’s old friends at Public Allies). And we can’t forget her days working to promote national service — and to set up cozy public chat forums with her husband and Weather Underground Bill Ayers — while at the University of Chicago.

Last week, I said this reeked of the Clintons’ Travelgate. It’s much, much worse.

That’s right.  The “Michelle Obama” angle.  A video that everyone should have watched BEFORE the election (along with a serious consideration of her views and attitudes) comes into play.

Surprise, surprise: the Chicago political power couple know how to play Chicago politics!

Do you remember how Democrats came unglued when George Bush fired seven US Attorneys who served at his pleasure?  In spite of the fact that Bill Clinton had previously fired every single one of NINETY-THREE US Attorneys and replaced them?  The Democrats charged that he singled the seven attorneys may have been singled out.

This is a clear case of singling out and punishing one man who initiated an investigation that DOCUMENTED that Obama friend Kevin Johnson abused $850,000 in AmeriCorps grant money.

This is the height of the politics of personal destruction.  Every American should be outraged; but in particular, every older American should be out in the streets for such a vicious personal attack on a VERY alert and intelligent older man.  If you’re an older worker, and you don’t want some young punk doing to you what Obama is doing to Walpin, you should be flooding the White House with angry phone calls.

This isn’t Bush’s firing of seven US attorneys; this is Nixon’s Midnight Massacre.

If Obama Wins, Should Republicans Hope Democrats Win HUGE?

November 2, 2008

The polls are all over the place in the Presidential race.  I’ve had Democrats pointing to polls that have Obama up by as much as 14 points.  This morning I assumed I must have slept through Wednesday, because the crowd at ABC’s “This Week” were all talking about the election as though McCain had lost in a Iandslide.  Questions were phrased in terms of, “Is there anything that McCain could have done?”  “What did McCain do wrong that cost him this election?”  Personally, I still believe that McCain will eek out a victory, as voters who have no real inclination to support McCain will realize that they have very good reason to reject Obama.  I just can’t imagine that the country would decide to make the most inexperienced, most liberal, and most radical candidate in U.S. history our next President given our fragile state.

But I’ve got to face reality.  Maybe all those talking heads on “This Week” are right.  I frankly don’t know which polls are “most accurate” (if any), or who will surge or who will fade (although it seems to me – given their Iraq positions – that it be only fitting that McCain “surge” and Obama’s “victory” turn into a “cut and run” on him).  But regardless of what I hope will happen, or even what I think will happen, there’s always what might happen: Obama is clearly favored to win this election, and Democrats are clearly favored to win massive control of the House and the Senate under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

The question is, if Obama does win, what should Republicans hope for about the Congressional elections?  What should we hope for during the course of the next two years?  During an Obama Presidency?  Should we want Republicans to do well enough to filibuster?  Or should we want to see Democrats do so well they destroy the country and destroy their own political futures in the process?  Should Republicans hope the economy recovers and hums along under Democratic leadership, or should we literally hope the economy tanks under the Democrats’ control?

You’ve got plenty of your ordinary, traditional conservatives out there.  They want what’s best for the country because they’ve always put country over party.  They want to see the economy pick up, they want to see the United States maintain and even expand its power and influence.  They want to see the country continue to remain great, because that’s what they’ve always wanted.

It’s what I always wanted.  At least up to now.  I was so proud to enlist in the United States Army with Ronald Reagan as my Commander-in-Chief.  I was proud to wear two Armed Forces Expeditionary Medals and the Combat Infantryman Badge on my chest.  And I continued to remain proud of my country after I left the Army.  During the Clinton years, I told more than a few bitter Republicans, “Whether you voted for him or not, he’s STILL your President!”  I didn’t vote for President Clinton, and was disappointed by his victory; but I was an American, and he was my President because my country voted for him.  I prayed for his wisdom and leadership.  Too bad so many Democrats never brought any similar bipartisanship with them.  They worked to undermine President Bush in every way they could.

But something happened to me.  Maybe I began to stop being proud of my country when Michelle Obama finally STARTED being proud of hers.  Maybe it was when I discovered that Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual adviser for 23 years years said, “No, no, no!  Not God bless America.  God damn America!”  He called America “the US of KKK A.”  And Democrats didn’t care about this outrage.  Maybe it was when I found out that Barack Obama had partnered with a man who had bombed the Pentagon, the Capital, and New York Police headquarters, who said on 9/11/2001 that he not only didn’t regret setting bombs, he felt he didn’t bomb enough.  Finding out that Obama’s rat bastard pal dedicated a book to Robert Kennedy murderer Sirhan Sirhan sure didn’t help.  I suppose that I feel that if a man like this could actually be elected President of the United States, that there must be something profoundly wrong with the country and with the people who live in it.

I just cannot bring myself to support God Damn America.  Or even wish it well.  We have become so amoral that we easily support the death-by-mutilation of 50,000,000 babies.  In fact, we have become so immoral that we are prepared to make a man who voted to let babies who have been born alive be killed.  I find myself hoping that the economy goes down the tubes under the Democrats’ control, because that appears to be the only way that people will support traditional values or the party that seeks to uphold them.

If Barack Obama is elected President, I will quote the man he called his pastor and spiritual mentor for 23 years: GOD DAMN AMERICA!  THE U.S. OF KKK A!!!  And I will say my prayers accordingly: where I used to say, God, please don’t give us the judgment we deserve, I will say, “Lord, we voted for God damn America; go ahead and give it to us!”

I finally understand all the Democrats’ who expressed such vitriolic hatred of George Bush and the America that voted for him.  I love the America that the founding fathers envisioned; these Democrats repudiate that historic vision for America – and with their messiah – view our Constitution as having had an “enormous blind spot” which “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country.”  They think the Constitution and the country were deeply flawed; I think the flaw has always laid with the people who kept corrupting our system of government by imposing their will in place of our Constitution because they thought they knew better.

I loved the America of which Kennedy said, “Ask… what you can do for your country”; Today’s Democrats say, “Ask what your country can do for you.”  Or, to put it in Obama-Wright terms, Democrats hated the God bless America that we once were; I hate the God damn America that they promise to usher in.

I wonder how many conservatives will criticize me for my new feelings about Obama’s “new America.”  One thing is for certain: No one who votes for Barack Obama can criticize me; you can’t vote for ‘God damn America’ and then criticize me for saying the same thing.  I’ll bring up the last guy you Democrats nominated, and how John Kerry accused his fellow servicemen as a bunch of genocidal war criminalsbefore taking it back – and how he threw away his medals.  I won’t throw away my medals; they remind me of a country I loved, and was once so proud to serve and even shed my blood to defend.  I’ll bring up how Democrat after Democrat after Democrat justified the Iraq War until they cynically and cravenly repudiated that support for sheer political expedience.  Even though nearly 60% of Democratic Senators had voted for that war.  Even though the measure passed by wider margins in both branches of Congress than the 1991 war resolution.  I’ll bring up Rep. Jack Murtha, who accused innocent Marines of murderous war crimes before he accused his own Pennsylvanian voters of being racists.   I’ll bring up Sen. Dick Durbin, who compared U.S. servicemen to Nazis.  I’ll bring up Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who was so quick to proclaim defeat for American soldiers while they were fighting on the battlefield.  I’ll bring up Democratic Whip James Clyburn, who said that success in Iraq “would be a real big problem for us, no question about that.”  I’ll bring up every single sermon that Barack Obama’s pastor for 23 years preached, right down to the last hateful word.  Right down to calling the United States “the US of KKK A.”  Hell, I could start bombing buildings like Barack Obama’s terrorist pal William Ayers and Democrats couldn’t accuse me of squat without being even bigger even hypocrites than they already are.

But I do wonder how conservatives – whose opinions I actually DO give a rip about – feel about my anger and bitterness over the prospect that half the country (or more, or less, as we’ll find out November 4) would elect such an un-American – or at least such a ‘God Damn America’ American – for President.  I feel like Dietrich Bonhoeffer must have felt as he watched his beloved Germany fervently embracing Nazism.  The German people in the 1920s wanted “change”, too: and Adolf Hitler gave them change in spades.

Right or wrong, this is how I feel: I actually hope that if Obama wins, Republicans lose HUGE.  You know how, when you realize that your professional sports team won’t make it to the playoffs, you come to start hoping they lose so many games that they’ll receive a high draft pick?  I’m kind of there in my politics, given an Obama win.  The fewer Republicans there are to blame for the disaster that is going to overtake this country, the better.  The whole charade that has led to such anti-Republicanism has been due to the demonization by Democrats and by the overwhelmingly biased liberal media.  Let Republicans be so utterly rejected that liberals have no one – and I mean absolutely no one – to blame but themselves so that their ideas and their candidates can be vilified for the next fifty years or so.

The media has been so blatantly biased that we are now in a propaganda state.  There is no possible way that Republicans can win in this media climate: whether you look at the Media Research Center, or at the Project for Excellence in Journalism (or again at their brand new study), or at the University of Wisconsin’s Wisconsin Advertising Project, there is widespread agreement with one longtime ABC journalist that the media is dangerously biased.  Pew Research discovered that Americans believe by a 70% to 9% margin that the media is biased in favor of Obama and against McCain.  The media now represents a fifth column of government – a propaganda wing – that attacks conservatives and celebrates and defends Democrats.  Democracy is going extinct in the country that founded it, because no free society can survive a climate of propaganda.

The only way that America can turn around given the propaganda-dominated culture is if the media is utterly discredited, and Democrats lead the nation into calamity and despair.  It can happen in two ways:

The US economy – and in fact the world economy – are facing a crisis.  And while leftist media propaganda may be assuring you that Obama will be better for the economy, our investors and our business leaders most assuredly do not agree at all.  “Over 70% of CEOs fear an Obama presidency will be a disaster.”  And the financial market – which is already selling off in expectation of an Obama win – would face a “dramatic sell-off on Wall Street” if Democrats make the huge gains they are anticipated to win.  Wall Street is terrified of an Obama presidency.  Obama’s radicalism and socialistic redistribution policies, his doomed-to-fail massive health care plan, his steadfast refusal to exploit our domestic oil resources in favor of “alternative energy” sources that can’t possibly meet our energy needs, and the fact that his every move will be backed by tax-and-spend liberals hungry for power and a propagandist media – serving as apologists – will all come together to doom our economy.

Obama has promised $4.3 TRILLION in new spending, even as his tax redistribution plan is guaranteed to shrink the tax base as the wealthy shelter their assets.  Where are we going to get all that money?  Democrats believe their messiah can turn water into money.  But the people will ultimately come to see that they are wrong.  And no amount of media propaganda will ultimately be able to hide that reality.

I wonder what will happen when Americans discover that Democrats want to socialize their 401Ks?

The second way that America will recognize that they’ve been lied to by both Democrats and their media propaganda is if we are attacked again.

Personally, if Obama is elected to the White House, I would like to see conservatives leaving military service the way rats might leave a sinking ship.  Let them determine that they will not fight for God Damn America and leave the military in droves.  Let Democrats do all the fighting and suffering sacrificing and dying (or at least all the cutting and running that they prefer to fighting) for the next few years.  When 70% of the military is composed of McCain-supporting conservatives, something needs to change under a Commander-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama.  Joe Biden – the foreign policy “expert” on the ticket – flat-out guaranteed that Obama would be tested with an international crisis in the first six months of his Presidency.  Let the people who voted for him do all the dying for him, too.  That only seems fair.  I earlier suggested that we have a “Gay All The Way!” military.

The country that so totally rejects conservatives certainly doesn’t need their help.  At this point – with the voters demanding complete Democratic domination – building up country amounts to tearing down the conservative vision for the country.

We have totally turned Iraq around in the last couple years, but that is only because President Bush and his commanders in the filed refused to listen while the Democratic Senate Majority Leader proclaimed defeat, while Barack Obama vigorously opposed the surge that allowed us to finally gain the upper hand in the first place, with Democrats claiming that President Bush lied about Iraq from the outset, and with too many Democrats loudly and publicly calling our soldiers war criminals and Nazis.  Let’s see how President Obama fares against Iran.  Let’s see what happens when – as I believe – Israel attacks Iran to try to destroy its nuclear program because they don’t believe that the United States under President Obama will do anything.

When a weak, passive, appeasing Barack Obama allows Iran to develop nuclear weapons (because only the assurance of a massive attack will stop them at this point), they will be coming after the Great Satan both directly and indirectly through terrorist proxies – and be able to threaten a few mushroom clouds should the Great Satan directly threaten them in return.  That won’t look so good to the electorate, who will suddenly fondly remember that the Bush Presidency had actually managed to protect them from terrorist attacks.  But I will be loudly quoting Jeremiah Wright and how “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

We are one major terrorist attack – just ONE – away from an America that overwhelmingly realizes that Barack Hissein Obama is UNFIT to lead this country.  Don’t think for one nanosecond that the same fickle electorate that rejected Bush won’t reject Obama.  One attack, and they will remember all the many ways that Democrats left this country vulnerable to terrorism.

I believe that if the country wants to hop aboard a freight train that’s going to steam full speed off a cliff, then Republicans – if they’re smart – ought to get as much out of the way as they possibly can and be ready to pick up the pieces after the dust settles.  Vote against everything so its on the official record, but let the Democrats hang themselves.  If Republicans finally decide to be as cynical as Democrats have been for  years, they might even consider doing everything possible behind the scenes to sow havoc and discord both in domestic and international policy, so they can then turn around and blame the Democrats’ “failed policies” just like the Democrats did to them.  You can hardly blame them, once you get past that whole “But that would be un-American!” thing.  After all, that hardly stopped Democrats, and they’ve benefited mightily from doing it.  I mean, you’ve got Democrats agreeing with Republicans on the need to remove Saddam Hussein, only to despicably turn on them the moment it was to their advantage to do so.  You’ve got Charles Rangel comparing the US action in Iraq to the Holocaust; you’ve got Dick Durbin comparing American troops to Nazis;  you’ve got Barack Obama suggesting that our troops have to do more than just air raiding villages and killing civilivans.  You’ve got Democrats accusing innocent Marines of being murdering war criminals; you’ve got Democrats declaring defeat in Iraq while our troops were fighting in the field; you’ve got Democrats acknowledging that good news in Iraq was bad news for Democrats; you’ve got Democrats opposing the surge strategy that brought us to victory; you’ve got Democrats falling all over themselves to support the reasons for going to war against Iraq before they fell all over themselves to attack Republicans for going to war against Iraq.  If the American people approve of and vote for that kind of conduct, why shouldn’t Republicans look at the polls and follow suit?

Yes, in the short run, the Democrats would pass the fascist “Fairness Doctrine” to muzzle all opposition speech and run so completely wild on social godlessness that they will make decent peoples’ skin crawl.  But when they poison the nation against themselves do to their own rabid excesses – or if there is another major terrorist attack given the likely Democrat’s repeal of the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance of terrorists, the abandonment of Gitmo and its detention of our terrorist enemies, and their overall perception by terrorists as weakling cowardly retreating appeasers ripe for attack – there will be a conservative victory in two years that will be like nothing ever seen.  The only way Democrats can be seen as the incompetent fools they truly are is if they are actually allowed to run everything and they have no one to blame for the disaster but themselves.

Until then, I’m just going to spend the next four years reciting Democratic talking points: our country is evil; our President is evil; our soldiers are evil.  God damn America, also known as the U.S. of KKK A.  We’re immoral for doing every damn thing we do; Obama lied, people died.  That sort of thing.

New York Times, Biased Slime Machine, Pumps Crap On Cindy McCain

October 18, 2008

Yesterday I wrote an article describing the revelation that a reporter had made up a hateful statement (“kill him!”) to falsely characterize John McCain, Cindy Palin, and the people who are flocking out to support them, as intolerant hate peddlers.  Because the allegation amounted to a direct threat against a presidential candidate, the Secret Service looked into the journalists’ story – only to find it completely false.  But that didn’t stop every mainstream media outlet from presenting it as a documented fact in their anti-McCain-Palin polemics for a couple days.

That was yesterday.  Today, the New York Times unleashed a slime arsenal against Cindy McCain.  The McCain campaign is livid at this attack on the candidate’s family.  It’s not just the fixation on every negative detail of Cindy’s life that makes the story so blatantly unfair; it is the deliberate omission of any positive aspect, such as her humanitarian work, her generosity, or the many other wonderful things she has done.

New York Times writer Jodi Kantor has written six puff pieces on Michelle and Barack Obama, three attack pieces against Sarah Palin, and is now turning her vulture-like attention on Cindy McCain.  If you think that is balanced journalism, call the New York Times; they might well be looking for a demagoguing propagandist ideologue like you.

If it wasn’t for the fact that the media – in a complete rejection of its constitutional role as honest investigators informing the people of the truth in order to serve as an obstacle against government corruption – has become completely biased, liberalism would have been round-filed in this country years ago.  As it is, we have a media that routinely attacks and lies about one side while praising and ignoring negative stories on the other side.  They are rightly being called “the journalistic industrial complex” – and they very much have their own agenda.

The New York Times wants to find Cindy McCain’s drug dealer (at one time she became addicted to prescription pain killers); the McCain lawyer asks why the paper never bothered to try to locate Barack Obama’s drug dealers (he has admitted to using illegal drugs).  They won’t, because they are biased propagandists out to hurt Republicans and win the election for the Democrat Party machine under the facade of “journalism.”

I would suggest, rather than writing puff piece after puff piece about Michelle Obama, the New York Times could look at something like this:

Jill Greenberg: Liberal Photographer Makes Democrats Look Vile

September 15, 2008

Jill Greenberg was hired by the Atlantic to do a photo shoot of John McCain to accompany an article for the liberal journal The Atlantic.  What she did is very revealing of the vile toxicity of liberalism today.

The John McCain and a few of his staff probably came to this shoot with their antennae up.  After all, they knew the philosophical perspective of The Atlantic.  But professional photographer Jill Greenberg still managed to deceive them.  She created outtakes which cast the horror movie shadows across John McCain’s face in order to attack him in the most malicious way she could.

And she was willing to misrepresent, deceive, and betray in order to do it.

She said, Some of my artwork has been pretty anti-Bush, so maybe it was somewhat irresponsible for them [The Atlantic] to hire me.”  You’re damn right, it was irresponsible.  The Atlantic deservedly bears the blame for this incredible act of betrayal and blatant bias.

Here is just one of the images that this photographer, representing The Atlantic, posted of John McCain:

I view this the way I would view a hateful group of vicious bullies ridiculing a victim by beating him up, putting mocking attire on him, and then laughing over how they dehumanized him.  The only one who is revealed as inhuman is the one who did the mocking.

Greenberg said:

“He had no idea he was being lit from below,” Greenberg says. And his handlers didn’t seem to notice it either. “I guess they’re not very sophisticated,” she adds.

That’s right, Jill.  Abuse your position for the malicious purpose to attack a person, and then gleefully blame it on your victim.

It isn’t John McCain who is revealed as the demon here; it is Jill Greenberg, and it is The Atlantic, for hiring her and allowing to do engage in this treacherous and hateful act, who are demonic.

The American Digest had this to say:

So what we see here is a candidate for President showing up at a photo-session for a cover shot for a magazine he knows is not going to give him an Obama-pass, but still making time for it. Waiting for him is the contracted representative of that magazine, Jill Greenberg, who has literally set a trap for him and then lures him into it. She mocks the McCain staff for not being “very sophisticated” about lighting when, in truth, the lighting used for a professional photo session is very complicated. There are umbrella lights, fill spots, and a raft of others being used at any given time.

I imagine that Ms. Greenberg was in full charm mode with Senator McCain at the same time she was executing her little partisan plot. Indeed, I am certain she was nothing other than sweetness and light to him. What she was doing was quite another thing, a vile thing. Simply put, it was betrayal for a cheap political frisson for her.

Then Greenberg extended the betrayal to her Client, The Atlantic. She either did not deliver all the images of the shoot to the client or she began to manipulate them for her own uses as seen above. In this digital age, she probably ftp’d the images to The Atlantic, kept the originals on her own system, and then made the cheap and disgusting photoshops seen above.

I’m not sure how the art director of The Atlantic, Jason Treat, feels about this, even though I have written him requesting a reply. Still, during the years that I hired and worked with illustrative photographers, product photographers, news photographers, and fashion photographers in London and New York City, my art directors and myself always got all the film to review. Depending on the contract, the film would or would not go back to the photographer. When digital came it, it was always understood that the out-takes or images we commissioned and paid for would be kept confidential by the photographer — as specified in the rights agreement. At the very least, we would have exclusive use of them for a considerable period of time.

One thing I do know is that if I, or any other editor or art director, ever caught a photographer using images held back for secondary profit outside of the contract, or using images in a way that would undercut our publication, we would pull that photographer’s card out of the assignment rolodex. Not only that we would make it out business to tell other editors and art directors at other publications that such a photographer was never to be trusted again.

Ms. Greenberg may well have her opinions and is welcome to them. But to use the offices, reputation, and money of The Atlantic Monthly to fool and ridicule a United States Senator and candidate for President goes well beyond unprofessional conduct and into the area of fraud.

This joins The Daily Kos’ vicious and hateful attack against Sarah Palin as representative episodes of the loathsomeness and vileness of the liberal left.  Democrats charge Republicans as being hateful on a daily basis, but no conservative photographer working for a conservative publication ever did anything like this to Barack Obama, just as no conservative ever attacked Michelle Obama as a bad mother just because she worked.  And they certainly didn’t demonize the Obama family in any way.

That’s what the left does; not the right.

Barack Obama is out claiming:

“They will spend any amount of money and use any tactic out there in order to avoid talking about how we’re going to move America forward to the future.”

But he’s the one raising record money, and it’s his side that is engaging in the most vicious and loathsome personal attacks in history.

Peggy Noonan recently argued that liberals in the media and Democratic officials who painted Sarah Palin as a being bad mother and religious weirdo undermine themselves.

Ms Noonan wrote: “The snobbery of it, the meanness of it, reminded the entire country, for the first time in a decade, what it is they don’t like about the Left.”

A Democratic strategist in the same artcicle said of the Obama campaign:

A Democratic National Committee official told The Sunday Telegraph: “I really find it offensive when Democrats ask the Republicans not to be nasty to us, which is effectively what Obama keeps doing. They know thats how the game is played.”

It is a longstanding tactic of the most loathsome and despotic regimes to engage in one crime against humanity after another all the while pointing fingers of blame at the very nations opposing them for their conduct.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words: what we have is a picture of how utterly vile the left is.  These pictures of John McCain are a snapshot into just how low liberals and their media outlets are willing to go to engage in the very worst kind of politics of personal destruction.

A Few Details That May Not Come Up During Michelle Obama’s DNC Speech

August 25, 2008

I figured that Michelle Obama – in introducing herself to America, might forget a couple of important details. So – gracious, charming, and frankly wonderful fella that I am, I thought I’d help jog her memory.

The best way to get to know Michelle Obama is to watch a video showing what she’s been up to:

Here’s a few remarks from Michelle’s speeches that you may want to know about as you listen to her DNC presentation:

“Sometimes it’s easier to hold onto your own stereotypes and misconceptions. It makes you feel justified in your ignorance. That’s America.” [Youtube].

And:

“Let me tell you something. For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country, because it feels like hope is making a comeback.” [Youtube].

And how could we forget the views she expressed to The New Yorker:

[Michelle] Obama begins with a broad assessment of life in America in 2008, and life is not good: we’re a divided country, we’re a country that is “just downright mean,” we are “guided by fear,” we’re a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents. “We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day,” she said, as heads bobbed in the pews. “Folks are just jammed up, and it’s gotten worse over my lifetime. And, doggone it, I’m young. Forty-four!”

And let us nor forget that Michelle and Barack – like many Americans – found themselves a church that represented their views about life and the world:

The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people,” he said in a 2003 sermon. “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda’s attacks because of its own terrorism.

“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” he told his congregation.

I’m sure many of you mothers can imagine the joy of taking your young kids to hear such sermons. If so, then Michelle will resonate with you.

There’s an amazing treasure trove of good old fashioned American spirituality to draw from in Barack and Michelle’s longtime pastor and spiritual mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

I hope this helped round out the DNC presentation.

I’m sure Michelle will mean to tell us tell us all this stuff about herself, but in all the excitement, she may forget. Don’t worry, Michelle; I’ve got your back!

Obama Caught With Yet ANOTHER Radical Association

August 8, 2008

Obama keeps reaching back to his Chicago political past for his policy advisers, and pulling one despicable, vile, and even evil rabbit after another out of his hat.

The list of Barack Obama’s radical associations is long and it keeps getting longer. Some are now well-known, but many are not.

They need to be.

Oh, we know about Obama’s 23 years at Trinity United Church of Christ. And we know about Jeremiah Wright. These relationships alone were enough to prompt the leftist Rolling Stone Magazine to acknowledge that:

This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from, as much Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr.

And of course, many have heard the name of Father Michael Pfleger and his hateful and race-hating ramblings (what do you call a white man who despises his own race? A liberal).

But many don’t realize that Barack Obama met the radical social activist Father Pfleger while Obama was carrying out his own radical social activism. They don’t realize that Barack Obama’s stint as a “community organizer” was at ACORN, about as radical an organization that one can find in America.

But you haven’t heard quite as much about James Meeks, the third of Obama’s three closest “spiritual advisor’s.” You can hear one of his “sermons” on Youtube.

We certainly could learn more about another of Barack Obama’s friends from Chicago, Penny Pritzker, who heads the Obama campaign’s National Finance Committee. We can look into her own financial background and learn that not only was she the president of Superior Bank – which massively failed; and not only did she literally personally buy her way out of jail by paying a $460 MILLION dollar “fine”; but that she was at the very epicenter of what would become known as “the subprime loan scandal” that would come to eat this nation’s financial system alive.

We could look at former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson, former head of Obama’s vice presidential selection committee until it was discovered that he had benefited from sweetheart loans from subprime king Countrywide.

The name Tony Rezko certainly ought to sound familiar.

The name William Ayers, terrorist bomber, Obama-co-lecturer, fellow board member, neighbor, and friend should certainly come to mind.

We could also look at Barack Obama’s youthful associations and see just how radical and troubling they are:

Barack Obama has been steeped in radical politics since the day he emerged from his atheist secular humanist grad student mother’s womb. The openly communist Frank Marshall Davis was his childhood mentor; Saul Alinsky and Gerald Kellman (it was through Kellman’s Woods Fund that Obama met leftist terrorist William Ayers) dominated his thinking in college. He chose the most radical church in the country; he chose to make Jeremiah Wright his “spiritual mentor”; he chose to immerse himself in hard-core ideological radicalism. Never before has this country considered such a radical leftist for its chief executive.

Barack Obama’s own wife Michelle should have a LOT more explaining to do than her “and for the first time in my adult life I’m proud of my country,” her, “America is a mean place in 2008” comments. If that’s all you know about her “work,” you have no IDEA. The following short video is guaranteed to give you some “Oh, My God!” moments, or I’ll refund your money:

Now we find another Obama association that exposes a whole other ugly can of worms.

Chicago lawyer Mazen Asbahi, who was appointed as the national coordinator for Muslim American affairs by the Obama campaign (if this link fails you will know that the Obama campaign is continuing to scrub its website) less than two weeks ago, stepped down Monday after an Internet newsletter wrote about his brief stint on the fund’s board – which also included a fundamentalist imam – prompting The Wall Street Journal to email inquiries. Asbahi attempted to make his brief time on a board the issue, when the real issues were his relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, and his 8-year long personal relationship with Hamas fundraiser Jamal Said.

Gee, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama. If you really want people to forget that you are the son of a Muslim father who served an incredibly brutal and corrupt Kenyan government; if you want them to forget that you attended a madrassa in Indonesia as a child and even practiced Islam; if you want them to forget that you campaigned in Kenya on behalf of your cousin, Raila Odinga, who relied upon chaos, corruption, and even violence in his campaign; numerous other troubling associations between yourself and radical Muslims; forget those photographs of you waling around in traditional Muslim clothes, well then maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t hang around with Muslim radicals such as Mazen Asbahi and another radical pal of yours, the anti-Semite Rashid Khalidi.

It is frankly impossible for me to understand how Barack Obama managed to win the Democratic nomination. That so many Americans could care less about who their candidate really is – beyond the fact that he is the Democrat in the race – is simply amazing.