Lieberman Blasts Obama Missile Defense Plan
The statement from Joementum:
“This deeply regrettable decision sends the wrong message to Tehran, Moscow, and our European allies at a critical time in our effort to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” Lieberman said. “Moreover, it means that we will have a less capable missile defense system to protect the United States and our European allies against the Iranian threat. The administration must take immediate and tangible action to reassure our allies in Central and Eastern Europe that we are committed to their security and independence.”
Lieberman continued to call upon the Obama Administration to meet conditions that the Senate established in the National Defense Authorization Act to exploring alternatives to the long-planned deployment of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system to Poland and the Czech Republic.
“The Senate has clearly stated that we will only support alternatives to the previous plan that are as capable in defending both the United States and our European allies against long-range threats,” he said. “The administration should explain how it plans to meet those conditions before it takes any further steps.”
In July, the Senate unanimously adopted an amendment introduced by Lieberman and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) that required that the U.S. missile defense system deployed to Europe must be capable of protecting both Europe and the United States.
When he introduced this amendment, Lieberman cited a February 2009 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study titled Options for Deploying Missile Defenses in Europe, which examined the then-planned Ground-based Midcourse Defense system and its alternatives. This study found that the "[Missile Defense Agency's] proposed system would provide redundant defense from a third interceptor site for all of the continental United States. None of the alternatives considered by CBO provide as much additional defense of the United States."
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
communist constitution proposed?
CZAR WARS
Obama's regulatory chief pushes new 'bill of rights'
Cass Sunstein part of effort to change interpretation of Constitution by 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 11, 2009
12:36 am Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Cass Sunstein
NEW YORK – A government that is constitutionally required to offer each citizen a "useful" job in the farms or industries of the nation.
A country whose leadership intercedes to ensure every farmer can sell his product for a good return.
A nation that has the power to act against "unfair competition" and monopolies in business.
This is not a description of Cuba, communist China or the old USSR. It's the vision of the future of the U.S, as mandated by a radical new "bill of rights" drawn up and pushed by President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein. Until now, Sunstein's proposal has received little scrutiny.
(Story continues below)
In 2004, Sunstein penned a book, "The Second Bill of Rights: FDR'S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever," in which he advanced the radical notion that welfare rights, including some controversial inceptions, be granted by the state. His inspiration for a new bill of rights came from President Roosevelt's 1944 proposal of a different, new set of bill of rights.
WND has learned that in April 2005, Sunstein opened up a conference at Yale Law School entitled "The Constitution in 2020," which sought to change the nature and interpretation of the Constitution by that year.
Get Glenn Beck's 'Common Sense' ... The case against an out-of-control government: Inspired by Thomas Paine
Sunstein has been a main participant in the movement, which openly seeks to create a "progressive" consensus as to what the U.S. Constitution should provide for by the year 2020. It also suggests strategy for how liberal lawyers and judges might bring such a constitutional regime into being.
Just before his appearance at the conference, Sunstein wrote a blog entry in which he explained he "will be urging that it is important to resist, on democratic grounds, the idea that the document should be interpreted to reflect the view of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party."
In his book, Sunstein laid out what he wants to become the new bill of rights, which he calls the Second Bill of Rights:
Among his mandates are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
On one page in his book, Sunstein claims he is "not seriously arguing" his bill of rights be "encompassed by anything in the Constitution," but on the next page he states that "if the nation becomes committed to certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution itself."
Later in the book, Sunstein argues that "at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America's constitutive commitments."
Obama's regulatory chief pushes new 'bill of rights'
Cass Sunstein part of effort to change interpretation of Constitution by 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 11, 2009
12:36 am Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Cass Sunstein
NEW YORK – A government that is constitutionally required to offer each citizen a "useful" job in the farms or industries of the nation.
A country whose leadership intercedes to ensure every farmer can sell his product for a good return.
A nation that has the power to act against "unfair competition" and monopolies in business.
This is not a description of Cuba, communist China or the old USSR. It's the vision of the future of the U.S, as mandated by a radical new "bill of rights" drawn up and pushed by President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein. Until now, Sunstein's proposal has received little scrutiny.
(Story continues below)
In 2004, Sunstein penned a book, "The Second Bill of Rights: FDR'S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever," in which he advanced the radical notion that welfare rights, including some controversial inceptions, be granted by the state. His inspiration for a new bill of rights came from President Roosevelt's 1944 proposal of a different, new set of bill of rights.
WND has learned that in April 2005, Sunstein opened up a conference at Yale Law School entitled "The Constitution in 2020," which sought to change the nature and interpretation of the Constitution by that year.
Get Glenn Beck's 'Common Sense' ... The case against an out-of-control government: Inspired by Thomas Paine
Sunstein has been a main participant in the movement, which openly seeks to create a "progressive" consensus as to what the U.S. Constitution should provide for by the year 2020. It also suggests strategy for how liberal lawyers and judges might bring such a constitutional regime into being.
Just before his appearance at the conference, Sunstein wrote a blog entry in which he explained he "will be urging that it is important to resist, on democratic grounds, the idea that the document should be interpreted to reflect the view of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party."
In his book, Sunstein laid out what he wants to become the new bill of rights, which he calls the Second Bill of Rights:
Among his mandates are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
On one page in his book, Sunstein claims he is "not seriously arguing" his bill of rights be "encompassed by anything in the Constitution," but on the next page he states that "if the nation becomes committed to certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution itself."
Later in the book, Sunstein argues that "at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America's constitutive commitments."
Thursday, September 10, 2009
disarming America
Disarming America:
The Obama Administration in the Shadow of 9/11
Dr. Joel Fishman
A well-known modern French historian once stated: "History may be divided into three movements: what moves rapidly, what moves slowly and what appears not to move at all." Events are the building blocks of fast-moving history, but the study of slow-moving history over long spans of time can be remarkably valuable in monitoring the development of institutional attitudes. The 9/11 Commission, which adopted this approach, stated that in "any study of the U.S. government some of the most important characters are institutions." Accordingly, we should carefully consider the impact of President Obama's ideas and attitudes both on individuals and governmental institutions, because over the long-term these factors ultimately shape policy.
A country's view of its place in the world is a matter of major significance, because it is the first premise of its foreign policy. Since Barack Obama has made a point of publicly repudiating the policies of his predecessor, George W. Bush, it is particularly important to understand the new assumptions and ideas behind President Obama's new policies.
How does the Obama administration's view of America's place in the world differ from that of its predecessor? Our answer to this question should not draw too sharp a distinction between domestic and foreign policy, because the two are linked. For example, candidate Obama repeatedly asserted that America's intervention abroad and its foreign aid program had misdirected national resources.
During the election campaign, candidate Obama conveyed several basic messages. The Bush administration had failed miserably both in foreign and domestic policy. It was wrong for America to act as a super-power and it should not have waged an unjust aggressive war in Iraq. According to Obama, it would have been better to deal with America's domestic needs, which include social justice. Although he did not spell it out, his audience clearly understood what he meant. America's leaders, in his view, should give more attention to engaging its adversaries in dialogue and make greater use of persuasion and consensus building.
The defining moment at the start of the twenty-first century was 9/11. The manner in which Bush and Obama view this catastrophe reveals their different perspectives. The Bush administration stated that it was necessary to protect the American homeland from external threats and declared a war against terror. Although the 9/11 Commission Report, published in July 2004, covered the subject at considerable length, the Bush administration formally took notice of the deep hatred which the Islamic world felt for the modern West and for America in particular. In addition to its decision to defend democracy at home, the Bush administration decided that America must defeat terrorism abroad -- sometimes by using preemptive measures-- and bring about a process of transformation in the Arab world. It also resolved to spread democracy where possible. While this policy and its implementation had definite shortcomings, many believed that it effectively contributed to America's security.
While the new administration may have discretely continued some of the policies and practices, which it publicly condemned, President Obama's public repudiation of President Bush's policies became central to his program. The Obama administration, considered the consequences of 9/11 to be a type of inconvenience which did not fit in with its ideology. Thus, it recently declared an end to the war on terror, without any evidence that America's enemies consider this war to be over. To the surprise of many, it also recommended that Americans commemorate the anniversary of 9\11 with acts of community work, which is a form of penitence. The view of the new administration is that the current commemorations represent an asset for the Republicans and therefore must be changed.
The basis for the response of the Bush administration to the challenge of Islamic terror is the strong belief that America is an exceptional country, the product of a successful experiment dating back to the eighteenth century, and that America enjoys God's grace. Furthermore, American exceptionalism means that America has a special mission in the world -- to lead and spread democracy. While this ideal may be imperfectly attained, it is valid just the same. Similarly, according to the vision of American exceptionalism, America is a land where hope, opportunity, and justice are accessible to all citizens on an equal basis. John Fonte of the Hudson Institute wrote that Americans "… combined strong religious and patriotic beliefs with dynamic, restless entrepreneurial energy that emphasized equality of individual opportunity and eschewed hierarchical and ascriptive group affiliations." This widely shared outlook has found expression in America's great sense of self -confidence, courage, and, ruthlessness -- when needed.
President Obama's view of America's place in the world represents the antithesis to the American tradition and clearly draws on the teachings of his spiritual guide, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. It denies the ideal of exceptionalism both at home and abroad. Instead, it fosters attitudes of shame, self-hatred, and inaction. Examples of this outlook may be found in a series of groveling apologies accepting guilt for supposed American misdeeds and "crimes." Obama has apologized for: America's responsibility for the current economic crisis, its failure to recognize Europe's leading role in the world, dictating solutions to others (except in the case of Israel), the "legacies of slavery and segregation, past treatment of native Americans," Guantanamo, the mistakes of the CIA, and, indirectly, the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. Such apologies are costly because they place the United States in the same category as real criminal states. It is in the context of this new value system that one must understand the harmful consequences of Attorney General Holder's investigation of CIA interrogation practices. The result of his endeavor will be a demoralization which could undermine the ability of America's defense agencies to protect the lives of its citizens. A gratuitous acceptance of guilt not only destroys self-esteem but also brings about a paralysis of national will.
The next logical question is: what is the real meaning of this misguided assault on national pride? Although one cannot foresee the outcome at this point, it is possible to know where it leads. Over time, the new policy will create the objective conditions of confusion and disorder which will facilitate the seizure of dictatorial power and the opportunity to implement a program of revolutionary change. During the First World War, Lenin explained this in brutal simplicity, "A revolutionary class in a reactionary war cannot but desire the defeat of its government….Revolutionary action in wartime against one's own government undoubtedly and incontrovertibly means not only desiring its defeat, but really facilitating such defeat…." (Defeat of One's Own Government in the Imperialist War, August, 1915, as cited by Stefan T. Possony).
During the late 1950s, the KGB refined and repackaged this approach. Its new division, Section D for "Disinformation and Decomposition," developed the sophisticated, gradual but less obvious tactic of "decomposition," a program for bringing defeat from within. Its goal was "by all conceivable means to undermine the faith of Western peoples in their own institutions and governments." In his study of the radicals of the sixties, The Riotmakers, Eugene Methvin described the propagandist's goal:
To undermine his [the citizen's] faith in the values of his culture and the justice of his society and government, and thus to destroy his allegiance to the established order [italics in original]. In the last analysis, all that holds a government or a society together is the conviction, usually partly subliminal and wholly unspoken, that it is a just order, or at least the best attainable at present, and certainly preferably to anarchy and violent upheaval. The propagandist who undermines this conviction prepares the way for revolutionary change…." (Riotmakers, 243).
It is clear that the Obama administration's statements and policies belong to the category of "decomposition." They are part of a gradual conditioning process whose purpose is to erode Americans' faith in their own government and to curry favor abroad. Despite the occasional exceptions and contradictions, the key to understanding the new administration's intentions may be found in the examination of "slow-moving history' which includes the propagation of negative views of America and its place in the world.
By rejecting the principle of American exceptionalism, the Obama administration has made a radical departure from the past. A fundamental disrespect for historical precedents, tradition, and factual accuracy characterizes Obama's radical political method. The practical problem is that this new policy leaves the country vulnerable to domestic and foreign terror, a danger which remains constant and unabated. Given the facts stated above, one must ask if the Obama administration, for its own reasons, has decided to leave the United States vulnerable to another strategic surprise and possible defeat.
Dr. Joel Fishman is a Fellow of a research center in Jerusalem
The Obama Administration in the Shadow of 9/11
Dr. Joel Fishman
A well-known modern French historian once stated: "History may be divided into three movements: what moves rapidly, what moves slowly and what appears not to move at all." Events are the building blocks of fast-moving history, but the study of slow-moving history over long spans of time can be remarkably valuable in monitoring the development of institutional attitudes. The 9/11 Commission, which adopted this approach, stated that in "any study of the U.S. government some of the most important characters are institutions." Accordingly, we should carefully consider the impact of President Obama's ideas and attitudes both on individuals and governmental institutions, because over the long-term these factors ultimately shape policy.
A country's view of its place in the world is a matter of major significance, because it is the first premise of its foreign policy. Since Barack Obama has made a point of publicly repudiating the policies of his predecessor, George W. Bush, it is particularly important to understand the new assumptions and ideas behind President Obama's new policies.
How does the Obama administration's view of America's place in the world differ from that of its predecessor? Our answer to this question should not draw too sharp a distinction between domestic and foreign policy, because the two are linked. For example, candidate Obama repeatedly asserted that America's intervention abroad and its foreign aid program had misdirected national resources.
During the election campaign, candidate Obama conveyed several basic messages. The Bush administration had failed miserably both in foreign and domestic policy. It was wrong for America to act as a super-power and it should not have waged an unjust aggressive war in Iraq. According to Obama, it would have been better to deal with America's domestic needs, which include social justice. Although he did not spell it out, his audience clearly understood what he meant. America's leaders, in his view, should give more attention to engaging its adversaries in dialogue and make greater use of persuasion and consensus building.
The defining moment at the start of the twenty-first century was 9/11. The manner in which Bush and Obama view this catastrophe reveals their different perspectives. The Bush administration stated that it was necessary to protect the American homeland from external threats and declared a war against terror. Although the 9/11 Commission Report, published in July 2004, covered the subject at considerable length, the Bush administration formally took notice of the deep hatred which the Islamic world felt for the modern West and for America in particular. In addition to its decision to defend democracy at home, the Bush administration decided that America must defeat terrorism abroad -- sometimes by using preemptive measures-- and bring about a process of transformation in the Arab world. It also resolved to spread democracy where possible. While this policy and its implementation had definite shortcomings, many believed that it effectively contributed to America's security.
While the new administration may have discretely continued some of the policies and practices, which it publicly condemned, President Obama's public repudiation of President Bush's policies became central to his program. The Obama administration, considered the consequences of 9/11 to be a type of inconvenience which did not fit in with its ideology. Thus, it recently declared an end to the war on terror, without any evidence that America's enemies consider this war to be over. To the surprise of many, it also recommended that Americans commemorate the anniversary of 9\11 with acts of community work, which is a form of penitence. The view of the new administration is that the current commemorations represent an asset for the Republicans and therefore must be changed.
The basis for the response of the Bush administration to the challenge of Islamic terror is the strong belief that America is an exceptional country, the product of a successful experiment dating back to the eighteenth century, and that America enjoys God's grace. Furthermore, American exceptionalism means that America has a special mission in the world -- to lead and spread democracy. While this ideal may be imperfectly attained, it is valid just the same. Similarly, according to the vision of American exceptionalism, America is a land where hope, opportunity, and justice are accessible to all citizens on an equal basis. John Fonte of the Hudson Institute wrote that Americans "… combined strong religious and patriotic beliefs with dynamic, restless entrepreneurial energy that emphasized equality of individual opportunity and eschewed hierarchical and ascriptive group affiliations." This widely shared outlook has found expression in America's great sense of self -confidence, courage, and, ruthlessness -- when needed.
President Obama's view of America's place in the world represents the antithesis to the American tradition and clearly draws on the teachings of his spiritual guide, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. It denies the ideal of exceptionalism both at home and abroad. Instead, it fosters attitudes of shame, self-hatred, and inaction. Examples of this outlook may be found in a series of groveling apologies accepting guilt for supposed American misdeeds and "crimes." Obama has apologized for: America's responsibility for the current economic crisis, its failure to recognize Europe's leading role in the world, dictating solutions to others (except in the case of Israel), the "legacies of slavery and segregation, past treatment of native Americans," Guantanamo, the mistakes of the CIA, and, indirectly, the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. Such apologies are costly because they place the United States in the same category as real criminal states. It is in the context of this new value system that one must understand the harmful consequences of Attorney General Holder's investigation of CIA interrogation practices. The result of his endeavor will be a demoralization which could undermine the ability of America's defense agencies to protect the lives of its citizens. A gratuitous acceptance of guilt not only destroys self-esteem but also brings about a paralysis of national will.
The next logical question is: what is the real meaning of this misguided assault on national pride? Although one cannot foresee the outcome at this point, it is possible to know where it leads. Over time, the new policy will create the objective conditions of confusion and disorder which will facilitate the seizure of dictatorial power and the opportunity to implement a program of revolutionary change. During the First World War, Lenin explained this in brutal simplicity, "A revolutionary class in a reactionary war cannot but desire the defeat of its government….Revolutionary action in wartime against one's own government undoubtedly and incontrovertibly means not only desiring its defeat, but really facilitating such defeat…." (Defeat of One's Own Government in the Imperialist War, August, 1915, as cited by Stefan T. Possony).
During the late 1950s, the KGB refined and repackaged this approach. Its new division, Section D for "Disinformation and Decomposition," developed the sophisticated, gradual but less obvious tactic of "decomposition," a program for bringing defeat from within. Its goal was "by all conceivable means to undermine the faith of Western peoples in their own institutions and governments." In his study of the radicals of the sixties, The Riotmakers, Eugene Methvin described the propagandist's goal:
To undermine his [the citizen's] faith in the values of his culture and the justice of his society and government, and thus to destroy his allegiance to the established order [italics in original]. In the last analysis, all that holds a government or a society together is the conviction, usually partly subliminal and wholly unspoken, that it is a just order, or at least the best attainable at present, and certainly preferably to anarchy and violent upheaval. The propagandist who undermines this conviction prepares the way for revolutionary change…." (Riotmakers, 243).
It is clear that the Obama administration's statements and policies belong to the category of "decomposition." They are part of a gradual conditioning process whose purpose is to erode Americans' faith in their own government and to curry favor abroad. Despite the occasional exceptions and contradictions, the key to understanding the new administration's intentions may be found in the examination of "slow-moving history' which includes the propagation of negative views of America and its place in the world.
By rejecting the principle of American exceptionalism, the Obama administration has made a radical departure from the past. A fundamental disrespect for historical precedents, tradition, and factual accuracy characterizes Obama's radical political method. The practical problem is that this new policy leaves the country vulnerable to domestic and foreign terror, a danger which remains constant and unabated. Given the facts stated above, one must ask if the Obama administration, for its own reasons, has decided to leave the United States vulnerable to another strategic surprise and possible defeat.
Dr. Joel Fishman is a Fellow of a research center in Jerusalem
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
NYT admits Obama cover up
AmSpecBlog
New York Times Finally Admits It Spiked Obama/ACORN Corruption Story
By Matthew Vadum on 5.18.09 @ 1:50AM
Acknowledging what the blogosphere has known for weeks, the New York Times finally went on record to admit that just before last Election Day it killed a politically sensitive news story involving corruption allegations that might have made the Obama campaign look bad.
But the admission on Sunday, which came seven months after NYT staff reporter Stephanie Strom's reporting about possibly illegal coordination between the Obama campaign and ACORN last year, took the form of a snarky column from Clark Hoyt, the Old Gray Lady's "public editor." Hoyt used the word "nonsense" to describe the allegations of impropriety leveled against ACORN and the Obama campaign.
Hoyt writes in the Sunday New York Times
On March 17, a Republican lawyer, quoting a confidential source for a Times reporter, testified to Congress that the newspaper killed a story last fall because it would have been "a game-changer" in the presidential election.
The charge, amplified by Bill O'Reilly on Fox News in April and reverberating around the conservative blogosphere, is about the most damning allegation that can be made against a news organization. If true, it would mean that Times editors, whose job is to report the facts without fear or favor, were so lacking in integrity that they withheld an important story in order to influence the election.
I have spent several weeks looking into this issue - interviewing and e-mailing those involved, reading transcripts, looking at campaign finance records and conferring with legal experts. In a nutshell, I think the charge is nonsense.
In his very first sentence Hoyt makes a careless mistake: it was March 19, not March 17 (St. Patrick's Day), that the "Republican lawyer," Heather Heidelbaugh, testified before the House Judiciary Committee.
Then Hoyt gets caught up in minutiae, agonizing about whether the story would have been "a game-changer in the presidential election." He downplays the illegalities, calling them "technical violations of campaign finance law."
Hoyt writes
The story involved allegations that Barack Obama's campaign, in league with Acorn, a left-leaning community activist group, was guilty of technical violations of campaign finance law. Evidence supplied by the source could not be verified. Even if the story had panned out, it is hard to see how any editor could have regarded it as momentous enough to change an election in which the Republicans were saddled with an unpopular war and an economic meltdown.
On the surface if one doesn't think through Hoyt's explanation carefully, it may seem quite reasonable. But spend a few minutes thinking about it and holes begin to appear in the house ombudsman's reasoning.
A quick digression: Of course, we can only wonder what the New York Times would have done if it had gained information that John McCain's campaign had committed technical violations of campaign finance law. The NYT did publish a blog item about the DNC's allegation that McCain's campaign had illegally procured a loan and the paper was only too willing to imply in a Feb. 21, 2008 story that McCain was having a romantic affair with a female lobbyist three decades his junior. The charge, which was based on information provided by anonymous sources supposedly working for McCain, ultimately proved groundless and the newspaper retracted it a year later. The NYT disingenuously claims that it had never intended to suggest that the lobbyist "had engaged in a romantic affair with Senator McCain."
The aborted story that gave rise to the Obama/ACORN controversy centers around information provided by Anita MonCrief, a former ACORN employee whom Hoyt acknowledges "fed information to Stephanie Strom of The Times for several articles on troubles within the group." Apparently the information MonCrief provided was good.
We know this because Strom broke a number of important stories about ACORN and surely much of the information she used came from her trusted source Anita MonCrief. In July she reported that Dale Rathke, brother of ACORN founder Wade Rathke, embezzled nearly $1 million from the group. She also reported that ACORN management covered up the embezzlement for eight years, withholding information even from ACORN's national board.
The next month Strom reported that Tides Foundation founder Drummond Pike, a comrade-in-arms of liberal philanthropist George Soros, had personally covered what remained of Wade Rathke's debt (the embezzler had agreed to a slow-as-molasses repayment plan that would have kept him in debt well into old age).
In September Strom reported on two ACORN national board members' lawsuit aimed at forcing ACORN to provide financial documents regarding the embezzlement.
She followed up the next month with a story on ACORN's efforts to sever its remaining ties with its founder. (Strom reported that Wade Rathke resigned as chief organizer of ACORN. In fact, Rathke was fired, as shown in the ACORN national board's minutes of June 20, 2008, available at page 11 of the linked PDF file.)
The same month Strom wrote about an internal memo written by ACORN's lawyer that alerted the group to potential legal problems related to its organizational structure.
But apparently MonCrief's information was suddenly no good when it might have embarrassed the Obama campaign.
Heidelbaugh testified before a congressional committee in March that the nonprofit group violated a host of tax, campaign finance, and other laws. She said the Obama campaign sent ACORN its "maxed out donor list" and asked two of the avowedly nonpartisan group's employees "to reach out to the maxed out donors and solicit donations from them for Get Out the Vote efforts to be run by ACORN."
Hoyt describes the interactions between ACORN and Democratic campaigns this way:
On Sept. 7, Moncrief wrote to Strom that she had donor lists from the campaigns of Obama and Hillary Clinton and that there had been "constant contact" between the campaigns and Project Vote, an Acorn affiliate whose tax-exempt status forbids it to engage in partisan politics. Moncrief said she had withheld that information earlier but was disclosing it now that the conservative columnist Michelle Malkin was "all over it."
Hoyt writes that Strom received from MonCrief "a spreadsheet purporting to be the Obama donor list, but there was no on-the-record source or other way to verify that the list came from the Obama campaign." MonCrief agreed to go on the record but the NYT suddenly discovered that she had "a credibility problem" because she "had been fired by Acorn for using an official credit card for personal expenses."
To repeat, although the newspaper knew of the supposed credibility problem, it found MonCrief's information highly reliable in previous ACORN articles. All of sudden MonCrief was deemed not credible on a story that might have an adverse impact on Obama's candidacy.
Hoyt wrote that Suzanne Daley, the national editor, "called a halt to Strom's pursuit of the Obama angle."
Hoyt then presents an expert opinion about how, even if true, MonCrief's allegations would not have been a game-changer for the election.
But PowerLine's John Hinderaker skillfully dissects Hoyt's sophistry, writing:
Hoyt also argues that the story about Obama and ACORN would not have been a "game-changer" in that it would not have swung the election to John McCain. I agree. But since when is that the standard? Is Hoyt telling us that the Times' policy is only to print stories that have the potential to change the result of a Presidential election? Of course, if the story did have the potential to change the outcome of the election, that, too, would have been offered as a reason not to print it.
Hinderaker also argues that "the facts as related by Hoyt don't rebut the charge; they support it."
Read Hinderaker's commentary on the case and decide for yourself if the New York Times was right to end its probe.
New York Times Finally Admits It Spiked Obama/ACORN Corruption Story
By Matthew Vadum on 5.18.09 @ 1:50AM
Acknowledging what the blogosphere has known for weeks, the New York Times finally went on record to admit that just before last Election Day it killed a politically sensitive news story involving corruption allegations that might have made the Obama campaign look bad.
But the admission on Sunday, which came seven months after NYT staff reporter Stephanie Strom's reporting about possibly illegal coordination between the Obama campaign and ACORN last year, took the form of a snarky column from Clark Hoyt, the Old Gray Lady's "public editor." Hoyt used the word "nonsense" to describe the allegations of impropriety leveled against ACORN and the Obama campaign.
Hoyt writes in the Sunday New York Times
On March 17, a Republican lawyer, quoting a confidential source for a Times reporter, testified to Congress that the newspaper killed a story last fall because it would have been "a game-changer" in the presidential election.
The charge, amplified by Bill O'Reilly on Fox News in April and reverberating around the conservative blogosphere, is about the most damning allegation that can be made against a news organization. If true, it would mean that Times editors, whose job is to report the facts without fear or favor, were so lacking in integrity that they withheld an important story in order to influence the election.
I have spent several weeks looking into this issue - interviewing and e-mailing those involved, reading transcripts, looking at campaign finance records and conferring with legal experts. In a nutshell, I think the charge is nonsense.
In his very first sentence Hoyt makes a careless mistake: it was March 19, not March 17 (St. Patrick's Day), that the "Republican lawyer," Heather Heidelbaugh, testified before the House Judiciary Committee.
Then Hoyt gets caught up in minutiae, agonizing about whether the story would have been "a game-changer in the presidential election." He downplays the illegalities, calling them "technical violations of campaign finance law."
Hoyt writes
The story involved allegations that Barack Obama's campaign, in league with Acorn, a left-leaning community activist group, was guilty of technical violations of campaign finance law. Evidence supplied by the source could not be verified. Even if the story had panned out, it is hard to see how any editor could have regarded it as momentous enough to change an election in which the Republicans were saddled with an unpopular war and an economic meltdown.
On the surface if one doesn't think through Hoyt's explanation carefully, it may seem quite reasonable. But spend a few minutes thinking about it and holes begin to appear in the house ombudsman's reasoning.
A quick digression: Of course, we can only wonder what the New York Times would have done if it had gained information that John McCain's campaign had committed technical violations of campaign finance law. The NYT did publish a blog item about the DNC's allegation that McCain's campaign had illegally procured a loan and the paper was only too willing to imply in a Feb. 21, 2008 story that McCain was having a romantic affair with a female lobbyist three decades his junior. The charge, which was based on information provided by anonymous sources supposedly working for McCain, ultimately proved groundless and the newspaper retracted it a year later. The NYT disingenuously claims that it had never intended to suggest that the lobbyist "had engaged in a romantic affair with Senator McCain."
The aborted story that gave rise to the Obama/ACORN controversy centers around information provided by Anita MonCrief, a former ACORN employee whom Hoyt acknowledges "fed information to Stephanie Strom of The Times for several articles on troubles within the group." Apparently the information MonCrief provided was good.
We know this because Strom broke a number of important stories about ACORN and surely much of the information she used came from her trusted source Anita MonCrief. In July she reported that Dale Rathke, brother of ACORN founder Wade Rathke, embezzled nearly $1 million from the group. She also reported that ACORN management covered up the embezzlement for eight years, withholding information even from ACORN's national board.
The next month Strom reported that Tides Foundation founder Drummond Pike, a comrade-in-arms of liberal philanthropist George Soros, had personally covered what remained of Wade Rathke's debt (the embezzler had agreed to a slow-as-molasses repayment plan that would have kept him in debt well into old age).
In September Strom reported on two ACORN national board members' lawsuit aimed at forcing ACORN to provide financial documents regarding the embezzlement.
She followed up the next month with a story on ACORN's efforts to sever its remaining ties with its founder. (Strom reported that Wade Rathke resigned as chief organizer of ACORN. In fact, Rathke was fired, as shown in the ACORN national board's minutes of June 20, 2008, available at page 11 of the linked PDF file.)
The same month Strom wrote about an internal memo written by ACORN's lawyer that alerted the group to potential legal problems related to its organizational structure.
But apparently MonCrief's information was suddenly no good when it might have embarrassed the Obama campaign.
Heidelbaugh testified before a congressional committee in March that the nonprofit group violated a host of tax, campaign finance, and other laws. She said the Obama campaign sent ACORN its "maxed out donor list" and asked two of the avowedly nonpartisan group's employees "to reach out to the maxed out donors and solicit donations from them for Get Out the Vote efforts to be run by ACORN."
Hoyt describes the interactions between ACORN and Democratic campaigns this way:
On Sept. 7, Moncrief wrote to Strom that she had donor lists from the campaigns of Obama and Hillary Clinton and that there had been "constant contact" between the campaigns and Project Vote, an Acorn affiliate whose tax-exempt status forbids it to engage in partisan politics. Moncrief said she had withheld that information earlier but was disclosing it now that the conservative columnist Michelle Malkin was "all over it."
Hoyt writes that Strom received from MonCrief "a spreadsheet purporting to be the Obama donor list, but there was no on-the-record source or other way to verify that the list came from the Obama campaign." MonCrief agreed to go on the record but the NYT suddenly discovered that she had "a credibility problem" because she "had been fired by Acorn for using an official credit card for personal expenses."
To repeat, although the newspaper knew of the supposed credibility problem, it found MonCrief's information highly reliable in previous ACORN articles. All of sudden MonCrief was deemed not credible on a story that might have an adverse impact on Obama's candidacy.
Hoyt wrote that Suzanne Daley, the national editor, "called a halt to Strom's pursuit of the Obama angle."
Hoyt then presents an expert opinion about how, even if true, MonCrief's allegations would not have been a game-changer for the election.
But PowerLine's John Hinderaker skillfully dissects Hoyt's sophistry, writing:
Hoyt also argues that the story about Obama and ACORN would not have been a "game-changer" in that it would not have swung the election to John McCain. I agree. But since when is that the standard? Is Hoyt telling us that the Times' policy is only to print stories that have the potential to change the result of a Presidential election? Of course, if the story did have the potential to change the outcome of the election, that, too, would have been offered as a reason not to print it.
Hinderaker also argues that "the facts as related by Hoyt don't rebut the charge; they support it."
Read Hinderaker's commentary on the case and decide for yourself if the New York Times was right to end its probe.
undermines the CIA
September 08, 2009
Why Barack Obama vs. the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)?
Washington Times, August 31, 2009
The Obama administration’s war on the CIA continued last week. The result may be prosecution of CIA interrogators who work to uncover threats to national security. This witch hunt does not make America safer. Ignoring strong objections from CIA Director Leon F. Panetta, Attorney General, Eric H. Holder Jr. appointed special prosecutor John H. Durham to examine the potential for criminal charges against CIA interrogators. The administration also declassified a 2004 report by the CIA’s inspector general detailing interrogation techniques that may have crossed the line. A source in the intelligence community told us those CIA operatives who have not already retained counsel are lawyering up.
Sen. Christopher S. Bond, Missouri Republican, said Mr. Holder had pledged during the confirmation process not to pursue these cases. The attorney general defends his flip-flop, saying he has a duty to “examine the facts and follow the law.” However, there is more than a hint of political grandstanding on display, particularly because the most severe allegations in the 2004 report already had been investigated by career Justice Department prosecutors during the George W. Bush administration. Operatives found to have committed violations were reprimanded, administratively punished or forced out.
The difference between now and then is that the Bush team pursued the matter in a low-key way that ensured accountability but did not embarrass the CIA. Mr. Holder’s approach promises to publicly humiliate the agency and tarnish the Bush legacy, with no discernible benefit for national security. This is naked politics hiding behind the robe of justice. We were reminded last week that the administration is only interested in openness that benefits its case. On Aug. 24, Judicial Watch released two previously classified CIA documents showing the effectiveness of CIA interrogation techniques. The documents were obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request and after a personal appeal for their release by former Vice President, Dick Cheney.
The Obama administration refuses to discuss the product of interrogations and only focuses on the means by which information was received. This is because certain ends can justify certain means. The reports reveal a wealth of information on terrorist attack plans, techniques and strategies. We wonder why the vice president’s office didn’t produce unclassified versions for public dissemination four years ago.
The administration has banned the CIA from future interrogations and handed the process over to the FBI, which will act under the direct supervision the White House, perhaps by a new “interrogation czar?’ There is no reason to believe that this reorganization of responsibilities will make the system more effective, but there are many reasons to believe it will make it less so. Any government program subject to such a rigorous degree of high-level scrutiny will mean those involved will take fewer risks and demonstrate less initiative and imagination.
The intelligence community cannot move forward if everyone in it is watching his back. We agree with Rep. Peter ‘F. King, New York Republican, who called the attorney general’s moves a declaration of war [. - -] against common sense?’ Mr. Holder’s vendetta against the CIA undermines national security by taking seasoned professionals out of the fight in the war on terror.
Some say that the Obama administration’s decision to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the CIA’s interrogation of captured terrorists is torturous in itself. It’s a “witch hunt,” says Rep. Tom Price. The Georgia Democrat warns that the decision could demoralize those tasked with protecting the nation from terrorists and foreign agents. “Rather than focusing on obtaining valuable information from captured terrorists who have often murdered innocents by the hundreds, our intelligence community must now treat terrorists as petty criminals with all the due process rights of American citizens?’
Mr. Price says. “Our national security must not be held hostage to a flawed world view that values the comfort of terrorists over the lives of American citizens. While we now know that these interrogations saved lives, Americans are left to ask why President Obama would put politics before security.”
Why Barack Obama vs. the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)?
Washington Times, August 31, 2009
The Obama administration’s war on the CIA continued last week. The result may be prosecution of CIA interrogators who work to uncover threats to national security. This witch hunt does not make America safer. Ignoring strong objections from CIA Director Leon F. Panetta, Attorney General, Eric H. Holder Jr. appointed special prosecutor John H. Durham to examine the potential for criminal charges against CIA interrogators. The administration also declassified a 2004 report by the CIA’s inspector general detailing interrogation techniques that may have crossed the line. A source in the intelligence community told us those CIA operatives who have not already retained counsel are lawyering up.
Sen. Christopher S. Bond, Missouri Republican, said Mr. Holder had pledged during the confirmation process not to pursue these cases. The attorney general defends his flip-flop, saying he has a duty to “examine the facts and follow the law.” However, there is more than a hint of political grandstanding on display, particularly because the most severe allegations in the 2004 report already had been investigated by career Justice Department prosecutors during the George W. Bush administration. Operatives found to have committed violations were reprimanded, administratively punished or forced out.
The difference between now and then is that the Bush team pursued the matter in a low-key way that ensured accountability but did not embarrass the CIA. Mr. Holder’s approach promises to publicly humiliate the agency and tarnish the Bush legacy, with no discernible benefit for national security. This is naked politics hiding behind the robe of justice. We were reminded last week that the administration is only interested in openness that benefits its case. On Aug. 24, Judicial Watch released two previously classified CIA documents showing the effectiveness of CIA interrogation techniques. The documents were obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request and after a personal appeal for their release by former Vice President, Dick Cheney.
The Obama administration refuses to discuss the product of interrogations and only focuses on the means by which information was received. This is because certain ends can justify certain means. The reports reveal a wealth of information on terrorist attack plans, techniques and strategies. We wonder why the vice president’s office didn’t produce unclassified versions for public dissemination four years ago.
The administration has banned the CIA from future interrogations and handed the process over to the FBI, which will act under the direct supervision the White House, perhaps by a new “interrogation czar?’ There is no reason to believe that this reorganization of responsibilities will make the system more effective, but there are many reasons to believe it will make it less so. Any government program subject to such a rigorous degree of high-level scrutiny will mean those involved will take fewer risks and demonstrate less initiative and imagination.
The intelligence community cannot move forward if everyone in it is watching his back. We agree with Rep. Peter ‘F. King, New York Republican, who called the attorney general’s moves a declaration of war [. - -] against common sense?’ Mr. Holder’s vendetta against the CIA undermines national security by taking seasoned professionals out of the fight in the war on terror.
Some say that the Obama administration’s decision to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the CIA’s interrogation of captured terrorists is torturous in itself. It’s a “witch hunt,” says Rep. Tom Price. The Georgia Democrat warns that the decision could demoralize those tasked with protecting the nation from terrorists and foreign agents. “Rather than focusing on obtaining valuable information from captured terrorists who have often murdered innocents by the hundreds, our intelligence community must now treat terrorists as petty criminals with all the due process rights of American citizens?’
Mr. Price says. “Our national security must not be held hostage to a flawed world view that values the comfort of terrorists over the lives of American citizens. While we now know that these interrogations saved lives, Americans are left to ask why President Obama would put politics before security.”
Friday, September 4, 2009
czar communist
Last week, WND reported the official communist-oriented manifesto of a radical group founded by Obama's environmental adviser, Van Jones, was published in full on the Internet.
Just hours later, the manifesto was removed and the entire website was taken down.
It is, however, still available in web archives.
As WND previously reported, Van Jones, special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation to the White House Council on Environmental Quality, is an admitted black nationalist and radical communist.
Jones was the leader and founder of a radical group, the communist revolutionary organization Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM.
STORM's official manifesto, titled, "Reclaiming Revolution," had been published on the Internet.
A WND review of the 97-page treatise found that the manual describes Jones' organization as having a "commitment to the fundamental ideas of Marxism-Leninism."
Just hours later, the manifesto was removed and the entire website was taken down.
It is, however, still available in web archives.
As WND previously reported, Van Jones, special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation to the White House Council on Environmental Quality, is an admitted black nationalist and radical communist.
Jones was the leader and founder of a radical group, the communist revolutionary organization Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM.
STORM's official manifesto, titled, "Reclaiming Revolution," had been published on the Internet.
A WND review of the 97-page treatise found that the manual describes Jones' organization as having a "commitment to the fundamental ideas of Marxism-Leninism."
Indoctrinating kids
Obama goes back to school
Thu Sep 3, 3:11 pm ET
On September 8, in what the Department of Education is touting as a "historic" speech, President Obama will be talking directly to students across the U.S., live on the White House website. But some parents and conservatives are blasting the president, calling the speech an excuse to brainwash American children.
Last month, in an interview with 11-year-old student reporter Damon Weaver, the president announced his big back-to-school plan:
"I'm going to be making a big speech to young people all across the country about the importance of education; about the importance of staying in school; how we want to improve our education system and why it’s so important for the country. So I hope everybody tunes in."
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan sent a letter to the nation's principals, inviting schools to watch the speech and included suggested classroom activities. But Jim Greer, the chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, came out swinging against the planned speech. An excerpt from his statement:
"The address scheduled for September 8, 2009, does not allow for healthy debate on the President's agenda, but rather obligates the youngest children in our public school system to agree with our President's initiatives or be ostracized by their teachers and classmates."
NBC spoke with Katie Gordon, a spokeswoman for the Florida Republican Party, who said the party's "beef" is with the accompanying lesson plans. The guide for pre-K through grade 6 suggests questions students think about during the speech, such as "What is the President trying to tell me? What is the President asking me to do?"
The plan for grades 7-12 includes a "guided discussion," with suggested topics: "What resonated with you from President Obama's speech? What is President Obama inspiring you to do?"
The Cato Institute, a public-policy research foundation, issued a press release entitled "Hey Obama, Leave Those Kids Alone," criticizing the "troubling buzzwords" in the lesson plans:
"It's one thing for a president to encourage all kids to work hard and stay in school – that's a reasonable use of the bully pulpit. It's another thing entirely, however, to have the U.S. Department of Education send detailed instructions to public schools nationwide on how to glorify the president and the presidency, and push them to drive social change."
Across the blogosphere, comments covered the spectrum, from critical to supportive, and from one student, a little anger:
"I sent my children to school to be educated NOT indoctrinated." — justamom
Thu Sep 3, 3:11 pm ET
On September 8, in what the Department of Education is touting as a "historic" speech, President Obama will be talking directly to students across the U.S., live on the White House website. But some parents and conservatives are blasting the president, calling the speech an excuse to brainwash American children.
Last month, in an interview with 11-year-old student reporter Damon Weaver, the president announced his big back-to-school plan:
"I'm going to be making a big speech to young people all across the country about the importance of education; about the importance of staying in school; how we want to improve our education system and why it’s so important for the country. So I hope everybody tunes in."
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan sent a letter to the nation's principals, inviting schools to watch the speech and included suggested classroom activities. But Jim Greer, the chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, came out swinging against the planned speech. An excerpt from his statement:
"The address scheduled for September 8, 2009, does not allow for healthy debate on the President's agenda, but rather obligates the youngest children in our public school system to agree with our President's initiatives or be ostracized by their teachers and classmates."
NBC spoke with Katie Gordon, a spokeswoman for the Florida Republican Party, who said the party's "beef" is with the accompanying lesson plans. The guide for pre-K through grade 6 suggests questions students think about during the speech, such as "What is the President trying to tell me? What is the President asking me to do?"
The plan for grades 7-12 includes a "guided discussion," with suggested topics: "What resonated with you from President Obama's speech? What is President Obama inspiring you to do?"
The Cato Institute, a public-policy research foundation, issued a press release entitled "Hey Obama, Leave Those Kids Alone," criticizing the "troubling buzzwords" in the lesson plans:
"It's one thing for a president to encourage all kids to work hard and stay in school – that's a reasonable use of the bully pulpit. It's another thing entirely, however, to have the U.S. Department of Education send detailed instructions to public schools nationwide on how to glorify the president and the presidency, and push them to drive social change."
Across the blogosphere, comments covered the spectrum, from critical to supportive, and from one student, a little anger:
"I sent my children to school to be educated NOT indoctrinated." — justamom
sinking
Haaretz
Back in May, Obama seemed like the messiah heralding historic change in America and in its relations with the world in general and Muslims in particular. Obama projected hope and change, while Netanyahu looked like a throwback, a musty, right-wing nuisance who was wasting the president's time talking about "natural growth in the settlements."
This week the Washington columnists competed with each other to write the gloomiest forecasts of the political hell awaiting the president when he returns from his vacation in Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts. As the summer progressed, Obama had a serious marketing slip: He lost his focus. His astonishing ascension to power rested on a clear and focused message: I represent change, I don't look like Bush or talk like him. Now, though, despite the signs of economic recovery, Obama is plunging in the polls even faster than previous presidents this early into their terms.
In regard to the two main issues on his agenda - national health care and the war in Afghanistan - Obama is struggling to explain his goals to the American people. His rivals are conducting an effective campaign against health care reform. The president will address Congress next week in an effort to save his initiative and not reprise Bill Clinton's failure in trying to expand health insurance. The situation in Afghanistan is no less desperate. The polls show that most Americans don't understand the purpose of the war and don't believe victory is possible. The mounting casualty rate is rapidly eroding public support for continuation of the war.
Back in May, Obama seemed like the messiah heralding historic change in America and in its relations with the world in general and Muslims in particular. Obama projected hope and change, while Netanyahu looked like a throwback, a musty, right-wing nuisance who was wasting the president's time talking about "natural growth in the settlements."
This week the Washington columnists competed with each other to write the gloomiest forecasts of the political hell awaiting the president when he returns from his vacation in Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts. As the summer progressed, Obama had a serious marketing slip: He lost his focus. His astonishing ascension to power rested on a clear and focused message: I represent change, I don't look like Bush or talk like him. Now, though, despite the signs of economic recovery, Obama is plunging in the polls even faster than previous presidents this early into their terms.
In regard to the two main issues on his agenda - national health care and the war in Afghanistan - Obama is struggling to explain his goals to the American people. His rivals are conducting an effective campaign against health care reform. The president will address Congress next week in an effort to save his initiative and not reprise Bill Clinton's failure in trying to expand health insurance. The situation in Afghanistan is no less desperate. The polls show that most Americans don't understand the purpose of the war and don't believe victory is possible. The mounting casualty rate is rapidly eroding public support for continuation of the war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
