Wednesday, September 30, 2009
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog
The Chairman of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Gerald A. Reynolds, has sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder seeking answers to their questions about a voter intimidation case in Philadelphia involving the New Black Panther Party (NBPP). It considers the responses “overdue.”
The letter, dated September 30, 2009, is seemingly an unprecedented action. It asks for Mr. Holder to “instruct Department officials to fully cooperate” with the Commission’s investigation as required by federal law.
The correspondence noted that the Commission still has not received any of the documents they requested in their initial June inquiries. It has questions surrounding the “unusual decision” by DOJ to dismiss the case against two of the three defendants and the equally unusual injunction obtained against the third defendant.
Mr. Reynolds says this information is needed because the Commission is responsible to investigate voting rights deprivations and evaluate federal enforcement of federal voting rights laws. They want to form an independent opinion about DOJ’s enforcement actions and the potential impact on future voter intimidation enforcement. It may also try “to determine whether any decisions in the case were induced or affected by improper influences.”
The communication reminded Mr. Holder that Congress mandates that, “All Federal agencies shall fully cooperate with the Commission to the end that it may effectively carry out its functions and duties.” It wants Mr. Holder to identify the person responsible for complying with the requests.
The Commission voted, September 11, 2009, to make its review of the implications of the NBPP matter the subject of its annual enforcement report this incident part of their annual statutory report. This report focuses on a selected area of civil rights enforcement.
The letter concludes by cautioning Mr. Holder that if he does not respond by October 14, they will contact the DOJ personnel involved directly.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Frances Rice, founder of the National Black Republican Association found a video that once again exposes the fraud and hypocrisy of the liberal mainstream Manhattan Mob media. During the 2008 Democratic National convention Carter was a commentator. When asked about Obama he referred to him as this "black boy."
Yet, there was no chorus of righteous indignation as there was when Ross Perot referred to an audience of African-Americans as "you people."
Rice writes on her blog http://blackrepublican.blogspot.com/ :
" Carter’s racial slur earned him not one word of condemnation. If a Republican politician had called Obama a “black boy”, a phrase most blacks deem to be an offensive epithet, that person would have been labeled a racist and drummed out of the political arena by Democrats and their liberal media allies.. Unscathed by his insensitive remark, Carter now has the audacity to scold average Americans, calling them racist, merely for protesting against Obama’s government-run, rationed health care scheme and out-of-control spending designed to turn our country into a failed socialist nation."
I guess is an expert about racism. It takes one to know one.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Tea Time Blog
For years now I have watched many talented, conservative, writers, filmmakers, television producers and journalists go unnoticed, unmentioned or unrewarded while their liberal peers are worshipped - even by conservatives.
Case in point, a few years ago Andrew Sullivan was all the rage in conservative media. They said he was a great writer, he was insightful, he was a force for conservatism in the world etc etc.
Andrew Sullivan's career began with what I call the Manhattan Media Mob. These are the people who launch the careers of your typical elite, liberal journalist. They do it for the same reason - pedigree.
Sullivan has the same Ivy League pedigree many liberal Democrats have. He has a Masters in Public Administration ( read big government here folks) from Harvard, as well as a PhD in government from there. He was an editor for The New Republic before he started his now famous blog. Now they do not come much more left wing than The New Republic.
Yet, despite these impeccable left wing credentials, Sullivan's musings were mentioned by conservative talk show hosts from Limbaugh to O'Reilly to Joe Red State's local show. Meanwhile legitimate conservative sources were not mentioned. It is as if the same pedigree that is needed to be granted entree into the liberal media world is also accepted as the passport into conservative media.
Worse than that, the conservative media is deteriorating into an "old boy's network." Specifically the Roger Ailes' network.
This is to be expected - and deserved - to a certain degree. Ailes, after all, is responsible for the success of Fox News and the career of Sean Hannity. He also contributed to Limbaugh's success and to that of Mary Matalin and others.
Being the first means he should get the lion's share of the rewards.
However, this should not mean exclusivity - especially when the political importance of this is so significant. Yet, this is what it has become. Conservative media outside of Limbaugh, Fox News and Salem Radio are ignored to a large degree. This is true with the new, metro, conservative newspapers, it is true with conservative movies and it is true with conservative books, plays, television shows and music.
Some cases in point.
How many of you are familiar with the novels of W.E. B. Griffin's and William E. Butterworth IV ? They are bestsellers - so obviously many of you are. Yet, they are not household names like Grisham or Dan Brown.
Griffin's and Butterworth's novels all contain conservative, patriotic pro-law enforcement themes. However, there are many more conservative novelists (me included) who are not recognized.
Unfortunately, you will rarely, if ever, hear the names of Carabatsos, Chetwynde, Griffin, Butterworth and the rest mentioned by Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox News, Bennettt, Hewitt, et al.
Even people like Newt Gingrich do not include these talented conservatives among their favorite writers.
When it comes conservative newspapers - forgeddaboutit.
Conservative newspapers, such as the one I worked for, the Bulletin, were never mentioned by talk radio hosts or politicians despite being unparalleled sources of conservative information.
Indeed, Rush Limbaugh read one of my articles on his show one day, all the while stating he did not know what the Bulletin was. The same thing occurred when I appeared on the Bill Bennett show. Bill was not aware of the paper.
I think the greatest irony occurred when Rick Santorum was guest hosting Bennett's show one morning last May. He must have mentioned the names of ten different newspapers that day. He did not mention the Bulletin even though the paper quoted him regularly.
Then he had the audacity to lament that the liberals controlled the media. I recall screaming at him via my car radio that day. Santorum was sure as hell was not doing much to promote the conservative media.
The Bulletin was and is not the only conservative media outlet that is ignored. There are many others. (It is just the only one with which I have direct experience).
Many conservative organizations go unacknowledged by those who control the conservative media.
What about Frances Rice, founder and chairwoman of the National Black Republican Association? This former military officer has done yeoman work promoting the racism of the Democratic Party yet she labors in obscurity.
How many know about Ave Maria Law School and University? I routinely quoted their professors in my pieces, as well as those from Pepperdine, Grove City College and other conservative colleges and universities. Yet, I never noticed my journalistic colleagues do the same.
Give liberals credit for one thing. They will promote each others works. They will be effusive in their praise of investigative reporting and regularly mention the reporters or paper which exposed some scandal among Republicans. They do the same with filmmakers, novelists, songwriters and playwrights.
They understand the influence the arts has on journalism and on the collective psyche. They know the importance of liberal institutions in shaping the culture. As Steve Allen said, " You can write the laws, if I can write the songs."
Ask yourself this, while it's true that the names of Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe have mentioned routinely for their superb work in the ACORN scandal, how many times have you heard about Matthew Vadum?
Vadum has been tracking ACORN for years. When I broke the news , March 30, that the New York Times spiked information they had about collusion between ACORN and the Obama campaign (http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/03/30/top_stories/doc49d0a73c7f98e547489394.txt),
He was one of the first people I called for a reaction quote. I was using him as a background source another piece I was in the process of writing about ACORN when I discovered this information about the Times and ACORN.
Vadum is not the only one whose work is disregarded. Cliff Kincaid, who has organized protests againts Bill Ayers, is not media exposure by talk radio and others. These are just a few. There are plenty more I could name.
If the leading conservative outlets would spend more time searching conservative newspapers and conservative magazines instead of reading from the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC etc two things would happen.
First, there would be more information for conservatives to access and have the intellectual ammunition in their daily arguments. Conservative ideas would be able to thrive more easily.
Second, conservative media outlets would be more prosperous and there would be more of them.
If the conservative media would spend more time interviewing James Carabatsos, Lionel Chetwynde and others, than their movies, books and songs would become more popular.
Now I can hear some of you saying - with righteous indignation - "we are free market capitalists. If they cannot survive in the free market then their product is not very good. They must earn our listenership."
Once again - baloney!!
There is a political aspect to this.
The free market cannot exist without government. Otherwise it would lapse into anarchy . Without courts enforcing contracts business would lapse into the kind of market one associates with the Mafia.
Politics also regulates the airwaves. Otherwise Hannity, Limbaugh and every other talk radio host would not be urging their listeners to prevent implementation of the Fairness Doctrine. Such implementation would ruin their business.
The Fairness Doctrine would probably be a boon for conservative newspapers. At least some of their audience would now have to turn to these papers as sources of information. My old paper, The Bulletin, for example, would benefit greatly from the Fairness Doctrine.
Yet, not once did The Bulletin ever consider promoting the Fairness Doctrine at the expense of talk radio. If they conducted business according to a pure free market it would have.
So do not preach about the free market. Politics is an inherent part of all human activity - including the media business. Remember the old saying: "It's not what you know, it's who you know that determines success in business."
Well, this is becoming true in the conservative media - to the detriment of the ascendancy of conservatism as a political force in America. If the trend continues, conservative media will become ossified and a niche market.
The establishment conservative media does not have to be concerned about becoming unprofitable. Indeed, they will become more so by promoting the nascent conservative media. The pie will be expanded because the Pavlovian liberal treatment of the news - as currently exists - will be discredited completely.
Can the conservative media avoid calcification?
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Tea Time Blog
No one should believe that the liberal mainstream media "missed" the most recent ACORN scandal. They did not "miss it."
When I broke the news on March 30 about the New York Times spiking the information they had about ACORN working with the Obama campaign (http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/03/30/top_stories/doc49d0a73c7f98e547489394.txt), it went national, like the current scandal, only because of the Fox News Channel and talk radio.
I was working as a journalist for the Philadelphia Bulletin* at the time. An ACORN whistleblower said that the NY Times reporter to whom she had been feeding information to about ACORN told her the editors did not want to use information about collusion between ACORN and the Obama campaign. The editors said it could be a "game changer" - meaning adversely affecting Obama's campaign.
When my piece was published in the morning March 30, 2009 edition of the Bulletin it mushroomed into a national story by dinnertime. However, it was only Fox News, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and other "alternative, conservative" media that ran with it.
Fox News Channel ran it on its tickertape during its broadcast well into the next morning. I received calls from people telling me Beck and Hannity mentioned my piece on their shows.
Yet no one called me to say, nor did I notice, that ABC, NBC, CBS, or CNN mentioned it!!
Worse than the media blackout was that, Rep. Sensenbrenner, the ranking Republican on the committee which took the testimony, was not aware of this until I interviewed him. Even after my interview, he never called a press conference about it or issued a statement. Neither did the RNC.
I was told, by a Republican congressional staffer, that Republicans shied away from criticizing organizations like ACORN because they were afraid of being called racists. Now you know why the Democrats and their media myrmidons are using racist all the time.
So do not for a second believe that the mainstream media "missed" this recent news. They are well aware of the corruption that is pervasive in the ACORN organization. They knew about this video.
The mainstream media willfully chose not to report it - just as they chose not to report what I wrote on March 30! Just as the mainstream media chose to ignore what I and others have been reporting about ACORN for at least a year!
They chose to ignore because they know how the Republicans react. They know that Republicans are reluctant to add their voices to the chorus of criticism if they perceive the issue to be petty. Republicans will not take the lead.
Notice how it is only now that the Republican Party is jumping onto the bandwagon and demanding the defunding of the group, investigations of this organization and ultimately the severing of the federal government's relations with it. However, it took a long time for the Republicans to arrive here. Just as it took Republicans a long time to push for an investigation of the New Black Panther Party.
Why? Because they are afraid of being labeled as racist.
Republicans do not lead these issues because the mainstream media does not report them or when they do report them they will characterize the Republicans as being racist. Unfortunately, Republicans are still tone deaf to the influence of the alternative media. Democrats know this.
The Manhattan Mainstream Media Elite know this as well. This is why the spurious criticisms of Obama's initiatives are being couched as racism. It is a means of closing debate. They know Republicans are fearful.
This is why when a reporter for a newspaper in Philadelphia reveals a scandal involving the New York Times and ACORN or when a pair activist-journalists working for a website reveal a scandal involving ACORN employees the mainstream media are silent. They do not want to promote anything that would be detrimental to the Democrats if there is any possible way to prevent doing so. The mainstream media does not want to legitimize criticism by Republicans.
It is not becaused they "missed it."
*(The paper closed June 1. It resumed publishing on a limited-basis August 1)
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Justice Monitors Elections in Two Small Towns for Voting Rights Violations Despite Lack of Complaints
Forget about reams of evidence of voting rights violations in Philadelphia, no Eric Holder's Justice Department would rather spend the taxpayers' money investigating a place where there is no problem.
According to the DOJ press statement, federal observers will be assigned to monitor polling place activities in Springfield and Newburgh. The observers will watch and record activities during voting hours at polling locations. Civil Rights Division attorneys will coordinate the federal activities and maintain contact with local election officials.
DOJ states that it deploys hundreds of federal observers from the Office of Personnel Management, as well as departmental staff, to monitor elections across the country each year.
1,060 federal observers and 344 Department personnel were sent to monitor 114 elections in 76 jurisdictions in 24 states in 2008.
The statement also instructs citizens about how to file complaints about discriminatory voting practices, including acts of harassment or intimidation.
Well, what good is filing a complaint going to do when DOJ won’t pursue penalties even if they win a case?
A local newspaper, the Hudson Valley Press Online, which serves minority community, said the feds will not say why they’re coming to Newburgh. It quoted a DOJ spokesperson as declining to say what led them to choose Newburgh.
The same article also quoted Susan Bahren, an Orange County, N.Y. elections commissioner, as saying, that she, too, does not know why there will be federal observers. Ms. Bahren also said her office did not receive any complaints about violations of the Voting Rights Act in Newburgh.
Perhaps Ms. Bahren could send them to Philadelphia.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Democrats : Anyone opposing Obama is a Racist
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Liberal Democratic Party politicians and their willing accomplices in the media are saying if you oppose President Obama or Democrats you are a racist. Nancy Pelosi, various and sundry Democratic Party “strategists” on television and newspaper pundits have all said the same.
Who are the racists - the liberals and Democrats or the conservatives and Republicans? Well, let’s examine the record:
· It was the liberal Democrats who hired members of an organization acknowledged as a racist, anti-Semitic, hate group to be poll watchers in Philadelphia – not white, conservative Republicans.
· It was the liberal Democratic Party who refused to prosecute a member of this same organization who referred to white people as “crackers” and asked them how they will like “being ruled by a black man” – not white, conservative Republicans.
· It was liberal Democratic President Barack Obama who referred to his own mother as a “typical white person” – not white, conservative Republicans.
· It was the liberal Democrats who defended President Obama’s adviser Van Jones, who once said that “white” environmentalists are poisoning black people – not white, conservative Republicans.
· It was the liberal Democrats who defended President Obama’s pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright who used ethnic slurs and defamed Italians, Jews and other ethnic groups – not white, conservative Republicans.
· It is a liberal Democrat, Sen. Robert Byrd, a revered and senior member of the Democratic Party, who was an official of the Klu Klux Klan – not white, conservative Republicans.
· It was a liberal Democrat, a Clinton campaign operative, who started the rumor that Barack Obama is not an American citizen – not white, conservative Republicans. (Democrats also questioned McCain’s legitimacy as a US citizen since he was born in the Panama Canal Zone – perhaps a glimpse of Democrats true feelings towards our neighbors south of the border.)
· It was the liberal Democrats who questioned Barack Obama’s authenticity as a black man – not white, conservative Republicans. (A liberal newspaper columnist called Mr. Obama a “Magic Negro.”)
· It was the liberal Democratic talk radio network which displaced minority radio programs – not white conservative Republicans.
Indeed, the civil rights record of Republicans is commendable.
For example, it was during the Eisenhower presidency that the 1957 Civil Rights Act was passed. Eisenhower’s Attorney General Herbert Brownell is the person who crafted the legislation in March 1956. Democrats criticized Eisenhower for pandering to the black vote. Democrats
removed most of the effective items from the final bill.
It was Eisenhower who desegregated public facilities in DC during his first term-Truman did not do it. And it was Eisenhower who enforced school the Supreme Court school desegregation order in 1957.
It was not just Eisenhower.
Fifty years earlier it was a Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, who invited the African-American leader Booker T. Washington to the White House. An invitation that probably cost Roosevelt reelection. This is contrast to the segregationist Democrat President Woodrow Wilson.
Democrats are crying racism because they have been unable to make a substantive argument proving that their ideas to reform the system of health insurance are valid.
There is an old Chinese proverb: “It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness.”
Democrats would rather curse the darkness. They don’t know how to light candles.
They are bereft ideas. All they have to offer is hate.
Unfortunately, this tactic has worked in the past. Americans should make an extraordinary effort to ensure Democratic Party hatemongering does not work again.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
So what is the reaction by the mainstream media, by the civil rights enforcers and "civil liberties" groups?
It ranges from muted to absolute silence!
Oh sure, there are the obligatory mentions by the wire services - a small paragraph not very prominent. Or the piece contains some language that minimizes the outrage. However, there is nothing like the reportage when a abortion doctor is murdered or an antiwar protester is jailed or the vandals who disrupt Republican conventions or stage protests outside military installations are jailed for their crimes.
However, when a 63-year-old disabled man was gunned down - because of his opposition to abortion - as he held up a sign protesting abortion near a high school in Owosso, Mich.,the murder was not condemned by the Obama administration, which issued, with great fanfare, pronouncements condemning the shooting death of an abortionist last May.
After the murder of the abortionist, the U.S. Justice Department’s civil rights division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office launched a federal investigation into federal crimes in connection with the murder and called a meeting of the National Task Force on Violence Against Reproductive Health Care Providers.
According to a statment in Pro-Life News, Joesph Scheidler, national director of the Pro-Life Action League, Chicago, said people in his organization have been threatened before. Yet, the Justice Department never launched an investigation into violence against them.
Similarly, when members of the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense were accused of intimidating voters outside a polling place by brandishing weapons and uttering racial slurs calling white people "crackers" some reporters in Philadelphia tried to minimize what was occurring.
Indeed, even after obtaining a judgment against all three defendants the Obama Justice Department dropped the case against two of them for specious reasons. The only reason an inquiry is being conducted now is that for months some congressional representatives have been pushing the matter with the Justice Department. Of course, it was only Republican congressman. Democratic congressman did not want to get involved.
The famed soi-disant defenders of our civil liberties: the ACLU, National Lawyers Guild and other similar groups still have not commented on the mysterious dropping of the voter intimidation case.
The hypocrisy of the left is blatant.
Liberals - in the media, in government and elsewhere - are not concerned when Republicans are denied their voting rights.
Liberals - in the media, in government and elsewhere - are not interested in protecting the free speech of pro-life demonstrators.
Liberals - in the media, in government and elsewhere are not going to protect the Constitutional rights, the civil liberties, the human rights of people with whom they hate, oppose, or disagree.
Remember this the next time you read or hear stories by the Associated Press/MSNBC/CNN/NYTimes?Washington Post/CBS/ABC/Reuters or when you read or hear statments by the American Civil Liberties Union, National Lawyers Guild, Planned Parenthood, Democratic National Committee or other leftwing groups bemoaning some violation of rights - real or contrived.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Tea Time Blog
Police, fire personnel, emergency medical technicians, and the military are often referred to collectively as the "uniformed services." But they share more than just a name. As novelist W.E.B. Griffin writes, they "share a number of unique traits: astonishing courage, loyalty, and camaraderie . . . like no other profession."
Griffin omitted something.
Each day members of the uniform services report on duty knowing there is a possibility that they may not report off.
They do it anyway.
Statistically, there are some occupations which are more dangerous such as a convenience store clerk or cab driver or bartender. The difference is that uniformed personnel place themselves at risk willingly - knowingly.
They are never called when all is well. They are called only to protect the lives of their fellow citizens. They know that in the process their own lives may be in jeopardy.
They do it anyway.
They do it because that is who and what they are.
When members of the uniformed services entered the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, they did so not because they were trained to do so. They did so because of their character. They knew the risks. They did so knowing the possible consequences. They'd done it before.
They did it anyway.
They knew what they were getting into when they arrived at the World Trade Center. They got there quickly and went to work to help those trapped inside the buildings.
Wharton Business School graduates were rescued by those who could not afford to attend such a distinguished Ivy League institution. There were rescuers on the 82d floor when the building collapsed - a place the rescuers ordinarily might not be permitted to be because of their societal status.
They went anyway.
They knew what was happening. They did not have to do it. They could have said, "Oops, sorry; just can't get there." They would still have kept their jobs. Nobody would have condemned them.
They did it anyway.
Fire personnel who were caught in the explosion, like the New York City Fire Department's John Morabito, who survived the explosion of the second tower - was still on the job, rescuing people, many days afterward.
Morabito already risked himself once. But he continued to do it anyway.
I once rescued three people - and a dog - from a burning two-story building. I could not even conceive of what it would be like to be in a burning skyscraper. No training - no school or academy - can prepare you for something like that.
The uniformed personnel who ventured into danger in lower Manhattan and the Pentagon did not ask for gratitude. Neither do those who are - at this very minute - placing themselves in harm's way in Afghanistan and Iraq and places that we will never know about. They will not ask for plaudits.
They do it anyway.
When you recall the reports of what the uniformed personnel did on 9-11, remember there was nothing in their job description that mandated they risk their lives. Certainly, they knew the hazards - but nothing required them to sacrifice their lives for those of others or for any benefit, monetary or otherwise, that would accrue. There were no bonuses for lives saved.
They did it anyway.
The next time you read or hear a news story criticizing uniformed personnel - from the liberal mainstream media; from the leftwing intelligentsia; from the Code Pink protesters; from the wealthy liberal elitists - remember that, despite the risks, despite the costs, despite the difficulties, despite the criticism from the chattering classes:
They do it anyway.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Questions about this unusual dismissal have been asked by Messrs. Wolf and Smith, as well as, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. Several letters were sent to DOJ asking for the process that resulted in the DOJ dropping a case against two of the three members after they already received a judgement against all three. These letters were either unanswered or answered evasively.
The letter, signed by Mary Patrice Brown, Acting Counsel, states the Office of Professional Responsibility is initiating an inquiry into the matter. She said that they will be contacted with the results once the inquiry is completed.
Mr. Wolf issued a statement today after receiving the letter. He said:
“After months of unanswered questions, incomplete and faulty excuses, and revelations of political influence, the Office of Professional Responsibility has agreed with our July 9 letter asking for a full investigation of the dismissal of this important voter intimidation case – over the objections of both the career attorneys on the trial team and the department’s own appellate board. I fully support OPR’s decision to investigate this dismissal and look forward to their report. I hope the Civil Rights office also will agree that the case should be re-filed. ”
Speculation remains about how assiduously the DOJ will investigate this matter because of the resistance they have shown thus far. Questions also remain as to why the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office never prosecuted this case or why civil liberties organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, National Lawyers Guild and others have been silent about it.
Obama's Education Speech Masks His Liberalism with Conservative Themes; Liberal Media Distorts Oppostion
"this rising star in the Democratic Party spouted some conservative themes during his speech, the rhetoric may be deceptive. While Obama spoke of individual responsibility – such as stating that the government cannot teach kids to read, parents must – his ideology and voting record is quite different. Obama is very liberal."
As such the speech discredited to a certain extent the opposition to it. It was very rational and it made the critics sound irrational.
Of course, the mainstream media, which disdains anyone who opposes President Obama, used this to ridicule those who protested. Indeed, they even mischaracterized the opposition.
They said that those who opposed the speech were fanatics. They said they were hatemongers.
What they didn't mention was that even the White House admitted that their initial description of the speech and what they asked teachers and students to do was "poorly worded."
The liberal mainstream media also used the opportunity to continue the criticism of Rush Limbaugh - criticism that conceivably is being urged by the Democratic Party who blame Limbaugh instead of their own ideas for the unpopularity of the congress they control.
A commentator for ABC stated that Rush Limbaugh was fomenting opposition on September 2. An MSNBC commentator said that Limbaugh called the speech unpatriotic.
Both are factually incorrect. Limbaugh was on vacation on September 2. As far as calling anyone unpatriotic, Limbaugh merely said that Mr. Obama doesn't believe what he is saying.
This is quite true. As I wrote in August 2004, "His voting record certainly displays the ideology characteristic of an indulgent liberal. (Sorry, "Progressive.") Obama favors abortion, socialized medicine, and Affirmative Action. Obama sponsored a bill in the Illinois legislature requiring local police departments in Illinois to record the race of anyone stopped for questioning so that the data can be used to track the occurrence of racial profiling. He opposes a $2,000 tax credit for retirement and has voted against private gun ownership, mandatory sentencing and the death penalty. During his tenure as a legislator, he abstained from voting about an abortion parental notification bill and on legislation that would keep pornographic video stores and strip clubs from within 1,000 feet of schools and churches. He has also voted against laws requiring students to complete suspensions before being transferred to other school districts. He abstained from legislation requiring adult prosecution for students who fire guns on school grounds. He opposed legislation making it a criminal offense for accused gang members to associate with known gang members. "
So Obama's speech to students was never going to do anything except reiterate that what he has said in the past. This doesn't mean that those who opposed it shouldn't have.
After all, Democrats and the Washington Post criticized President George H.W. Bush for addressing students in 1991 about science. If anything the condemnation by Democrats and the teachers' unions to the critics reveals their hypocrisy.
However, don't be fooled by Obama's appearance. He is very much a liberal. He is beholden to the American left - the far left of the political continuum.
As I also wrote in 2004, "Obama the candidate is conservative only when addressing a national television audience. ...Obama is a stealth candidate -- a liberal stealth candidate."
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
By Michael P. Tremoglie
“You know the more I think about it, the more I figure it’s a good idea if you and Mikey go stay with your sister for a while,” Ilario Enna said to his young wife. “I can’t be around that much with the way this case is going and she can help you take care of Mikey. Besides she would love having a one year old around the house.”
“Yeah, and who is going to take care of you, Larry?” replied Katie Enna, using the name everybody on the Philadelphia Police Department called him.
“I can take care of myself,” Larry replied indignantly.
“I know you can,” Katie responded plaintively “It’s just that I hate the idea of leaving you alone. It’s not like there aren’t people around here who won’t help me with the baby if I need it.”
“Yeah, but we don’t want to burden anyone. If I thought your sister would be burdened I wouldn’t tell you to go there either. But she is always asking you to spend a few weeks with her, and it might be a good thing for both of you.”
It was no use arguing. Katie knew that. She was going to go. Besides, if she stayed and he worried about them, it would affect his job. She certainly did not want that to happen. She knew the case was a dangerous one because, normally, Larry never talked about his work. Although he tried not to alarm her, just the mere fact he suggested she spend some time with her sister in Chicago made her apprehensive. Katie knew her husband too well not to be concerned.
Katie, whose real name was Caterina, was an attractive young woman with raven black hair and beautiful blue eyes. She, like her husband, was twenty-three years old.
Larry and Katie had known each other since they were infants. The two of them had immigrated to the United States, with their families, from the same town in Sicily twenty years earlier. Their families settled on the same street in South Philadelphia.
They fell in love with each other and were married shortly after Larry became a Philadelphia police officer - three years after graduating high school. Two years later, their son Michael was born.
Both sets of parents returned to Italy not long after they married. Larry’s father returned to Sicily – something he always planned to do. Katie’s father’s plant closed. He got a job with a company that wanted him to manage their Rome office.
Neither of them had any aunts or uncles who lived in the United States. Larry had two older brothers. They moved away years earlier and he rarely spoke with them.
Katie had one sister, Ida, who married, Herman Meadows, an Iowa farmer turned Chicago factory foreman. They lived in Elmwood Park, Illinois just outside of Chicago. Despite the distance, Katie and Ida maintained a close relationship.
A few weeks after their conversation, Katie and Michael flew to Chicago to visit Ida. However, she desperately missed her husband and worried about him every day. The fact that he did not call heightened her anxiety.
Four months after she arrived at her sister’s house in Chicago, Katie flew back to Philadelphia, without the baby, for a surprise visit with her husband. Ida objected to her returning so soon, nonetheless, she enjoyed taking care of her nephew and she could not prevent Katie from going.
Katie arrived at the house in the evening. She wanted to surprise Larry. As she unlocked the door she noticed that the lock had some scratches on it – as did the doorjamb.
The house was empty. Larry is probably still at work, she thought, as she climbed the steps to the second floor bedroom. When she got to the landing, she peered into her bedroom and noticed Larry’s legs on the bed.
She got a knot in her stomach.
She walked softly into the room. He snored ever so softly. She smiled, leaned over and kissed him. He awoke; startled at first, then he smiled, grabbed her and kissed her.
“What are you doing here? Why didn’t you tell me you were coming?”
“I wanted to surprise you. You had me a little worried there. “
“Yeah, I normally don’t sleep so soundly. This investigation’s got me goin’ for a few days now, so I took something to help me sleep.”
“I didn’t know what happened,” Katie said with a smile. “I got scared, especially after I saw the scratches on the doorknob and doorjamb. It looked like someone broke in. I thought somebody killed you.”
“Scratches?” Larry asked, a note of concern in his voice. “Whaddaya mean? Show me.”
He quickly got out of bed and walked down the stairway to the front door. Katie was a few steps behind him.
Midway down the stairway they saw the flash of the explosion come up the stairway - neither lived long enough to hear the sound.
Liberal Democrats like to say that if our government took all the money spent on the Iraq war it could pay for health insurance for all of the uinsured.
Well, that may be, however, the Iraq war was a matter of national security. Regardless of what one believes, the purpose of the war was to prevent another terrorist attack.
However, there is something liberal Democrats can do to help the government pay for the uninsured. This won't require changing the insurance status of the 90% of Americans who are very satisfied with the current system.
Liberal Democrats just need to pay their federal income taxes and require that their political representatives do so as well. If Charles Rangel, Tom Daschle, Tim Geithner and other powerful Democratic Party members of the federal government paid their taxes every year - plus their back taxes and penalties - the feds would probably have a couple of million dollars to spend on health insurance for the uinsured. Indeed they could probably provide insurance to about 20,000 uninsured.
Besides these are just the tax cheats we know about. How many Democrats haven't been caught yet?
What about all of these wealthy Democrats who want to help the poor?
If Rangel sold his vacation home in the Dominican and gave the millions to poor people; if Daschle gave the millions of dollars made from his speaking fees to health insurance companies, I wonder how many poor people could receive health insurance.
What is even more interesting is that these Democratic Party tax cheats are not just any old politician. These are the elite of the Democratic Party. These are people who are directly in charges of federal income tax laws.
Rangel is Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. This is the congressional committee that establishes federal income tax laws.
Tom Daschle was the leader of the Senate. He also had influence on income tax laws.
Timothy Geithner is the Secretary of the Treasury and enforces income tax laws.
President Obama chose Geithner and Daschle to be in his cabinet. Daschle was supposed to lead the health insurance reform effort.
None of them paid all of their federal income taxes!!
These people are liberal Democrat leaders who can set good examples for their fellow liberal Democrats. One can only guess how much more tax money the federal government could collect if all the other liberal Democrat tax cheats paid their taxes after Rangel, Geithner and Daschle urged them to do so.
Wasn't it VP Joe Biden who said that paying income taxes was patriotic?
Wasn't it Rep. Nancy Pelosi D- Calif, the Speaker of the House, who said that this will be the most ethical congress in history?
So before Democrats try to "fix" our health insurance system maybe they need to get rid of the corruption, greed and hypocrisy in their own party.
That should keep them busy for at least four more years.
Monday, September 7, 2009
By Michael P. Tremoglie, For The Bulletin
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Rep. Frank Wolf R- Va., told The Bulletin in an exclusive interview, that he fully intends to learn why Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department voluntarily dismissed a lawsuit — for which they already obtained a judgment — against two members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense for violation of the Voting Rights Act that occurred last Election Day in North Philadelphia.Mr. Wolf is the ranking member of the House subcommittee, which has jurisdiction of the Dept. of Justice (DOJ).
He is an unapologetic staunch supporter of the Voting Rights Act. He was the only member - Republican or Democrat - of Virginia’s House delegation to vote for the 1981 Voting Rights Act. He voted for the act’s reauthorization in 2006.
“I voted for the Voting Rights Act in 1981 and received a lot of criticism for doing so,” said Mr. Wolf. “I believe in the Voting Rights Act. I believe there has been a violation of voting rights in this case.”
He is so disturbed about DOJ’s actions that he is considering filing a resolution of inquiry before the House Judiciary Committee, although he expressed his desire that such a drastic measure will not be necessary.
“We're going to force Eric Holder to address this,” Mr. Wolf said. “I do think there is something funny about this. I don't know what it is.”
Mr. Wolf sent a letter to Mr. Holder July 31. He wrote, “The video evidence of the defendants’ behavior on Election Day, as well as a January National Geographic Channel documentary, "Inside: The New Black Panther Party," should leave no question of the defendants’ desire to intimidate or incite violence.”
He also said that the results of the dismissal of this case were serious. “Defendant Jerry Jackson received a new poll watcher certificate … immediately after the case was dismissed… Is that justice served?”Mr. Wolf suspects that the dismissal was politically motivated. He thinks Mr. Holder has politicized the DOJ. He is deeply troubled by this.
“A politicized Justice Department is a dangerous thing,” he said.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog
An August 10, 2009 letter sent to Attorney General Eric Holder by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, contained a stinging rebuke to the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ). A footnote in the letter states that the explanation for the dismissal of a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBP) “is even more corrosive to the rule of law than the dismissal without comment.”
The DOJ filed a lawsuit in January under the Voting Rights Act against the NBP and three of its members alleging the defendants intimidated voters last Election Day. The complaint, filed in federal court in Philadelphia, where the incident occurred, alleged that NBP members Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were stationed at a polling location wearing the uniform of the organization and Mr. Shabazz repeatedly brandished a “police-style baton weapon.”The complaint said NBP Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz confirmed that the placement of Messrs. Shabazz and Jackson was part of a nationwide effort to deploy members at polling locations. The Justice Department initially sought an injunction to prevent any similar future actions.
None of the defendants responded to the lawsuit. However, instead of immediately filing for a default judgment, as is routine, the Obama DOJ filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit for two of the defendants – including Mr. Jackson, who was a Democratic Party poll watcher.
DOJ only obtained an injunction against Samir Shabazz, which was granted on May 18. However, this has been criticized because it contained none of the usual conditions for such a case.
As the Commission’s letter noted, the injunction prevents Mr. Shabazz from brandishing a weapon at a polling place in Philadelphia. They thought it unusual that such an injunction in a voting rights case would only prohibit such a very specific action limited to a specific area.
The Commission’s six page letter was pursuant to two inquiries sent in June to the Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division (CRD). These letters wanted more information about what they said was the “unusual dismissal of the government’s case against most of the defendants in United States v. New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense.” It was signed by the Commission’s chair Gerald A. Reynolds and Vice-Chair, Abigail Thernstrom, as well as four other commissioners.
The commissioners also noted that an earlier reply they received from Portia Robertson, Director of the Office of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison was “non-responsive to our questions.” They elaborated “to the extent it is responsive, it paints the [DOJ] in a poor light.”
They claimed the letter from Ms. Robertson contained some of the “vague conclusions sent to Members of Congress.” A footnote in the letter states that “These conclusions are more than weak. We believe the public rationale offered thus far is even more corrosive to the rule of law than the dismissal without comment.”
They further note that media reports have questioned Ms. King’s involvement in the dismissal of the case and the role of political appointees – specifically naming Associate Attorney General Thomas Perelli. Because of this they want Attorney General Holder to personally direct responses to their inquiries or appoint someone from DOJ who does not have a potential conflict of interest.
The Commission believes that since they are obligated to investigate enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, they are entitled to know the justification for the dismissal. They are seeking the “evidentiary and legal standards” for CRD’s actions.
They also want to compare the actions in this case with other voter intimidation investigations to determine if there was anything unusual about the treatment of this investigation by the CRD.
According to Ms. Thernstrom’s office, the Commission has considered making this incident part of their annual statutory report. This report focuses on a selected area of civil rights enforcement. Last year’s addressed civil rights issues raised by the mortgage crisis.
Other government officials are also demanding answers about this case and speculating that the Obama DOJ has been politicized.
Rep. Frank Wolf, R. Va., said in a July 31 letter to Holder that he can only conclude that the decision to overrule the career attorneys in the CRD and DOJ who argued in favor of continuing the case was “politically motivated.”