The day’s top political news:
US jobs data dash recovery hopes
Stock markets on both sides of the Atlantic tumbled on Thursday as a bigger-than-expected fall in US jobs last month dashed hopes that the US was moving out of recession.
The data showed that the number of people in employment fell 467,000 in June and the unemployment rate rose from 9.4% to 9.5%, its highest for 26 years.
President Barack Obama called the jobs data “sobering”, but expressed confidence in a recovery soon. The figures sent shares in the US and Europe and commodity prices sharply lower.
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2009/07/03/60361/us-jobs-data-dash-recovery-hopes/
Washington Post cancels lobbyist event amid uproar
Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth says she is canceling plans for an exclusive "salon" at her home where for as much as $250,000, the Post offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record access to "those powerful few" — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and even the paper’s own reporters and editors.
The astonishing offer was detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff."
With the Post newsroom in an uproar after POLITICO reported the solicitation, Weymouth said in an email to the staff that "a flier went out that was prepared by the Marketing department and was never vetted by me or by the newsroom. Had it been, the flier would have been immediately killed, because it completely misrepresented what we were trying to do."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24441.html
GOP, White House at odds on Sotomayor documents
A top Republican pressed for more information Thursday about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's ties to a Puerto Rican civil rights group he said took extreme positions on race, as the White House argued that the material was irrelevant to the judge's nomination.
White House Counsel Greg Craig told Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., in a letter that board meeting minutes and other papers detailing the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund's activities while Sotomayor was an outside adviser shouldn't impact her nomination because she had no role in writing or approving them.
The battle over the papers isn't likely to damage Sotomayor's chances of confirmation, since Democrats have more than enough votes in favor of President Barack Obama's first high court nominee, and Republicans have shown little appetite for trying to block her.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D996PRI00&show_article=1
Opinion:
Obama? Oh goodness!
If Obama has lost the adoration of Helen Thomas, his fortunes are in trouble. Thomas has been among the most dependable left wing bigots covering the White House. If Obama cant continue counting on her being among his cadre of journalistic lap dogs, what will betray him next? Perhaps the typists that feed carefully crafted lines into his teleprompters?
American journalism has been in the tank for the left for decades, maybe for generations. As a TV reporter in the 60s, I saw journalistic corruption with my own eyes again and again and again. It was embarrassing but I kept saying to myself that if I remained honest and obeyed the ethical boundaries, the right side of things would ultimately prevail.
I was wrong.
As I covered the Selma march for both NBC and ABC from a light plane high over that little city, I decided I had had enough and would leave journalism and its increasing corruption and shame and seek a higher calling. I went into politics.
There is nothing at all new about an administration – even at local, city council levels, feeding stories to cooperating reporters. If the practice honestly serves the interests of getting better stories with unique insight, fine. Getting the story is a reporter’s prime duty, after all.
But reporters must hew to the line in terms of ethics. They cannot allow themselves to be co-opted by political interests. For decades, the mainstream media has not only been co-opted by left wing politicians, it has allowed itself to become active elements of partisan political movements.
That’s dishonest.
That’s as corrupt as it gets.
That describes all over-the-air TV news operations and more than 90% of all daily newspapers.
The Internet has given normal America a voice – talk radio has provided a conservative view point – which is why liberal Democrats plot and scheme to shut it up and shut it down. Liberal talk radio cannot survive – not because conservatives prevent it – but because few listeners are buying it. Al Franken was a total flop, so he ran for the US Senate. I suspect Franken will give conservative a plethora of materials with which to raise millions of dollars in campaign funding. Franken will not be good for Minnesota, nor for America – but he will be good for helping display just how bad liberal politicians truly are.
Meanwhile, Obama moves on and his star is dipping and its shine is a bit sullied.
Conservatives – normal Americans – are learning he is even worse as president as they predicted during the campaign. Obama is generating more political enthusiasm through the tea party protests than we have seen since the early Goldwater and Reagan days.
Liberal Democrats are taking hits generated by Obama extremism. Many of these liberal Democrats are also among Obama’s growing opposition. They are outraged Obama has let them down on getting our of Iraq, gay rights, and other left wing issues.
Normal America has a growing outrage over the left wing extremism that has handed government General Motors, and now is trying to hand government our Energy industry through a huge tax increase on every American family – while on the horizon is Obama’s dream of socializing medicine and giving us government controlled healthcare on the cheap, but without quality,
All this makes a point that most Americans can better sympathize these days, with Mrs. Sanford, the poor wife of South Carolina’s governor. Obama has betrayed us as her husband betrayed her. The governor has violated his sacred oath…so has Obama.
Buddy
The day’s top blogs:
1.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Barney-Frank--49649362.html
Barney Frank: Let's spend TARP profits before taxpayers can get them
BYRON YORK
Chief Political Correspondent
When President Obama announced on June 9 that some financial institutions would be allowed to repay Troubled Asset Relief Program dollars, he said the massively expensive TARP bailout had made money for the federal government. "It is worth noting that in the first round of repayments from these [TARP recipients], the government has actually turned a profit," the president said. Indeed, TARP supporters have long held out the hope that the program might be profitable.
But now Rep. Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has come up with a proposal to spend any TARP profits before they can be returned to the taxpayers. Last Friday, Frank introduced the "TARP for Main Street Act of 2009," a bill that would take profits from the program and immediately redirect them toward housing proposals favored by Frank and some fellow Democrats.
(NOTE: Frank has no pride, he has no shame. After playing a major part in creating the financial chaos, Barney plows ahead with more meddling sure to benefit the left and have a negative impact on normal America. Barney actuall wants to “roll the dice” again – this time focusing on Condo sales. Incredible!! When can America take back its country? The tea party protests we will be seeing demonstrate a rising tide of resistance.)
In exchange for receiving TARP money, financial institutions were required to hand over shares of preferred stock that paid a dividend for the government. In theory, if a financial institution paid the dividend faithfully, and then repaid the TARP money, then the government would turn a profit. Last month, the General Accountability Office (GAO) reported that, through June 12, 2009, the government had received $6.2 billion in dividend payments. The original TARP legislation required that money made from the program "shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt."
Frank, however, wants to spend the money before it can be used to pay down anything. First, the "TARP for Main Street" proposal would take $1 billion "from dividends paid by financial institutions that have received financial assistance provided under…the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" and apply it to a trust fund that Frank has long wanted to create for low-income rental housing. (The measure, unfunded, was part of last year's bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.) Next, Frank would take $1.5 billion from TARP dividends for a so-called "neighborhood stabilization" fund. Republican critics have charged that both measures might allow federal dollars to be distributed to activist groups like the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now, or ACORN.
The "TARP for Main Street" bill would also spend $2 billion, apparently from remaining TARP funds, to subsidize people who are delinquent on their mortgages, and another $2 billion to "stabilize multifamily properties that are in default or foreclosure."
Frank's proposal comes at a time when Republicans, and some Democrats, are expressing concern about the continued use of TARP money. Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch recently complained that TARP funds are "now being used as a go-to solution to address all of our nation's economic ills." Hatch and Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln recently introduced a bill that would require that TARP money goes back to the Treasury for debt reduction.
Spending the dividend payments now, as Frank proposes, would reduce the chance that TARP might ever be a break-even deal for the taxpayers. "We don't know if TARP is going to be making any money, so taking the dividend payments going back to Treasury is pretty questionable," says one House GOP aide. Indeed, in its June report, the GAO revealed that 17 troubled institutions have not paid their dividends, much less repaid the TARP money itself. And last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that three other institutions were not paying dividends. But now, Frank is proposing that dividends be spent immediately. "It defeats the idea of taxpayer protection," says the GOP aide.
2.
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/ckincaid/2009/ck_06301.shtml
Obama Sides With Marxists Over Honduras
Cliff Kincaid
The so-called "military coup" in Honduras was a successful effort by Honduran patriots to preserve their constitutional system of government from an international alliance of communists and socialists backed by Iran. Not surprisingly, America's Marxist President has come down on the anti-American side.
If all of this is news to you, consider yourself a victim of the "state-run media," as Rush Limbaugh calls it. We are being bombarded with liberal media propaganda that a "military coup" took place in Honduras, and that the U.S. should therefore oppose it.
Fox News, which has been trumpeting news about the "military coup," should be ashamed of itself for following the liberal media line.
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), the ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, noted that the problem was that the deposed president, Manuel "Mel" Zelaya, was "moving to re-write the Honduran constitution to extend and expand his power, while retaliating against those who stand in his way."
(NOTE: When we see these eruptions in Latin America, its easy to determine which side is right and which side is wrong – such groups as Amnesty International, the International -- as opposed to the “American” – Red Cross, and Church groups such as the World Council of Churches, give us a perpetual signal regarding which side should be supported – those left wing groups are always on the wrong side and are pushing efforts that will result in the sorts of Communist regimes we see in Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. They will not be siding with freedom. Sadly, in the case of Honduras these days, Obama is supporting the bad guys and opposing freedom.)
The leftist Zelaya was democratically elected in 2005 in a narrow win (with less than a majority of the vote) but he has been attempting to unconstitutionally and illegally undercut the conservative majorities in the Congress. His main purpose has been to circumvent a prohibition on serving more than one term as president.
With his departure, Honduras may have been spared a communist future.
Nevertheless, Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton quickly issued statements saying that his removal was somehow a violation of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. This was a clever ruse designed to disguise the fact that all of the major elements of constitutional power in Honduras, except for the increasingly unpopular and power-hungry president, acted on behalf of the people.
The United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has joined with the U.N. General Assembly President, Communist Priest Miguel D'Escoto, to demand that Zelaya be restored to power.
The new president, Roberto Micheletti, has made it clear that Zelaya was removed because he had behaved in an unconstitutional manner. "I did not reach this position because of a coup," Micheletti said. "I am here because of an absolutely legal transition process." Micheletti was a member of Zelaya's Liberal Party but opposed his illegal and unconstitutional actions.
What happened is that the Legislative and Judicial branches of the government in Honduras, in conjunction with the armed forces, acted to maintain and defend their constitution from a power-mad president who was a puppet of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez.
Blogger Jason Poblete commented that the Obama Administration "was quick to call the events in Honduras a coup. What has gone underreported, or not reported at all in the media or recognized by the Obama Administration, is that the democratically-elected Congress unanimously approved the change in leadership and impeached the President. If this was a constitutionally correct action why has the Obama Administration been so quick to judge and condemn?"
Claims of a "military coup" have appeared in the press because that is the way far-left officials of the Obama Administration have described it. The Administration has been just as quick to undermine freedom and democracy in Honduras as it was late in supporting the pro-freedom and pro-democracy demonstrators in Iran.
On June 28, a "Teleconference Background Briefing" was held with the major media by "two senior officials" who were guiding coverage of the events in Honduras but whose identities were protected from disclosure by the lapdog press.
The transcript shows a New York Times reporter asking, "Is the U.S. Government calling this and considering this a coup d'état? Can you talk about the use of language? Some other governments have called it that."
The answer was, "...I would certainly characterize a situation where a president is forcibly detained by the armed forces and expelled from a country an attempt at a coup. We―I mean, we still see him as the constitutional president of Honduras. So it was an attempt at a coup. We don't think it was successful."
The official is saying it wasn't successful because the Obama White House wants to work with the Marxist governments of Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua (backed by Iran) to bring Zelaya back to power.
At the same time, however, the official conceded that the controversy in Honduras stemmed from the effort by Zelaya to maintain himself illegally and unconstitutionally in power through a referendum or "survey" he had no right to initiate. He explained, "The fundamental political divide within Honduras was whether or not this effort by President Zelaya was seen as constitutional and legal, or whether it was seen as illegitimate and unconstitutional. And several institutions, including the public ministry, which is their equivalent of Attorney General, the Supreme Court, and the Congress had declared this survey to be illegitimate and illegal."
Notice how the U.S. official said that "the public ministry, which is their equivalent of Attorney General, the Supreme Court, and the Congress had declared this survey to be illegitimate and illegal."
He went on to say, "Obviously, it was the armed forces that detained the president today and expelled him from the country. But as we're seeing now with the naming of an interim president by the congress, this was an effort that has included other political institutions."
Indeed, this was not a "military coup" in the traditional sense of the army acting unilaterally to depose a popular president. The Army was acting in accordance with the dictates of the other political institutions.
Not only did the Congress and the Supreme Court act against Zelaya, the Catholic Church of Honduras―which is not under the sway of Marxist-oriented Liberation Theology―had opposed his illegal acts.
One question from a CNN reporter helped illustrate the incoherent nature of the Obama policy: "You said that you felt other institutions felt that it was illegal and unconstitutional, but did you think it was and did you advise the president not to invoke it?" The official replied, "Again, it's not up to us to determine what's legal or not within the context of Honduras. It was important for us to leave this to Honduran institutions to try to resolve."
But that is exactly what happened when those institutions acted to remove the Marxist president, who is an ally of Castro and Chavez.
Asked if what Zelaya was doing "was in line with the constitution," the official answered in the negative. The official further added that "...from our point of view, what was important was not inserting ourselves and trying to make a determination of what was legal or illegal, but trying to insist that the Hondurans find a way to resolve this in a way that was in accord with their constitution."
But the Hondurans have resolved it. Why doesn't the Obama White House stay out of it?
In the New York Times story (web site) about the "coup," the reporter waited until the fifth paragraph to note that "the [Honduran] Supreme Court issued a statement saying that the military had acted to defend the law against 'those who had publicly spoken out and acted against the Constitution's provisions.'"
So it wasn't really a coup.
The headline over the Wa shington Post story (web site) said, "Honduran Military Ousts President," but the article noted that "the Honduran National Congress defiantly announced that Zelaya was out, and its members named congressional leader Roberto Micheletti the new president on Sunday afternoon. The Honduran Supreme Court also supported the removal of Zelaya, saying that the military was acting in defense of democracy."
So rather than destroy democracy, this action restored it. This is hardly a "military coup." There is no military official running Honduras today. And the former president wasn't shot but given exile. He's been told he can return but without the outside backing and interference of Chavez.
There is some question about whether Zelaya was impeached before or after the military removed him. But the point is that democratic forces acted together for the sake of their country. The timing is a matter that should be properly left to the people of Honduras and their democratically-elected institutions.
What the Obama Administration should be doing, under the circumstances, is protecting this democratic government from external threats from Chavez and Castro. Instead, it is working with Chavez and Castro to bring back to power a Marxist puppet.
Calls are already being heard from Obama's far-left base to destabilize Honduras by cutting off U.S. military aid to the government. Human Rights Watch, the George Soros-funded group, has come out with a statement (web site) denouncing the "military coup."
Some of these far-left activists are claiming that Obama was behind the "coup," but this is obviously propaganda designed to force the Administration to use international bodies, such as the U.N. and the Organization of American States, in an effort to restore Zelaya to power.
---
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.
3.
Obama’s Choreographed Town Hall
Yesterday, President Obama held a town hall event in order to “sell his health care message to the public” during Congress’ July 4th recess. However, worried that the President cannot answer tough questions about his plan for health care reform, White House officials carefully screened each member of the audience in attendance and each question asked.
Recent Entries
Is Obama Siding with Chavez and Castro in Honduras? You Decide
A Union Divided Against Itself: The UAW’s Conflict of Interest
There’s A Very Good Reason Wal-Mart Supports an Employer Mandate
Treason Against the Planet or Treason Against the Economy?
Indiana Scores School Choice Victory
This time, the mainstream media took note, even grilling White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs on the choreographed spectacle. In fact, veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas, not known as a conservative sympathizer, even lamented: “I’m not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-thee-well–for the town halls, for the press conferences. It’s blatant. They don’t give a d–n if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame.” She added: “What the h-ll do they think we are, puppets?”
(NOTE: Helen Thomas has been among the most ardent left wing reporters in Washington. If Obama is losing her support, he is in truly dangerous waters. Since the start of his campaign, liberals in the mainstream media – talk about redundant phrases – have been lap dogs for Obama and liberal Democrats. “Honest Journalism” has become an oxymoron. If Obama loses that vital element of his personal campaign, his fortunes may plummet quite quickly. Obama is thus delivering on his campaign promises for “hope” and “change”. Thomas gives us reason to “hope” the American media may become at least a bit honest, which would provide normal America with “hope” we can regain our country.)
The AP reported: “Some of Obama’s questioners Wednesday were from friendly sources, including a member of the Service Employees International Union and a member of Health Care for America Now, which organized a Capitol Hill rally last week calling for an overhaul. White House aides selected other questions submitted by people on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.”
With the elaborate choreography President Obama managed to talk a good talk, despite his rhetoric not matching his plans. For example he said: “We need a permanent solution that when you lose your job, or change jobs, you can still keep your health insurance.” Absolutely. Do you lose your car or life insurance when you change your job? Of course not. The same should be true for your most important coverage: health insurance.
Heritage’s Bob Moffit, at a recent Congressional hearing, testified that “Americans need portability. If we had portability in health insurance that was tied to the person and not where they worked, the numbers of the uninsured would drop dramatically.“ Unfortunately, the President’s plan doesn’t offer this portability. Obama went on to deliver another one of his prized pieces of health care rhetoric: “If [private insurance] is such a great deal, why are [insurers] so concerned about government competing with private plans?”
The President has been searching for the logic on this one, and luckily it’s easy to explain. There’s no real competition when the Referee making the rules is also playing the game; it’s a fixed competition. Congress’ ability to pay doctors and other providers less will hide the true cost of the public plan. Undercutting private insurance will drive enrollment to the public plan. That’s not competition on a level playing field.
While bemoaning that Congress moves slowly on legislation, he offered this analysis of our Constitutional government three days before the 4th of July, saying: “Part of that is the way the Constitution is designed. We don’t have coups [de’tat] or governments collapsing. The disadvantage is it’s hard for us to make great, big, bold steps.”
At Heritage, we tend to think that one of the more important aspects of the Constitution is the very fact that it is so difficult to take “great, big, bold steps.” Perhaps, on America’s upcoming 233rd birthday, this is a quaint idea. Some still tend to agree with us, however. The point is health care reform doesn’t need to be so radical that the Constitution holds it back. There are other ways to fix health care that won’t intrude into our daily lives or our personal choices.
Nevertheless, the President is going to ask you to hold his hand and jump off the cliff with him, saying: “We’re in one of those rare moments where everybody is ready to move into the future. We just can’t be scared.” Frankly, when a plan is so big, so intrusive and so expensive to every American’s life that the President feels the Constitution might hinder its approval, you should be scared.
QUICK HITS
Congress is spending more than ever on taxpayer-financed travel, with costs rising tenfold since 1995. This includes a 2008 trip among Members and their spouses to the Galapagos Islands to learn about global warming.
North Korea test-fired two short range missiles on Thursday. South Korean officials said they did not think “it’s related to any plans or operations to attack anyone.”
In an op/ed today, Karl Rove honors Lt. Commander William Krissoff who asked President Bush and then received an age waiver to serve with his son in Iraq saying: “So long as our nation produces families like the Krissoffs, America will remain not only the greatest nation on earth, but also the most noble in history.”
On Saturday, the Statue of Liberty will reopen for business. Shut down to tourists since September 11, Lady Liberty will welcome visitors to her crown once again, with enhanced security procedures.
As billions of taxpayer dollars are thrown at GM and Chrysler, President Obama has introduced yet another set of tough fuel standards, modeled after bankrupt California, which will hurt the car maker’s recovery and sacrifice safety for global warming politics.
Comments