Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Racial Profiling OK
The half black, half Hispanic president of the New York State Federation of Taxi Drivers said racial profiling is ok by him. He was quoted in the New York Post after a shooting of another NY taxi driver. Click on title for the link to the NY Post.
Assange Arrested
Julian Assange turned himself in to Scotland Yard today. He was wanted on an Interpol warrant issued by the Public Prosecutor in Gothenburg Sweden. Click on the title for the link.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Liberals Sound Like Nazis - Definitions of "blackness" Disturbing
The spate of pronouncements by liberals of who is a "traitor to their race" or class or group causes one to think of how the Nazis defined who is a true Aryan.
Juan Williams, an African-American journalist who is a Fox News contributor, is routinely called an Uncle Tom - by not only blacks, but, laughably, liberal whites.
Bill Cosby was called an Uncle Tom in 2004 because he said black parents should be investing in education rather than sneakers for their kids.
Rev. C. L. Bryant, a former NAACP official, is called an Uncle Tom because he speaks at Tea Party rallies.
Michael Myers, another former NAACP official, is called an Uncle Tom because he has criticized President Barack Obama.
Even President Barack Obama was called a "magic negro" by a black LA Times columnist because there were questions of his blackness.
Singer Elton John, who is gay, was called a traitor because he performed at the wedding of noted conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh.
This trend of defining who is a true black or a true gay and who is a traitor is disturbing. How can we, as a nation, accept someone defining a black person as a "real black" or not a real black without realzing how analogous this is to the Nazis defining who was a true Aryan?
What are the liberals going to do - show us films of the exact anthropometric proportions of the ideal black like the Nazis did with Aryans?
Will the liberals define who is the "pure" black just as Nazis defines the pure Aryan?
The idea that there is someone who can define which African-Americans are real blacks and who are not is chilling. It is just as ominous to define who is really whatever the group is.
But there are those in the African-American community who are going against this purity campaign. Harvard Law professor, Randall Kennedy wrote a book called "Sellout: The Politics of Racial Betrayal."
During an interview Kennedy said that using the Uncle Tom or Oreo or Sellout label is a way to eliminate dissenting viewpoints. He said, "...it's great weapon of demagogues."
Juan Williams, an African-American journalist who is a Fox News contributor, is routinely called an Uncle Tom - by not only blacks, but, laughably, liberal whites.
Bill Cosby was called an Uncle Tom in 2004 because he said black parents should be investing in education rather than sneakers for their kids.
Rev. C. L. Bryant, a former NAACP official, is called an Uncle Tom because he speaks at Tea Party rallies.
Michael Myers, another former NAACP official, is called an Uncle Tom because he has criticized President Barack Obama.
Even President Barack Obama was called a "magic negro" by a black LA Times columnist because there were questions of his blackness.
Singer Elton John, who is gay, was called a traitor because he performed at the wedding of noted conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh.
This trend of defining who is a true black or a true gay and who is a traitor is disturbing. How can we, as a nation, accept someone defining a black person as a "real black" or not a real black without realzing how analogous this is to the Nazis defining who was a true Aryan?
What are the liberals going to do - show us films of the exact anthropometric proportions of the ideal black like the Nazis did with Aryans?
Will the liberals define who is the "pure" black just as Nazis defines the pure Aryan?
The idea that there is someone who can define which African-Americans are real blacks and who are not is chilling. It is just as ominous to define who is really whatever the group is.
But there are those in the African-American community who are going against this purity campaign. Harvard Law professor, Randall Kennedy wrote a book called "Sellout: The Politics of Racial Betrayal."
During an interview Kennedy said that using the Uncle Tom or Oreo or Sellout label is a way to eliminate dissenting viewpoints. He said, "...it's great weapon of demagogues."
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Obama's Zeal to Divide America for Political Gain
President Barack Obama spent much of his campaign talking about unifying the country. But he has spent much of his administration dividing the country.
The most recent manifestation of this has been his reaction to the new Arizona law regarding illegal immigration. He has already pronounced it a possible violation of civil rights. He has claimed it is totalitarian.
His Attorney General Eric Holder has already stated the possibility of legal action by the Justice Department. He claims that the law might lead to racial profiling and other similar violations.
But Eric Holder has not yet read the law. He is so anxious to make a political issue of this law by appealing to prejudices - and to tar Republicans, conservatives, law enforcement and the citizens of Arizona as racist - he did not bother to read the law.
Democrats know that they will have a potentially disastrous election for them in November. The only thing they can do is fearmonger and hatemonger. They are lacking any ideas that are positive.
So they do what they always do - cry racism.
The most recent manifestation of this has been his reaction to the new Arizona law regarding illegal immigration. He has already pronounced it a possible violation of civil rights. He has claimed it is totalitarian.
His Attorney General Eric Holder has already stated the possibility of legal action by the Justice Department. He claims that the law might lead to racial profiling and other similar violations.
But Eric Holder has not yet read the law. He is so anxious to make a political issue of this law by appealing to prejudices - and to tar Republicans, conservatives, law enforcement and the citizens of Arizona as racist - he did not bother to read the law.
Democrats know that they will have a potentially disastrous election for them in November. The only thing they can do is fearmonger and hatemonger. They are lacking any ideas that are positive.
So they do what they always do - cry racism.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Arizona Recognizes Real Racism
The Arizona legislature and Gov. Jan Brewer recognize real racism when they see it. She signed a bill prohibiting school districts from conducting courses that promote resentment of a particular race or group. The bill states Arizona school students "should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people.''
Unfortunately many "ethnic studies" and "gender studies" programs in schools are nothing more than courses that are tendentious scholarship designed to stoke hatred of one group.
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/education/precollegiate/article_10fb594b-cca6-5a3f-a65e-9689f1e963bb.html
Unfortunately many "ethnic studies" and "gender studies" programs in schools are nothing more than courses that are tendentious scholarship designed to stoke hatred of one group.
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/education/precollegiate/article_10fb594b-cca6-5a3f-a65e-9689f1e963bb.html
Liberal Fearmongering and Hatemongering Part I
Regarding all the criticism by liberals about the Arizona illegal immigration law, I would like someone to call this criticism what it really is:
Typical liberal,leftwing Democratic Party hatemongering and fearmongering.
The critics say if one supports the law one is racist.
They say that if an Hispanic is walking down the street going to the grocery store, the police will come, scoop them up and cart them off to jail, forever, just because they are Hispanic.
Such lies and deceit. This is nothing more than hatemongering and fearmongering which is what liberal Democrats always do.
Yet, no conservative commentator or politician has labeled this as such.
This is why Republicans have a tough time winning the debates.
Watch this video and listen to the Hispanics in the audience essentially say the police are racists and that they will lose their liberties because they are Hispanic.
http://www.mofopolitics.com/2010/05/11/video-frank-luntz-focus-group-on-arizona-immigration-law/
Typical liberal,leftwing Democratic Party hatemongering and fearmongering.
The critics say if one supports the law one is racist.
They say that if an Hispanic is walking down the street going to the grocery store, the police will come, scoop them up and cart them off to jail, forever, just because they are Hispanic.
Such lies and deceit. This is nothing more than hatemongering and fearmongering which is what liberal Democrats always do.
Yet, no conservative commentator or politician has labeled this as such.
This is why Republicans have a tough time winning the debates.
Watch this video and listen to the Hispanics in the audience essentially say the police are racists and that they will lose their liberties because they are Hispanic.
http://www.mofopolitics.com/2010/05/11/video-frank-luntz-focus-group-on-arizona-immigration-law/
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Beck and Olbermann Get It Wrong
Miranda not Constitutional Right, Americans Can Be Tried by Military Tribunal
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Anytime MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and Fox News’ Glenn Beck agree on an issue, then one must examine said issue very critically. Because it is very likely they are misinforming the American public.
Such is the case regarding the controversy of providing Miranda warnings to Times Square bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad. Both claimed Shahzad was obligated to receive the warnings because he is an American citizen. They both claimed that not providing Miranda warnings was the denial of Constitutional rights.
This is not true.
Apparently both watch too many police television dramas. Ironically, as a former police officer, one with a graduate degree in Criminal Justice and one who has been writing about law enforcement issues for the past fifteen years, I know that the Miranda warning is not a Constitutional right.
But ignorance is bliss and Keith Olbermann is a very happy man. Olbermann’s clownish antics have drawn ridicule from other liberals – most notably comedian Jon Stewart.
During his May 4, 2010 show Olbermann, a journalistic Elmer Gantry, chastised Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.), a man who heroically served his country, by saying McCain was shaming those who served their country.
Why?
Because Sen. McCain objected to Shahzad receiving Miranda warnings after being arrested. He felt the terrorist suspect should have been interrogated more before providing him counsel.
The righteously indignant Olbermann said this was un-American. He said, loudly, Shahzad, as an American citizen, could not be denied his Miranda rights.
According to Olbermann, a failure to do so means that one day McCain could be arrested and imprisoned without warning in an America that has suddenly become a totalitarian state.
Olbermann’s assertions are not true. He displayed his ignorance and a lack of faith in, and contempt for, American law and the American political process. His “slippery slope” argument is a well-known fallacy.
But the leftwing Olbermann was not the only one who was part of the misinformation campaign. Many on the right are just as clueless.
Glenn Beck, that same day, passionately beseeched his listening audience to listen to our Founding Fathers and not stray from the Constitution just because of the fear of terrorism.
Beck invoked the Founders to implore Americans not to let fear infringe on civil liberties. Shahzad is an American citizen; he said and therefore entitled to all the rights of American citizens. This includes being given Miranda warnings.
During a Fox news interview Beck also said, “He's a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the Constitution on citizens.” He also went on to say that Miranda warnings are a right in the Constitution.
Once again these assertions are totally false.
Conservative blogger Ed Morrissey went one step further. He said that since Shahzad is an American citizen arrested on American soil, military tribunals “are out of the question.”
This too is not true:
Let me provide some clarification about Miranda warnings.
No less an expert on the Constitution than Justice William Rehnquist wrote that Miranda is not a Constitutional right in his majority opinion deciding the 1984 Supreme Court case New York v. Quarles.
Rehnquist said, “Miranda warnings therefore are "not themselves rights protected by the Constitution but [are] instead measures to insure that the right against compulsory self-incrimination [is] protected.”’ (Emphasis added).
There are also three exceptions to Miranda warnings. One of them is applicable in this case.
If there is a question of public safety – in other words if there are exigent circumstances – Miranda warnings need not be immediately provided. They will be required later.
But under no circumstances would Shahzad have been denied Constitutional rights had he not been Mirandized. Indeed President Obama had the authority to declare him an unlawful combatant and that would be all that it took.
So, all the ringing of hands and mashing of teeth, about the concern for violating the Constitutional rights of a terrorist suspect, is mere ignorance and fear mongering.
Let me also clarify this assertion that military tribunals are prohibited.
Prof. Jeffrey Addicot, is a professor of law at St. Mary’s University Law School in Texas. He is also the Director of the Counterterrorism Center at St. Mary University in Texas.
An active duty Army officer in the Judge Advocate General's Corps for twenty years (he retired in 2000 at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel), Professor Addicott spent a quarter of his career as a senior legal advisor to the United States Army's Special Forces. He is an internationally recognized authority on national security law, terrorism law and human rights law, Professor Addicott not only lectures and participates in professional and academic organizations both in the United States and abroad.
He said there is plenty of law, sanctioned by the courts, and certainly Constitutional to deny Miranda warnings and Constitutional protections to terrorist suspects. This is true even if the suspect is an American citizen captured in the United States.
Addicott cited the case of Ex Parte Quirin. This involved an American citizen, Herbert Haupt, who was executed, after being tried by a military tribunal, during World War II. Haupt was convicted of being a Nazi German saboteur when he returned to the United States in 1942 planning to destroy war industries.
Americans must be careful that in their zeal to protect civil liberties, their paranoia about slippery slopes to totalitarianism, they do not trample on common sense and the Constitution of the United States.
The next time Beck wants to invoke the Founding Fathers maybe he should heed the words of the first Chief Justice of the United States, John Jay, who wrote in Federalist Number 3, “Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their SAFETY seems to be the first.”
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Anytime MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and Fox News’ Glenn Beck agree on an issue, then one must examine said issue very critically. Because it is very likely they are misinforming the American public.
Such is the case regarding the controversy of providing Miranda warnings to Times Square bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad. Both claimed Shahzad was obligated to receive the warnings because he is an American citizen. They both claimed that not providing Miranda warnings was the denial of Constitutional rights.
This is not true.
Apparently both watch too many police television dramas. Ironically, as a former police officer, one with a graduate degree in Criminal Justice and one who has been writing about law enforcement issues for the past fifteen years, I know that the Miranda warning is not a Constitutional right.
But ignorance is bliss and Keith Olbermann is a very happy man. Olbermann’s clownish antics have drawn ridicule from other liberals – most notably comedian Jon Stewart.
During his May 4, 2010 show Olbermann, a journalistic Elmer Gantry, chastised Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.), a man who heroically served his country, by saying McCain was shaming those who served their country.
Why?
Because Sen. McCain objected to Shahzad receiving Miranda warnings after being arrested. He felt the terrorist suspect should have been interrogated more before providing him counsel.
The righteously indignant Olbermann said this was un-American. He said, loudly, Shahzad, as an American citizen, could not be denied his Miranda rights.
According to Olbermann, a failure to do so means that one day McCain could be arrested and imprisoned without warning in an America that has suddenly become a totalitarian state.
Olbermann’s assertions are not true. He displayed his ignorance and a lack of faith in, and contempt for, American law and the American political process. His “slippery slope” argument is a well-known fallacy.
But the leftwing Olbermann was not the only one who was part of the misinformation campaign. Many on the right are just as clueless.
Glenn Beck, that same day, passionately beseeched his listening audience to listen to our Founding Fathers and not stray from the Constitution just because of the fear of terrorism.
Beck invoked the Founders to implore Americans not to let fear infringe on civil liberties. Shahzad is an American citizen; he said and therefore entitled to all the rights of American citizens. This includes being given Miranda warnings.
During a Fox news interview Beck also said, “He's a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the Constitution on citizens.” He also went on to say that Miranda warnings are a right in the Constitution.
Once again these assertions are totally false.
Conservative blogger Ed Morrissey went one step further. He said that since Shahzad is an American citizen arrested on American soil, military tribunals “are out of the question.”
This too is not true:
Let me provide some clarification about Miranda warnings.
No less an expert on the Constitution than Justice William Rehnquist wrote that Miranda is not a Constitutional right in his majority opinion deciding the 1984 Supreme Court case New York v. Quarles.
Rehnquist said, “Miranda warnings therefore are "not themselves rights protected by the Constitution but [are] instead measures to insure that the right against compulsory self-incrimination [is] protected.”’ (Emphasis added).
There are also three exceptions to Miranda warnings. One of them is applicable in this case.
If there is a question of public safety – in other words if there are exigent circumstances – Miranda warnings need not be immediately provided. They will be required later.
But under no circumstances would Shahzad have been denied Constitutional rights had he not been Mirandized. Indeed President Obama had the authority to declare him an unlawful combatant and that would be all that it took.
So, all the ringing of hands and mashing of teeth, about the concern for violating the Constitutional rights of a terrorist suspect, is mere ignorance and fear mongering.
Let me also clarify this assertion that military tribunals are prohibited.
Prof. Jeffrey Addicot, is a professor of law at St. Mary’s University Law School in Texas. He is also the Director of the Counterterrorism Center at St. Mary University in Texas.
An active duty Army officer in the Judge Advocate General's Corps for twenty years (he retired in 2000 at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel), Professor Addicott spent a quarter of his career as a senior legal advisor to the United States Army's Special Forces. He is an internationally recognized authority on national security law, terrorism law and human rights law, Professor Addicott not only lectures and participates in professional and academic organizations both in the United States and abroad.
He said there is plenty of law, sanctioned by the courts, and certainly Constitutional to deny Miranda warnings and Constitutional protections to terrorist suspects. This is true even if the suspect is an American citizen captured in the United States.
Addicott cited the case of Ex Parte Quirin. This involved an American citizen, Herbert Haupt, who was executed, after being tried by a military tribunal, during World War II. Haupt was convicted of being a Nazi German saboteur when he returned to the United States in 1942 planning to destroy war industries.
Americans must be careful that in their zeal to protect civil liberties, their paranoia about slippery slopes to totalitarianism, they do not trample on common sense and the Constitution of the United States.
The next time Beck wants to invoke the Founding Fathers maybe he should heed the words of the first Chief Justice of the United States, John Jay, who wrote in Federalist Number 3, “Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their SAFETY seems to be the first.”
Friday, April 16, 2010
Liberal Hypocrisy: Taking Our Country Back
They need to ask Howard Dean.
Chris Matthews wants to know what the phrase "take our country back" means when Sarah Palin and Tea Partiers say it. The Washington Post says it shows how angry and dangerous the Tea Party movement and Sarah Palin are. Judy Woodruff says it is "anger like this"
Liberals and Democrats are outraged when Sarah Palin and Tea Party speakers use the phrase "Take our country back." They imply that it is "divisive." It shows that Republicans and conservatives are nothing but haters. They say it means Republicans are racist.
So all the white liberal commentators at MSNBC want to know what "Take our country back means" do they? All the black liberals of the Congressional Black Caucus and the white liberals at the Democratic National Committee say it is code for racism and if it is not what does it mean.
Well maybe they should ask the former head of the Democratic National Committee Howard Dean, who first used the phrase when he dropped out of the Democratic Party primary presidential race in 2004. Later that year wrote a book with that title.
http://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Power-Country-Democracy/dp/0743270134
Liberal Democrats and their propagandists like Chris Matthews are the most hypocritical people on the face of the planet.They try to demonize conservatives and Republicans by asking what they mean by saying they want to take our country back. They say it means that Republicans are engaging in hate speech.
Unfortunately, Republicans are too ignoratnt to remember that Howard Dean used this phrase before any Tea Partiers or Sarah Palin. If they did they would call Matthews and the other liberals on it.
Chris Matthews wants to know what the phrase "take our country back" means when Sarah Palin and Tea Partiers say it. The Washington Post says it shows how angry and dangerous the Tea Party movement and Sarah Palin are. Judy Woodruff says it is "anger like this"
Liberals and Democrats are outraged when Sarah Palin and Tea Party speakers use the phrase "Take our country back." They imply that it is "divisive." It shows that Republicans and conservatives are nothing but haters. They say it means Republicans are racist.
So all the white liberal commentators at MSNBC want to know what "Take our country back means" do they? All the black liberals of the Congressional Black Caucus and the white liberals at the Democratic National Committee say it is code for racism and if it is not what does it mean.
Well maybe they should ask the former head of the Democratic National Committee Howard Dean, who first used the phrase when he dropped out of the Democratic Party primary presidential race in 2004. Later that year wrote a book with that title.
http://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Power-Country-Democracy/dp/0743270134
Liberal Democrats and their propagandists like Chris Matthews are the most hypocritical people on the face of the planet.They try to demonize conservatives and Republicans by asking what they mean by saying they want to take our country back. They say it means that Republicans are engaging in hate speech.
Unfortunately, Republicans are too ignoratnt to remember that Howard Dean used this phrase before any Tea Partiers or Sarah Palin. If they did they would call Matthews and the other liberals on it.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
The Liberal Media and the Pope
Fervent Marxist and atheist extraordinaire, journalist Christopher Hitchens wants to arrest Pope Benedict for crimes against humanity. This is the same Christopher Hitchens who defended Noam Chomsky's Cambodian holocaust denial.
It is interesting that Stalin was directly responsible for killing tens of millions and the world media was silent.
Pol Pot killed millions and a leftwing liberal icons Noam Chomsky and Jane Fonda denied it and the media backed them.
Roman Polanski committed the very same crime these priests did and admitted it but the world media and the entertainment industry stood behind him.
The New York Times - in a story I broke - spiked information they had about possible election law violations committed by the Obama campaign because it would adversely affect Obama's chances of being elected - but excoriates Pope Benedict.
School teachers abuse kids and teacher's unions back them and the media is silent
But let the Catholic Church do something similar and now the world media wants to hang the Pope.
It couldn't be the world media's double standard is the result of their pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage and pro-socialism could it?
It is interesting that Stalin was directly responsible for killing tens of millions and the world media was silent.
Pol Pot killed millions and a leftwing liberal icons Noam Chomsky and Jane Fonda denied it and the media backed them.
Roman Polanski committed the very same crime these priests did and admitted it but the world media and the entertainment industry stood behind him.
The New York Times - in a story I broke - spiked information they had about possible election law violations committed by the Obama campaign because it would adversely affect Obama's chances of being elected - but excoriates Pope Benedict.
School teachers abuse kids and teacher's unions back them and the media is silent
But let the Catholic Church do something similar and now the world media wants to hang the Pope.
It couldn't be the world media's double standard is the result of their pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage and pro-socialism could it?
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
NY Times' Selective Scandalmongering
The NY Times, which refused to publish scandalous information about the Barack Obama campaign
( http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/03/30/top_stories/doc49d0a73c7f98e547489394.txt),
is more than willing to act as a propagandist for a lawyer suing the Vatican.
This piece from the Wall St. tells the tale, The Times article
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052702304017404575165792228341212.html
( http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/03/30/top_stories/doc49d0a73c7f98e547489394.txt),
is more than willing to act as a propagandist for a lawyer suing the Vatican.
This piece from the Wall St. tells the tale, The Times article
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052702304017404575165792228341212.html
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
The Barack Obama Myth
I was recently reminded how prescient I was in predicting in Aug 2004 that Barack Obama was a future star in the Democratic Party and very liberal. Now if I can only do as well in the stock market...
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11950
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11950
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Obama Most Divisive President Ever
Has there ever been a more divisive president than Barack Hussein Obama? He has tried to divide Americans by race, by class and by religion and now he is challenging the states to sue the federal government by saying " bring it on."
When George W. Bush used that phrase to challenge the terrorists, the Democrats said he was being belligerent to **terrorists.**
When George W. Bush used that phrase to challenge the terrorists, the Democrats said he was being belligerent to **terrorists.**
Thursday, March 18, 2010
NCAA Predictions
Sweet 16
Kansas, MSU, Georgetown, OSU, Syracuse ( which I spell correctly unlike the smartest president ever Barack Hussein Obama), Vanderbilt, Pittsburgh, Kansas St, Kentucky, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Clemson, Duke, Texas A&M, Baylor, Villanova
Elite 8
Kansas, OSU, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Kentucky, New Mexico, Duke, Villanova
Final Four
Kansas, Pitt, Kentucky, Duke
Final
Pitt, Duke
#1
Duke
Kansas, MSU, Georgetown, OSU, Syracuse ( which I spell correctly unlike the smartest president ever Barack Hussein Obama), Vanderbilt, Pittsburgh, Kansas St, Kentucky, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Clemson, Duke, Texas A&M, Baylor, Villanova
Elite 8
Kansas, OSU, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Kentucky, New Mexico, Duke, Villanova
Final Four
Kansas, Pitt, Kentucky, Duke
Final
Pitt, Duke
#1
Duke
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Dems Having Orgasms about Palin's Hand
A Republican turned Democrat friend of mine sent me a video of the Daily Show ( for which his son is a producer). The clip shows the host Jon Stewart ridiculing the Tea Party convention and Palin's hand crib notes.
I sent him this reply:
"Check this out! The brilliant Ivy Leaguer, Obama, can't pronounce corpsman correctly - even with a teleprompter. Maybe he should borrow Palin's hand - ROFL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlkK65y_-T4&feature=related
(For you intellectually superior liberal Democrats out there, the 'p' in corpsman is silent. Barack the Brilliant pronounced the 'p' three times during his speech with the teleprompter).
Speaking of serving in uniform, Obama was never a member of any uniform service (unless you count ACORN). Yet, he sends people off to war. Don't liberal Democrats have a name for people like that? Oh yeah, Chickenhawk. That's what they called Republicans who were like Obama.
So let's review:
Obama is lauded by liberal Democrats as brilliant. Yet he cannot pronounce the word corpsman correctly ( not to mention his 57 states remark and some other gaffes). But nothing was said by Stewart.
Obama sends people to war and never served in the military; liberal Democrats call that being a "chickenhawk." Still nothing said by Stewart.
Mmmm could Stewart be a hypocrite? Nah liberal Democrats are never hypocrites LOL. If you believe that I have some beachfront property in Nebraska to sell you.
No wonder Democrats are getting their clocked cleaned. ( I say this as a registered Democrat)."
I sent him this reply:
"Check this out! The brilliant Ivy Leaguer, Obama, can't pronounce corpsman correctly - even with a teleprompter. Maybe he should borrow Palin's hand - ROFL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlkK65y_-T4&feature=related
(For you intellectually superior liberal Democrats out there, the 'p' in corpsman is silent. Barack the Brilliant pronounced the 'p' three times during his speech with the teleprompter).
Speaking of serving in uniform, Obama was never a member of any uniform service (unless you count ACORN). Yet, he sends people off to war. Don't liberal Democrats have a name for people like that? Oh yeah, Chickenhawk. That's what they called Republicans who were like Obama.
So let's review:
Obama is lauded by liberal Democrats as brilliant. Yet he cannot pronounce the word corpsman correctly ( not to mention his 57 states remark and some other gaffes). But nothing was said by Stewart.
Obama sends people to war and never served in the military; liberal Democrats call that being a "chickenhawk." Still nothing said by Stewart.
Mmmm could Stewart be a hypocrite? Nah liberal Democrats are never hypocrites LOL. If you believe that I have some beachfront property in Nebraska to sell you.
No wonder Democrats are getting their clocked cleaned. ( I say this as a registered Democrat)."
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
"Birthers" Like "Truthers" are Looney
I have always believed that the idea that Barack Obama was not eligible to be president because he is not a citizen is lunacy. After spending a couple of hours yesterday arguing the merits of this with some birthers I'm now thoroughly convinced I am correct. The people who subscribe to this theory are misguided, woefully misinformed have too much leisure time and/or have some mental or emotional obsession.
The arguments they offered were:
1- Obama was really born in Hawaii in 1958. Therefore he was not a citizen because Hawaii was not a state yet.
This is patently false. Even if Obama were born in 1958 - which he clearly was not - anyone born in a US territory is a US citizen.
2- Obama has never released his birth certificate.
This is a lie. A copy of the birth certificate was posted to the internet and an official of the Hawaiian state government has verified the authenticity.
3- Numerous Birthers told me that a Supreme Court case, US v Wong Kim Ark, established the definiton of "natural born" citizen. This is important to one of the birther arguments. "Natural born" - is a term used in the Constitution of the United States as a qualification for presidential eligibility.
The birtheers assertion that US v. Wong Kim Ark is hilarious and illustrates just how misinformed and/or fanatical birthers are. Not only did this case NOT define natural born citizen, Justice Gray who wrote the majority opinion specifically stated that the Constitution doesn't define "natural born."
Birthers believe that Obama is not a natural born citizen - that he was born in Kenya. Now, even if true, from what I understand, since his mother was a US citizen and she met certain residential requirements he would still be a citizen. This is according to the US code.
However, birthers want people to believe that the US code defining citizenship is unconstitutional. The term "natural born" is the only thing that matters.
None of this is true. Obama was born in the US and Wong didn't define 'natural born.'
4- Birthers said both Obama's parents had to be US citizens for him to be a citizen.
Again this illustrates just how misinformed birthers are. It is only necessary that one parent be a citizen.
So to sum it up - "birthers" believe in a lie (Obama wasn't born in Hawaii) and can't prove what the definition of "natural born" means.
They are simply chasing moonbeams.
Now since the real issue becomes credibility let's examine who is leading the Obama is not a citizen movement and who believes he is a citizen.
You tell me who you trust.
Birthers:
1- The "Obama is not a citizen" was started by a Clinton campaign operative.
2- One of the first lawsuits filed was by a lawyer who is not only a "birther" he is a "truther" too.
So a Clinton campaign operative and a lawyer who is both "birther" and "truther" lead the birther movement.
Anti-Birthers
Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, stated in July 2009 that she saw the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.
This was also the opinion of Factcheck.org, an organization of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. They claim also to have seen the certificate.
American Spectator founder and editor-in-chief R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. has written that his reporters found evidence verifying Obama's citizenship.
Snopes.com a website that debunks internet rumors has also confirmed the birth certificate.
I have personally spoken to citizenship and immigration law experts from the Federalist Society who have told me there is no question Obama is a citizen.
Scholars from the Heritage Foundation have told me the same.
Finally, these lawsuits have been thrown out of every court in the land including the Supreme Court.
Who would you believe?
The scholars, legal experts, publishers, news organizations, independent groups, government officials and judges who think Obama is a citizen and can prove it?
The campaign operatives or lawyers (including one who filed suit against Bush because he claims he caused 9-11) who say Obama is not a citizen and cannot prove it?
The arguments they offered were:
1- Obama was really born in Hawaii in 1958. Therefore he was not a citizen because Hawaii was not a state yet.
This is patently false. Even if Obama were born in 1958 - which he clearly was not - anyone born in a US territory is a US citizen.
2- Obama has never released his birth certificate.
This is a lie. A copy of the birth certificate was posted to the internet and an official of the Hawaiian state government has verified the authenticity.
3- Numerous Birthers told me that a Supreme Court case, US v Wong Kim Ark, established the definiton of "natural born" citizen. This is important to one of the birther arguments. "Natural born" - is a term used in the Constitution of the United States as a qualification for presidential eligibility.
The birtheers assertion that US v. Wong Kim Ark is hilarious and illustrates just how misinformed and/or fanatical birthers are. Not only did this case NOT define natural born citizen, Justice Gray who wrote the majority opinion specifically stated that the Constitution doesn't define "natural born."
Birthers believe that Obama is not a natural born citizen - that he was born in Kenya. Now, even if true, from what I understand, since his mother was a US citizen and she met certain residential requirements he would still be a citizen. This is according to the US code.
However, birthers want people to believe that the US code defining citizenship is unconstitutional. The term "natural born" is the only thing that matters.
None of this is true. Obama was born in the US and Wong didn't define 'natural born.'
4- Birthers said both Obama's parents had to be US citizens for him to be a citizen.
Again this illustrates just how misinformed birthers are. It is only necessary that one parent be a citizen.
So to sum it up - "birthers" believe in a lie (Obama wasn't born in Hawaii) and can't prove what the definition of "natural born" means.
They are simply chasing moonbeams.
Now since the real issue becomes credibility let's examine who is leading the Obama is not a citizen movement and who believes he is a citizen.
You tell me who you trust.
Birthers:
1- The "Obama is not a citizen" was started by a Clinton campaign operative.
2- One of the first lawsuits filed was by a lawyer who is not only a "birther" he is a "truther" too.
So a Clinton campaign operative and a lawyer who is both "birther" and "truther" lead the birther movement.
Anti-Birthers
Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, stated in July 2009 that she saw the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.
This was also the opinion of Factcheck.org, an organization of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. They claim also to have seen the certificate.
American Spectator founder and editor-in-chief R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. has written that his reporters found evidence verifying Obama's citizenship.
Snopes.com a website that debunks internet rumors has also confirmed the birth certificate.
I have personally spoken to citizenship and immigration law experts from the Federalist Society who have told me there is no question Obama is a citizen.
Scholars from the Heritage Foundation have told me the same.
Finally, these lawsuits have been thrown out of every court in the land including the Supreme Court.
Who would you believe?
The scholars, legal experts, publishers, news organizations, independent groups, government officials and judges who think Obama is a citizen and can prove it?
The campaign operatives or lawyers (including one who filed suit against Bush because he claims he caused 9-11) who say Obama is not a citizen and cannot prove it?
Monday, February 1, 2010
Bonfire of the Elites
By MICHAEL P. TREMOGLIE
'NOT ALL populism is bad," writes Kimberly A. Strassel in the Jan. 29 Wall Street Journal.
Presumably, the hoi polloi should be grateful for Ms. Strassel's qualified approval.
Apparently, graduating from Princeton in 1994 with a B.A. in public policy and international affairs, as Ms. Strassel did, gives you the intellectual authority to decide which political beliefs of the man on the street are legitimate.
The pronouncement by Lady Strassel is risible. Why an Ivy League education imbues you with a greater degree of righteousness than those who lack such education is not immediately apparent to anyone who doesn't have one.
The four classic Roman virtues of pietas, fides, collegio and gravitas didn't include any mention of an Ivy League degree or being a Rhodes scholar. After all, the most admired ancient Roman, Cincinnatus, was a farmer.
The habit of the intelligentsia, of both left and right, of using the word "populist" as a synonym for an angry lynch mob is wearisome. They do not so much say the word as spit it out. Or do not so much write it as scrawl it angrily.
The idea that the common man is merely a selfish, ignorant, lazy being - and therefore merely politically petulant - is the worst kind of elitism.
When did that average person become so terribly evil? Did it occur when they started acting together to demand honesty, accountability and competence - and possibly even a little empathy - from those who have economic and political power?
WHY DO THE intelligentsia react so negatively to the actions of regular folks when they demand a standard of political behavior that shouldn't have to be demanded at all?
Perhaps the intelligentsia - both left and right - need to be reminded that in this democratic-capitalist system of ours, those with economic and political power have been granted such by the hoi polloi, which Woodrow Wilson characterized as "submitting to authority."
If they don't believe this, all they need to do is go to the next G8 meeting without the security, which protects the elite from the anarchist mobs who, it sometimes seems from their rhetoric, would just as soon kill the wealthy bankers and powerful politicians as they would break a store window.
No, the courts, the police, the very books on which the law is written, are underwritten by the unstated consent provided by the common man. Without their cooperation, there is no private property, no market, no socialization and no education. There is only whatever you can take and keep by force.
Somehow, you can't imagine Wall Street bankers or journalists like Ms. Strassel obtaining or keeping much by force. No, in the absence of the cooperation of the common man, there are only Pol Pots, Stalins, Hitlers, Maos.
In most political systems, it's the strongest and best organized, not necessarily the most talented, most compassionate or most altruistic, who seize power. They are the leaders of the robber tribes.
This is not to say even democracy U.S.-style is a pure meritocracy, rewarding the most deserving. After all, entertainers and professional athletes are among the best-paid in our society.
The current idea that unless you're excessively educated, or wealthy in a certain way, you're probably too stupid to act in your own best interests, is a disgrace. The conservative and liberal elite need to remember that they govern only by consent of the people.
We defer to the elites on certain issues - repeat, certain issues - because of their specific technical qualifications and talents. But education - even a prestigious one - does not make them omniscient, or automatically endow them with common sense. We grant the elite certain powers - and we can take them back at any time.
Unfortunately, the elite keep forgetting this. Once again, Lady Strassel's column illustrates that there's very little difference between the conservative Republican elite and the liberal Democratic one.
Michael P. Tremoglie is the author of the novel "A Sense of Duty," available at Barnesandnoble.com and Atlantic Bookstores. He is working on a new book about political correctness in law enforcement
'NOT ALL populism is bad," writes Kimberly A. Strassel in the Jan. 29 Wall Street Journal.
Presumably, the hoi polloi should be grateful for Ms. Strassel's qualified approval.
Apparently, graduating from Princeton in 1994 with a B.A. in public policy and international affairs, as Ms. Strassel did, gives you the intellectual authority to decide which political beliefs of the man on the street are legitimate.
The pronouncement by Lady Strassel is risible. Why an Ivy League education imbues you with a greater degree of righteousness than those who lack such education is not immediately apparent to anyone who doesn't have one.
The four classic Roman virtues of pietas, fides, collegio and gravitas didn't include any mention of an Ivy League degree or being a Rhodes scholar. After all, the most admired ancient Roman, Cincinnatus, was a farmer.
The habit of the intelligentsia, of both left and right, of using the word "populist" as a synonym for an angry lynch mob is wearisome. They do not so much say the word as spit it out. Or do not so much write it as scrawl it angrily.
The idea that the common man is merely a selfish, ignorant, lazy being - and therefore merely politically petulant - is the worst kind of elitism.
When did that average person become so terribly evil? Did it occur when they started acting together to demand honesty, accountability and competence - and possibly even a little empathy - from those who have economic and political power?
WHY DO THE intelligentsia react so negatively to the actions of regular folks when they demand a standard of political behavior that shouldn't have to be demanded at all?
Perhaps the intelligentsia - both left and right - need to be reminded that in this democratic-capitalist system of ours, those with economic and political power have been granted such by the hoi polloi, which Woodrow Wilson characterized as "submitting to authority."
If they don't believe this, all they need to do is go to the next G8 meeting without the security, which protects the elite from the anarchist mobs who, it sometimes seems from their rhetoric, would just as soon kill the wealthy bankers and powerful politicians as they would break a store window.
No, the courts, the police, the very books on which the law is written, are underwritten by the unstated consent provided by the common man. Without their cooperation, there is no private property, no market, no socialization and no education. There is only whatever you can take and keep by force.
Somehow, you can't imagine Wall Street bankers or journalists like Ms. Strassel obtaining or keeping much by force. No, in the absence of the cooperation of the common man, there are only Pol Pots, Stalins, Hitlers, Maos.
In most political systems, it's the strongest and best organized, not necessarily the most talented, most compassionate or most altruistic, who seize power. They are the leaders of the robber tribes.
This is not to say even democracy U.S.-style is a pure meritocracy, rewarding the most deserving. After all, entertainers and professional athletes are among the best-paid in our society.
The current idea that unless you're excessively educated, or wealthy in a certain way, you're probably too stupid to act in your own best interests, is a disgrace. The conservative and liberal elite need to remember that they govern only by consent of the people.
We defer to the elites on certain issues - repeat, certain issues - because of their specific technical qualifications and talents. But education - even a prestigious one - does not make them omniscient, or automatically endow them with common sense. We grant the elite certain powers - and we can take them back at any time.
Unfortunately, the elite keep forgetting this. Once again, Lady Strassel's column illustrates that there's very little difference between the conservative Republican elite and the liberal Democratic one.
Michael P. Tremoglie is the author of the novel "A Sense of Duty," available at Barnesandnoble.com and Atlantic Bookstores. He is working on a new book about political correctness in law enforcement
Friday, January 29, 2010
Hearing Set for New Black Panther Case
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog
The United States Commission on Civil Rights (CRC) announced that it will hold a public hearing on February 12, 2010, regarding the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. Its purpose is to collect information within the jurisdiction of the Commission related particularly to the Department of Justice's actions in the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) and enforcement of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act.
The CRC wants to know the reason the DOJ dismissed voter intimidation charges in May against members of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) after they had already won a default judgment in the civil suit filed in January.
Two members of the New Black Panther Party, one armed with a nightstick, stood outside a poll on Fairmount Avenue in North Philadelphia. According to some who were present, they made racial slurs and intimidating gestures. Police were called and the two, Jerry Jackson and Minister King Samir Shabazz were questioned.
Mr. Shabazz, the person carrying the nightstick, was removed from the scene. Mr. Jackson, who is a member of the Democratic Party's 14th Ward Committee and is a credentialed poll watcher and he was allowed to remain. The Philadelphia District Attorney’s office did not file criminal charges.
The incident was filmed by a University of Pennsylvania student affiliated with Electionjournal.org and Fox News Channel. The videos can be seen on youtube.com. Electionjournal.org, according to their website, is "an online community dedicated to raising public awareness of vote fraud and election irregularities.... (ABC News') Jake Tapper called Election Journal “an organic melange of media, citizenry, community and watchdog."
One of the witnesses will be Chris Hill, a Republican poll watcher. He told The Bulletin that one of the Republican poll watchers felt intimidated.
“He was inside the building and he refused to stand outside with the two New Black Panthers,” he said.
There will be other witnesses who can testify to the facts of the case. Also a video of the incident will be shown.
One person’s testimony which has been sought is that of J. Christian Adams the career Civil Rights Division prosecutor who compiled the voter intimidation case against the NBPP will testify. It is not known if Mr. Adams will testify. Allegations have been made that there were political motivations in dismissing the case. It is felt Mr. Adams could verify or disprove this.
The DOJ has taken the unusual step of instructing its people not comply with subpoenas issued by the Commission. A memo by DOJ to CRC General Counsel David Blackwood said it objects to the questions asked.
The DOJ has repeatedly refused to provide information requested about this case not only by the CRC, but by Congressman Frank Wolf ( R-Va.), as well as, Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Tx.). Mr. Wolf sent a letter January 26 to Glenn Fine the DOJ Inspector General.
He said, “I have been disappointed by your reluctance to investigate the unfounded dismissal of an important voter intimidation case, U.S. v. New Black Panther Party. As you may recall, this case was inexplicably dismissed last year -- over the ardent objections of the career attorneys overseeing the case as well as the division’s own appeal office. Despite repeated requests for information by members of Congress, the press, and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continues to stonewall all efforts to obtain information regarding the case’s abrupt dismissal. This obstruction should be of great concern to you and merit an immediate investigation.”
Mr. Wolf will appear at the hearing, which will be held at 624 9th St., N.W. Room 540, Washington, DC 20425. It is open to the public and the media.
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog
The United States Commission on Civil Rights (CRC) announced that it will hold a public hearing on February 12, 2010, regarding the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. Its purpose is to collect information within the jurisdiction of the Commission related particularly to the Department of Justice's actions in the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) and enforcement of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act.
The CRC wants to know the reason the DOJ dismissed voter intimidation charges in May against members of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) after they had already won a default judgment in the civil suit filed in January.
Two members of the New Black Panther Party, one armed with a nightstick, stood outside a poll on Fairmount Avenue in North Philadelphia. According to some who were present, they made racial slurs and intimidating gestures. Police were called and the two, Jerry Jackson and Minister King Samir Shabazz were questioned.
Mr. Shabazz, the person carrying the nightstick, was removed from the scene. Mr. Jackson, who is a member of the Democratic Party's 14th Ward Committee and is a credentialed poll watcher and he was allowed to remain. The Philadelphia District Attorney’s office did not file criminal charges.
The incident was filmed by a University of Pennsylvania student affiliated with Electionjournal.org and Fox News Channel. The videos can be seen on youtube.com. Electionjournal.org, according to their website, is "an online community dedicated to raising public awareness of vote fraud and election irregularities.... (ABC News') Jake Tapper called Election Journal “an organic melange of media, citizenry, community and watchdog."
One of the witnesses will be Chris Hill, a Republican poll watcher. He told The Bulletin that one of the Republican poll watchers felt intimidated.
“He was inside the building and he refused to stand outside with the two New Black Panthers,” he said.
There will be other witnesses who can testify to the facts of the case. Also a video of the incident will be shown.
One person’s testimony which has been sought is that of J. Christian Adams the career Civil Rights Division prosecutor who compiled the voter intimidation case against the NBPP will testify. It is not known if Mr. Adams will testify. Allegations have been made that there were political motivations in dismissing the case. It is felt Mr. Adams could verify or disprove this.
The DOJ has taken the unusual step of instructing its people not comply with subpoenas issued by the Commission. A memo by DOJ to CRC General Counsel David Blackwood said it objects to the questions asked.
The DOJ has repeatedly refused to provide information requested about this case not only by the CRC, but by Congressman Frank Wolf ( R-Va.), as well as, Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Tx.). Mr. Wolf sent a letter January 26 to Glenn Fine the DOJ Inspector General.
He said, “I have been disappointed by your reluctance to investigate the unfounded dismissal of an important voter intimidation case, U.S. v. New Black Panther Party. As you may recall, this case was inexplicably dismissed last year -- over the ardent objections of the career attorneys overseeing the case as well as the division’s own appeal office. Despite repeated requests for information by members of Congress, the press, and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continues to stonewall all efforts to obtain information regarding the case’s abrupt dismissal. This obstruction should be of great concern to you and merit an immediate investigation.”
Mr. Wolf will appear at the hearing, which will be held at 624 9th St., N.W. Room 540, Washington, DC 20425. It is open to the public and the media.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
1995 - Time Magazine Called Limbaugh Rejection of Bailout "Populist"
From Feb 1995 edition of Time magazine.
"The phone call reached Rush Limbaugh at his studio shortly before he went on the air at noon, but this time the person on the other end of the line was not Bob, a machinist from Dayton, Ohio, or Dorothy, a housewife from Tucson, Arizona. It was Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve and the second most powerful man in Washington, calling Limbaugh to lobby for Bill Clinton's $40 billion rescue package for Mexico. The 10-min. chat, which took place four weeks ago, was cordial enough but left the folk hero of the kilohertz unmoved. As Limbaugh advised his 20 million listeners last week, ``President Clinton is very decisive in giving away our money and taking away our rights.''
It was this kind of populist blast--a picture painted by Limbaughs and cartoonists across the U.S. of a President extending a hand to Wall Street and ailing foreign countries--that convinced Clinton he had to bypass Congress altogether. With the Mexican peso sliding, only $3.5 billion left in Mexican currency reserves and financial markets throughout Latin America on the brink of collapse, the President last week invoked his executive authority to grant Mexico $20 billion in loans and loan guarantees as the centerpiece of a coordinated bailout. Following Washington's lead, the International Monetary Fund agreed to provide Mexico with a further $17.8 billion, and the Swiss- based Bank for International Settlements kicked in an additional $10 billion.
By the time Clinton acted, the political paralysis in Washington had become almost as threatening as the economic trouble in Mexico. If a plan supported by the President, the Fed chairman and the heads of both houses were rebuffed, the result ``would be perceived in the rest of the world as leadership anarchy,'' in the words of Robert Hormats, the vice chairman of international operations for Goldman Sachs. For Clinton, the overriding goal was to prevent a financial crisis whose victims could have included up to 700,000 Americans holding jobs tied to exports to Mexico. In the past six weeks, U.S. manufacturers have already sharply pared their forecasts for Mexican business; Ford chairman Alex Trotman conceded last week that his company's plans to double exports to Mexico in 1995 were now just ``a pipe dream.'' Instead, the industry expects total Mexican sales to fall by one-third from last year's total of 600,000 vehicles.
In the short term, the U.S.-led rescue saved Mexico from defaulting on $26 billion of the government's Tesobonos bonds that come due this year--a disaster that would have driven the vast majority of foreign investors out of the country and much of the rest of Latin America. With the threat of default averted, the Administration argues, Mexico can begin to restore itself to health. Says Treasury Under Secretary Lawrence Summers: ``The success of Mexico's economy now rests on Mexico.''
But that's just what disturbs many critics of the bailout, who regard Mexico as a stumble-prone country that will inevitably be back for another tourniquet. ``We're bailing out a Mexican government that has mismanaged its economic affairs for as long as I've been an adult,'' says Democratic Representative Marcy Kaptur, a leading opponent of the rescue plan."
"The phone call reached Rush Limbaugh at his studio shortly before he went on the air at noon, but this time the person on the other end of the line was not Bob, a machinist from Dayton, Ohio, or Dorothy, a housewife from Tucson, Arizona. It was Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve and the second most powerful man in Washington, calling Limbaugh to lobby for Bill Clinton's $40 billion rescue package for Mexico. The 10-min. chat, which took place four weeks ago, was cordial enough but left the folk hero of the kilohertz unmoved. As Limbaugh advised his 20 million listeners last week, ``President Clinton is very decisive in giving away our money and taking away our rights.''
It was this kind of populist blast--a picture painted by Limbaughs and cartoonists across the U.S. of a President extending a hand to Wall Street and ailing foreign countries--that convinced Clinton he had to bypass Congress altogether. With the Mexican peso sliding, only $3.5 billion left in Mexican currency reserves and financial markets throughout Latin America on the brink of collapse, the President last week invoked his executive authority to grant Mexico $20 billion in loans and loan guarantees as the centerpiece of a coordinated bailout. Following Washington's lead, the International Monetary Fund agreed to provide Mexico with a further $17.8 billion, and the Swiss- based Bank for International Settlements kicked in an additional $10 billion.
By the time Clinton acted, the political paralysis in Washington had become almost as threatening as the economic trouble in Mexico. If a plan supported by the President, the Fed chairman and the heads of both houses were rebuffed, the result ``would be perceived in the rest of the world as leadership anarchy,'' in the words of Robert Hormats, the vice chairman of international operations for Goldman Sachs. For Clinton, the overriding goal was to prevent a financial crisis whose victims could have included up to 700,000 Americans holding jobs tied to exports to Mexico. In the past six weeks, U.S. manufacturers have already sharply pared their forecasts for Mexican business; Ford chairman Alex Trotman conceded last week that his company's plans to double exports to Mexico in 1995 were now just ``a pipe dream.'' Instead, the industry expects total Mexican sales to fall by one-third from last year's total of 600,000 vehicles.
In the short term, the U.S.-led rescue saved Mexico from defaulting on $26 billion of the government's Tesobonos bonds that come due this year--a disaster that would have driven the vast majority of foreign investors out of the country and much of the rest of Latin America. With the threat of default averted, the Administration argues, Mexico can begin to restore itself to health. Says Treasury Under Secretary Lawrence Summers: ``The success of Mexico's economy now rests on Mexico.''
But that's just what disturbs many critics of the bailout, who regard Mexico as a stumble-prone country that will inevitably be back for another tourniquet. ``We're bailing out a Mexican government that has mismanaged its economic affairs for as long as I've been an adult,'' says Democratic Representative Marcy Kaptur, a leading opponent of the rescue plan."
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Geithner Gets Hammered from Both Sides
Mica Calls for Resignation
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog
Rep. John Mica (R.- Fla) and Rep. Steven Lynch (D.-Mass.) berated Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner during his testimony this morning before the House Oversight Committee. Mica called for his resignation.
Geithner is being questioned from both Democrats and Republicans about his relationship to Wall Street. Mica and Lynch zeroed in on the AIG bailout.
Geithner's opening statement and his responses to a sympathetic Paul Kanjorski (D.-Pa.) contained a great degree of righteous indignation. It reminded one of New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli's angry denial of wrongdoing when he was accused of corruption in office, allegations for which he was subsequently convicted.
However, Mr. Mica was not so sympathetic. He said he never wanted Geithner to be Treasury Secretary because he did not "pay his taxes."
Mica wanted Geithner to answer why they should not "ask for his resignation." He questioned Geithner's actions concerning the role of the New York Federal Reserve Bank - of which Geithner was president - in bailing out AIG.
Mica said believed that Geithner's responses " defied credulity."
Mr. Lynch said that he was convinced that Geithner did not act in the best interest of the American people. He cited that when Bear Stearns was going bankrupt the government negotiated a bailout of giving Bear Stearn shareholders " two cents on the dollar." Yet, AIG was given "one hundred cents on the dollar" and that this money was merely a " pass through" to Goldman Sachs, which was the ultimate recipient of the funds.
Geithner repeated that he acted in the best interest of the public. However, Lynch was not buying it and said that Geithner's actions were more indicative of someone working for the interest of wealthy influential people.
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog
Rep. John Mica (R.- Fla) and Rep. Steven Lynch (D.-Mass.) berated Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner during his testimony this morning before the House Oversight Committee. Mica called for his resignation.
Geithner is being questioned from both Democrats and Republicans about his relationship to Wall Street. Mica and Lynch zeroed in on the AIG bailout.
Geithner's opening statement and his responses to a sympathetic Paul Kanjorski (D.-Pa.) contained a great degree of righteous indignation. It reminded one of New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli's angry denial of wrongdoing when he was accused of corruption in office, allegations for which he was subsequently convicted.
However, Mr. Mica was not so sympathetic. He said he never wanted Geithner to be Treasury Secretary because he did not "pay his taxes."
Mica wanted Geithner to answer why they should not "ask for his resignation." He questioned Geithner's actions concerning the role of the New York Federal Reserve Bank - of which Geithner was president - in bailing out AIG.
Mica said believed that Geithner's responses " defied credulity."
Mr. Lynch said that he was convinced that Geithner did not act in the best interest of the American people. He cited that when Bear Stearns was going bankrupt the government negotiated a bailout of giving Bear Stearn shareholders " two cents on the dollar." Yet, AIG was given "one hundred cents on the dollar" and that this money was merely a " pass through" to Goldman Sachs, which was the ultimate recipient of the funds.
Geithner repeated that he acted in the best interest of the public. However, Lynch was not buying it and said that Geithner's actions were more indicative of someone working for the interest of wealthy influential people.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Unequal Protection Under the Law
Obama's Opaque Justice Department
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog
President Barack Hussein Obama promised a transparent government. Thus far, he has delivered an opaque one. Eric Holder's Department of Justice (DOJ) has led the way in this obscurity.
According to Congressman Frank Wolf (R.-Va.), Holder is “stonewalling” his efforts to learn why a voter intimidation case was mysteriously dropped after DOJ already won a civil suit they already filed.
This case involves alleged voter intimidation by members of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) in Philadelphia during the 2008 presidential election. DOJ had already won the lawsuit filed while President Bush was still in office. Yet, mysteriously, inexplicably, the Obama DOJ dropped the case against two of the three NBPP members and the New Black Panther Party.
What bewilders many is the blatant double standard in the application of civil rights laws by DOJ. Some sources have alleged that there are those in the DOJ Civil Rights Division who do not believe in racial neutrality in enforcing civil rights laws. They feel white racism is more egregious than black racism. So while they will pursue cases involving whites, they will not against African-Americans.
Evidence of this exists by recent actions of the DOJ. Last week it monitored an election in Texas for violating minority language requirements and filed suit against a country club for alleged racial discrimination. Yet, this same DOJ refused to proceed with a voter intimidation case against African-Americans.
What is even more disconcerting is that Holder has done everything he could to avoid supplying elected officials and the US Civil Rights Commission they requested. He has consistently refused to furnish Wolf and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tx), both duly elected representatives of the people, with the information they legally seek regarding his decision for the dismissal. He has also instructed his staff to ignore lawful subpoenas from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, which is also investigating this case.
This is very reminiscent of the stonewalling done by the Clinton administration during the Lewinsky investigation. This, however, is much more dire than a President of the United States committing perjury - as serious as that was.
The obfuscation committed by his Attorney General Eric Holder in this case is the most deleterious of all of those committed by the Obama administration. It is more important than not informing the public who visited the White House or who Mr. Obama consulted about banking reform.
It is because without being able to vote - nothing else really matters.
Almost one hundred fifty years ago, President Grant suspended the right of habeas corpus in South Carolina in 1871. He did so to combat the Ku Klux Klan's terrorism, a terrorism that prevented blacks form voting.
How things have changed.
Today the president gives terrorists lawyers instead of suspending habeas corpus and protects violations of the right of whites to vote .
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog
President Barack Hussein Obama promised a transparent government. Thus far, he has delivered an opaque one. Eric Holder's Department of Justice (DOJ) has led the way in this obscurity.
According to Congressman Frank Wolf (R.-Va.), Holder is “stonewalling” his efforts to learn why a voter intimidation case was mysteriously dropped after DOJ already won a civil suit they already filed.
This case involves alleged voter intimidation by members of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) in Philadelphia during the 2008 presidential election. DOJ had already won the lawsuit filed while President Bush was still in office. Yet, mysteriously, inexplicably, the Obama DOJ dropped the case against two of the three NBPP members and the New Black Panther Party.
What bewilders many is the blatant double standard in the application of civil rights laws by DOJ. Some sources have alleged that there are those in the DOJ Civil Rights Division who do not believe in racial neutrality in enforcing civil rights laws. They feel white racism is more egregious than black racism. So while they will pursue cases involving whites, they will not against African-Americans.
Evidence of this exists by recent actions of the DOJ. Last week it monitored an election in Texas for violating minority language requirements and filed suit against a country club for alleged racial discrimination. Yet, this same DOJ refused to proceed with a voter intimidation case against African-Americans.
What is even more disconcerting is that Holder has done everything he could to avoid supplying elected officials and the US Civil Rights Commission they requested. He has consistently refused to furnish Wolf and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tx), both duly elected representatives of the people, with the information they legally seek regarding his decision for the dismissal. He has also instructed his staff to ignore lawful subpoenas from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, which is also investigating this case.
This is very reminiscent of the stonewalling done by the Clinton administration during the Lewinsky investigation. This, however, is much more dire than a President of the United States committing perjury - as serious as that was.
The obfuscation committed by his Attorney General Eric Holder in this case is the most deleterious of all of those committed by the Obama administration. It is more important than not informing the public who visited the White House or who Mr. Obama consulted about banking reform.
It is because without being able to vote - nothing else really matters.
Almost one hundred fifty years ago, President Grant suspended the right of habeas corpus in South Carolina in 1871. He did so to combat the Ku Klux Klan's terrorism, a terrorism that prevented blacks form voting.
How things have changed.
Today the president gives terrorists lawyers instead of suspending habeas corpus and protects violations of the right of whites to vote .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
