Top political news of the day:
GOP Senate leader Urges Caution in Debate on Obama’s Economic Stimulus Measure
Senator Mitch McConnell says he wants to slow consideration of the economic stimulus package Democrats are drafting, warning that the measure sought by President-elect Barack Obama invites wasteful spending.
“A trillion-dollar spending bill would be the largest spending bill in the history of our country at a time when our national debt is already the largest in history,” McConnell says. “As a result, it will require tough scrutiny and oversight. Taxpayers, already stretched to the limit, deserve nothing less.”
McConnell called for giving lawmakers and the public at least one week to review the legislation once it has been written. He also said he wanted Senate committee hearings on the measure, rather than immediate floor consideration.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aCJL4fN0uXow&refer=worldwide
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald wants lawmakers to hear what Gov. Rod Blagojevich said on wiretapped phone calls reports the AP.
Fitzgerald filed paperwork Monday to release conversations caught on wiretaps to the Illinois House panel considering impeachment proceedings.
Federal prosecutors have asked a judge for permission to disclose a limited number of the intercepted conversations in a redacted form.
Blagojevich was arrested Dec. 9 on federal corruption charges. The governor is accused of trying to sell President-elect Barack Obama's vacant U.S. Senate seat to the highest bidder, but he has denied any wrongdoing.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95CJJ6G0&show_article=1
Republican Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken wrangled Monday over hundreds of unopened absentee ballots that could still tip Minnesota's Senate race.
Democrat maneuvering to steal votes continues unabated
Lawyers ended a testy public negotiation session convened by the secretary of state's office without agreement on which ballots to open or how many should be under consideration.
Resolution may come in a series of regional meetings beginning Tuesday.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081229/ap_on_el_se/minnesota_senate
Opinion:
Observers wait to see Obama’s response to the violence in Gaza
It’s an old story in the Middle East – Islamic extremists fire off hundreds of rockets, Israel responds to stop them and much of the world wrings its hands and criticizes Iarael.
Obama and Democrats have paid lip service to supporting Israel – as the Bush Administration has done – but increasing anti Israel sentiment among US liberals raises questions. So does Democrat party rhetoric suggesting they will not oppose our enemies or support our allies.
It’s been noted before – the real winner of the Democrat victory in the US in 2006 was Iran. Given what Democrats ran on, Iran could assume we would sit by even if Iran became expansionist – Democrats were sending signals we wouldn’t even favor stringent means to prevent Iran’s obtaining nukes.
Obama was – well – Obama-like in his discussion of the issue. Early in the campaign as he courted support of his party’s extreme left, Obama was anti military and anti defense. He even went to great lengths to demonstrate he is not patriotic.
He altered his rhetoric of course, but he has tip toed around the question. Obama faces particular exposure because of his middle name and Muslim background of younger days his backers have worked hard to shelter from prying eyes.
Now, its time to face the music.
In a few weeks, Obama will take the controls and will have to deal with the crisis in Israel. Needless to say, his group is hoping the violence will fade away and solve itself. Not likely. Hamas is a certified Islamic terror organization and its violent history leaves no doubt of that fact. Waging war on Israel will bring millions in support from other Islamic regimes such as Iran.
Israel, for its part, must suffer in silence as world opinion condemns Israeli efforts to defend itself and its people. Will Obama stand firm with Israel.
Here’s betting he will not.
Buddy
Top blogs – Overview:
1.
The NEA prolongs the myth of “unfunded federal mandates
the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a lawsuit, backed by the National Education Association (NEA), against the federal government for not "fully funding" the No Child Left Behind law. The NEA may or may not win, but regardless of the outcome, the suit has helped to perpetuate the myth that the federal government burdens the states with unfunded mandates.
The interests of the left wing NEA often conflict with those of normal Americans.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/preserving_the_unfunded_mandat.html
2.
Floyd and Mary Beth Brown: What Did Barack Obama Know and When Did He Know it?
The Obama team has issued a report exonerating everyone on his team of any wrongdoing in the scandal to sell Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder.
However, the report written by Greg Craig, famous for fighting the Clinton impeachment, raises more questions than it answers. The chief and central question is, "What did Obama know and when did he know it!"
FBI agents arrested the Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, and his Chief of Staff, John Harris, on federal corruption charges. One of the allegations against Blagojevich and Harris is that they were attempting to sell Barack Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder.
Obama and his team immediately shifted into damage control mode -- perhaps too quickly -- and issued an emphatic blanket denial: "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not -- I was not aware of what was happening."
3.
Barack Obama – a “World View”?
When candidate Barack Obama declared himself a "citizen of the world" before thousands of cheering German socialists, and later pledged to "rejoin the world community," those weren't just his usual platitudes about "change." Those words sounded the trumpet for his specific and far-reaching globalist agenda.
Now for the full stories:
1.
Preserving the unfunded mandate myth
By Curtis Hier
A few weeks ago, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the lawsuit, backed by the National Education Association (NEA), against the federal government for not "fully funding" the No Child Left Behind law.The NEA may or may not win Pontiac School District v. Spellings. But regardless of the outcome, the suit has helped to perpetuate the myth that the federal government burdens the states with unfunded mandates.
Neither NEA nor AFT opposes the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Law. Both want to have their say in it. Priority number one for them is to have it be voucher-less. Priority number two for them is to kill the idea of HQET (highly qualified effective teachers), an enhanced version of HQT (highly qualified teachers) that bases the status of teachers, at least partially, on test score results. And priority number three is to get more funding for the new law.
Even if they achieve priority number three and secure massive increases in funding for the law, it won't be cause for them to end their "unfunded mandates" rhetoric. This rhetoric is important in the unions' state and local budget battles.
The federal government currently accounts for 9 percent of public K-12 spending. That won't change much, regardless of the efforts of NEA and AFT. The real challenge is to keep the states and local districts spending lavish amounts on education. Recently, a spending-cap movement has swept across the country from state to state. Some of the caps have taken the form of ballot initiatives.
Yes, the states are where the action is at. Of the $50 million that NEA spent on the 2008 election cycle, only about $2 million was spent on federal races. The rest was spent on the states. Of that, roughly $20 million was spent on ballot initiatives. Some of the ballot questions were about labor rights. And some were about spending levels. Since the 1992 passage of Colorado's Amendment One, spending caps have been on a number of ballots. And, regardless of the ballot initiatives, education spending is always on the agenda in the state legislatures and school board meetings.
The myth of the unfunded mandate is critical to the success of the unions in defeating spending caps. It is the first talking point on every list. Teachers, school staff, and parents parrot the words "unfunded mandates" with little understanding of the fiscal realities of federal education policy. Say the words enough times, and it becomes a convenient truth.
But it's a myth. An empty talking point. A fallacy.
Federal public K-12 programs saw substantial increases during the Bush Administration. All told, their budgets grew 36 percent. The funding levels for No Child Left Behind increased 41 percent. And special education spending rose 68 percent.
The original No Child Left Behind legislation authorized spending of up to higher levels than has ever been met, however. Somehow, NEA, AFT, and the rest of the education special interests have turned the "authorization" into a "promise." The funds were never promised. Nothing about NCLB is unfunded. Is it underfunded? That's a matter of opinion. NEA and AFT will always say it's underfunded.
And No Child Left Behind is not a mandate. Title I funds are a boon to states. They were before No Child Left Behind. And they are more so now. If the states want to opt out of NCLB and Title I, they are welcome to do so.
Prior to No Child Left Behind, the Individuals with Disabilities Act (special education) was the unfunded mandate bogeyman. And it still is, to an extent. We are reminded by the education crowd, at fairly regular intervals, that IDEA "promised" (authorized) a federal role of 40 percent of special education spending. And currently the federal government funds about 17 percent of it. It's "an outrage," as Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont is fond of saying.
That too is a myth. Even though the Bush Administration has increased federal funding of IDEA by 68 percent, it has not been enough to keep up with massive state and local spending increases. What does it really cost to comply with IDEA? The true excess costs are not known. We can only use expenditure- driven data to determine the costs. But who is to say the states and local schools haven't spent way too much? And obviously they have. The 40 percent authorization has become a fast-moving target that the federal government cannot -- and should not -- try to reach.
So unfunded mandates are a myth. But an important myth to the teachers' unions in their daily and yearly battles to secure more state and local spending. And to ward off those spending caps.
Curtis Hier is a teacher and frequent contributor to VermontTiger.Com. He can be found frequently blowing the whistle on the education establshment that employs him.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/preserving_the_unfunded_mandat.html
2.
Floyd and Mary Beth Brown: What Did Barack Obama Know and When Did He Know it?
On December 23, when all of us were busy wrapping gifts and preparing for Christmas, the Obama team issued a report exonerating everyone on his team of any wrongdoing in the scandal to sell Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder.
However, the report written by Greg Craig, famous for fighting the Clinton impeachment, raises more questions than it answers. The chief and central question is, "What did Obama know and when did he know it!"
FBI agents arrested the Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, and his Chief of Staff, John Harris, on federal corruption charges. One of the allegations against Blagojevich and Harris is that they were attempting to sell Barack Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder.
Obama and his team immediately shifted into damage control mode -- perhaps too quickly -- and issued an emphatic blanket denial: "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not -- I was not aware of what was happening."
That was a big mistake. On a par with Bill Clinton's petulant and admonishing denial, "I never had sexual relations with that woman... Ms. Lewinsky."
On November 23, Obama advisor David Axelrod told the Fox News Chicago affiliate that Obama and Gov. Blagojevich had, in fact, spoken about who should fill the remainder of Obama's term in the Senate: "I know he's talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names, many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them."
Oops... Axelrod quickly issued a retraction: "I was mistaken when I told an interviewer last month that the president-elect has spoken directly to Governor Blagojevich about the Senate vacancy. They did not then or at any time discuss the subject."
Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said at the time, "There is no allegation in the complaint that the president-elect was aware of it and that is all I can say."
Nevertheless, it was very clear from the complaint that some people close to Obama were plenty aware.
One section in the complaint concerning the sale of Obama's Senate seat recounts a series of conversations that allegedly took place over a period of days, beginning November 5 (the day after the election -- although Blagojevich's first recorded mention of the matter occurred on November 3), between Blagojevich, his Chief of Staff John Harris; a Washington based consultant on Team Obama, known only as "Advisor B;" and later, Blagojevich's wife; an Service Employees International Union (SEIU) official and various others.
"Advisor B" is likely Obama's future Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel. Emanuel was operating as a cutout used by Obama to tell Blagojevich what to do indirectly. Most of the conversations never involved the Governor either, but instead involved his now-former chief of staff, John Harris. After he was arrested, he resigned from the Blagojevich staff and has been singing to federal prosecutors.
Initially, Blagojevich indicated that he would appoint the female preferred by Obama, identified in the complaint as "Senate Candidate 1" (now acknowledged to be Obama inner-circle member Valerie Jarrett) in return for Blagojevich being appointed secretary of Health and Human Services by Obama.
Over a period of days, it became apparent to Blagojevich that the Health and Human Services appointment was not going to happen and on November 10, during a two-hour conference call, Blagojevich altered the terms and pressed for a three-way deal between SEIU, Blagojevich, and Obama.
Under this alternate option, Blagojevich would appoint Obama's preferred candidate ("Senate Candidate 1" - Jarrett) and Obama, in return, would help Blagojevich secure an SEIU appointment to head a not-for-profit organization called "Change to Win."
Of particular interest is a concurrent chain of events not mentioned in the complaint. On November 9, CNN announced that Valerie Jarrett was Obama's choice to serve out the remainder of his term in the United States Senate.
The next day, on the evening of November 10, there was a sudden reversal; CNN announced that Jarrett would not serve in the Senate but instead work with Obama in the White House.
Back to the complaint: the next day, on November 11, in a conversation with Harris, Blagojevich, possibly viewing Jarrett being suddenly removed from consideration as a personal slap in the face directed at him, uttered the now famous profanity. According to the complaint, Blagojevich said he knew that Obama really wanted "Senate Candidate 1" for the open seat but "they're not willing to give me anything except appreciation. [Expletive] them."
Did the two-hour conference call on November 10 contribute to the Jarrett story being leaked to CNN on the evening of November 10? Did someone in Obama's inner circle -- or Obama -- pull Jarrett's name from consideration to send a message to Blagojevich? Was the move initially an attempt at negotiations, or was it possibly meant to put a stop to Blagojevich's alleged "shakedown" scheme?
If the intention was to send a message to Blagojevich, then some members of Obama's inner circle may be facing indictment. It takes two to tango and all of those who actively participated in the alleged negotiations to sell a Senate seat are just as guilty as Blagojevich.
As for the other option, an attempt to actually put a stop to the "shakedown" scheme, may be viewed, at first glance, as an exoneration of Team Obama. But not so fast... having knowledge of such a scheme and not reporting it to the authorities is a serious offense as well.
3.
Washington Times - SCHLAFLY: Obama's Global agenda?
Phyllis Schlafly
COMMENTARY:
When candidate Barack Obama declared himself a "citizen of the world" before thousands of cheering German socialists, and later pledged to "rejoin the world community," those weren't just his usual platitudes about "change." Those words sounded the trumpet for his specific and far-reaching globalist agenda.
Mr. Obama plans to use his presidential power to get the Democratic-majority Senate to ratify a series of treaties that would take us a long way toward global rule over our money, our laws, our military, our courts, our customs, our trade, and even our use of energy. Here are the treaties he says he wants.
• The U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which Ronald Reagan rejected in 1982, is high on Mr. Obama's list. LOST has already created the International Seabed Authority (ISA) in Jamaica and given it total regulatory jurisdiction over all the world's oceans and all the riches on the ocean floor.
Corrupt foreign dictators dominate LOST's global bureaucracy, and the U.S. would have the same vote as Cuba. Likewise for LOST's International Tribunal in Hamburg, Germany, which has the power to decide all disputes.
Even worse, LOST gives the ISA the power to levy international taxes. The real purpose of the taxing power is to compel the United States to spend billions of private-enterprise dollars to mine the ocean floor and then let ISA bureaucrats transfer our wealth to socialist, anti-American nations.
• Next on Mr. Obama's list is the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which was signed by Bill Clinton but rejected by the Senate in 1999. It would prohibit all nuclear explosive testing and thereby allow our nuclear arsenal to deteriorate until the American people are defenseless against rogue regimes such as Iran and North Korea.
• A new Global Warming Treaty is starting to be written at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Poland in order to replace the Kyoto Agreement which George W. Bush and our Senate refused to ratify. The new treaty would force dramatic reductions in our use of energy, i.e., our standard of living, and impose the "strong international norms" that Mr. Obama seeks.
• Mr. Obama is toadying to his feminist friends by pushing ratification of the U.N. Treaty on Women, known as CEDAW. It was signed by Jimmy Carter in 1980 and persistently promoted by Hillary Clinton, but the Senate has so far had the good judgment to refuse to ratify it.
This treaty would require us "to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women," to follow U.N. dictates about "family education," to revise our textbooks to conform to feminist ideology in order to ensure "the elimination of any stereotyped concept of the roles of men and women," and to set up a federal "network of child-care facilities."
Article 16 would require us to allow women "to decide number and spacing of their children." Everyone recognizes this as feminist jargon for a U.N. obligation to allow abortion on demand.
Like all U.N. treaties, the U.N. Treaty on Women creates a monitoring commission of so-called "experts" to ensure compliance. The monitors of the Treaty on Women have already singled out Mother's Day as a stereotype that must be eliminated.
• Another U.N. treaty on the list is the U.N. Treaty on the Rights of the Child, which was signed in 1995 by Bill Clinton but wisely never ratified by our Senate. This is a pet project of the people who believe that the "village" (i.e., the government or U.N. "experts") should raise children rather than their parents.
This treaty would give children rights against their parents and society to express their own views "freely in all matters," to receive information of all kinds through "media of the child's choice," to use their "own language," and to have the right to "rest and leisure." This treaty even orders our schools to teach respect for "the Charter of the United Nations."
These Obama-endorsed treaties, every one of which would be a dramatic encroachment on U.S. sovereignty, would be supplemented by trade agreements negotiated by Mr. Obama's trade representative, Ron Kirk. He is an enthusiastic supporter of the "global economic community" (which means open borders for "free" trade), of NAFTA, and even of the NAFTA SuperHighway, which he calls the "true river of trade between our communities."
Mr. Kirk's work to lock us into the global economy will be bolstered by Mr. Obama's secretary of commerce, Bill Richardson, another aggressive promoter of "free" trade.
Every U.N.treaty would interfere with self-government over some aspect of our lives and would transfer significant power to foreign bureaucrats, many of whom hate and envy America. Mr. Obama's U.N. treaties are the enemy of U.S. political and social independence, and Mr. Kirk's global economic community is the enemy of good middle-class American jobs.
• Phyllis Schlafly is a nationally syndicated columnist, lawyer and author of the newly revised and expanded "Supremacists," a book about the judiciary.
Comments