Political Truth and Fact

Monday's Web

The contents are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited. 

The day’s top political news:

Health bills fail to block illegals from coverage

Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants could receive health care coverage from their employers under the bills winding their way through Congress, despite President Obama's explicit pledge that illegal immigrants would not benefit.

“He lied”.  Wilson told the truth, stated the fact, and took the heat.  Wilson “told it like it is” and America should recall that.

The House bill mandates, and the Senate bill strongly encourages, businesses to extend health care coverage to all employees. But the bills do not have exemptions to screen out illegal immigrants, who usually obtain jobs by using false identities and are indistinguishable from legal workers.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/30/health-bills-fail-to-block-illegals-from-coverage/

Politico: “7 stories Obama doesn't want told”

Barack Obama and his team,  won the 2008 election in part because they were better storytellers than the opposition. The pro-Obama narrative featured an almost mystically talented young idealist who stood for change in a disciplined and thoughtful way. This easily outpowered the anti-Obama narrative, featuring an opportunistic Chicago pol with dubious relationships who was more liberal than he was letting on.

A year into his presidency, however, Obama’s gift for controlling his image shows signs of faltering. As Washington returns to work from the Thanksgiving holiday, there are several anti-Obama storylines gaining momentum.

The Obama White House argues that all of these storylines are inaccurate or unfair. In some cases these anti-Obama narratives are fanned by Republicans, in some cases by reporters and commentators. But they all are serious threats to Obama, if they gain enough currency to become the dominant frame through which people interpret the president’s actions and motives.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=4486A8EE-18FE-70B2-A8143B2A4DFA6780

Leaked emails won't harm UN climate body, says very nervous chairman

Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri: “There is "virtually no possibility" of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the UN's top global warming body.”

Pachauri says the large number of contributors and rigorous peer review mechanism adopted by the IPCC meant that any bias would be rapidly uncovered.

The problem is Pachauri’s claims have just been proven totally wrong and his peer reviews proven to have been rigged and falsified.  Hopefully, Cap and Trade is dead.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/ipcc-climate-change-leaked-emails

Opinion:
It’s getting harder and harder for Obama to be “Obama”

When they voted for Obama, a huge number of people were seeking a change and he promised he would provide it.  (I’m guessing focus group testing told his handlers that “hope” and “change” worked quite well at the time.)

People hear what they want to hear from candidates for president, and the candidates take on a persona that is in accord with the hopes and ambitions of those who support him or her.

Obama found a perfect storm in American politics: in Democrat primaries, a host of voters feared and many insiders dreaded, Hillary Clinton.  In fact, at the time, Hillary was most likely the most hated woman in American politics.

Meanwhile, there were many Republicans in states without party registration, who crossed over into Democrat primaries and voted for Obama as being the lesser of two evils.

In the General, many voters were looking for a change from eight years of Bush, and still recalling six years of GOP majorities.  Republicans took on elements of the Bush decline in popularity and many Republican voters were disenchanted with McCain as their party’s candidate.  So many of them just stayed home.

As a result, Obama won the nomination, then won the campaign, and was swept into office by a populace anticipating the unfolding of an administration that would be different and which would be as delightfully rewarding as an abundant tree on Christmas morning.

No candidate could have met the high expectations many held for Obama, but Obama was unable to meet a multitude – in fact his actions began creating problems even before his inaugural.

He was young, and clearly had no definable attribute other than an ability to effectively deliver a carefully crafted political speech (and his handlers made certain a huge number of teleprompters were always available to make sure he stayed the course.  It became clear during the campaign that when he spoke on his own, disaster was tempted.).

Obama has continued to create controversy and unease.

His frantic efforts to hide details of his early life – including where he was born – laid a groundwork for his being undermined by political opponents.  He could have quickly ended the controversy – and had an obligation to do so – by simply providing proof.  I know of no other candidate for any office, where this question has become an issue – especially to the degree Obama has allowed his to become.

Then there was the “Muslim thing”.  Whether is middle name or what little became known of his pre-Chicago life, Obama has a connection with Islam that is like gum on the sole of a shoe – it just wont go away.  His demand that crosses be covered during speeches at religious venues increased the suspicion as did his refusal to participate in the National Day of Prayer, while deciding to preside over a celebration of Islam’s Ramadan at the White House.

In the meantime, Obama has worked overtime to raise questions about his personal patriotism.  Whether it was his choosing to defend his refusal to wear a flag lapel pin to his being photographed holding his crotch rather than his heard during National Anthem ceremonies, only fanned the flames more.

Meanwhile, he and his associates have pushed hard for a very far left agenda in Congress.  They used bare knuckle pressures to get the House to pass a Democrat scheme that would impose a huge tax on all Americans while also raising prices.  That bill, disguised by a title of Cap and Trade, remains action in the Senate.

At the same time, Obama has pushed his extreme left wing allies to create and pass an incredible health care “reform” bill – another scheme – this one with a primary objective of a government take over of the entire health care system and impose socialized medicine.

This is not the “change” many of his voters wanted or expected.  We have only scratched the surface.  Look deeper, and the Obama story gets worse – from a viewpoint of most Americans.  His handlers have over reached and expected far too much from a mainstream media that has been willing to surrender completely to Obama and become flacks for his interests.

Obama did not anticipate the power of public opinion, and the power of the Internet to drive that opinion.  As a result, Democrats were caught flat footed when tea party protesters destroyed their summer vacation appearances.  A massive uprising opposing Obama proposals.

People are concerned most about jobs and the economy, Obama has given them an extremist health care scam and a program that would massively increase personal taxes, and the cost of living as well.  Obama claimed the tax bill was to confront global warming.  Last week, leaked documents prove the global warming fear was as phony as a carnival side show and a total fabrication.

Now we hear he plans a stage managed speech on the war while hypocritically using the military academy as a photo backdrop.

No wonder Obama’s support is collapsing faster than that runaway balloon we watched a few weeks back. 

As Rasmussen reports:

...the percentage of those surveyed, which indicate that they strongly-approve Obama’s regime, has fallen from 41-45% to 25%; and the percentage of those suveyed, which indicate that they strongly-disapprove of the Obama regime has risen from 16% to 42%.

At an annual rate that is approximately a loss of 20% in the category of strong approvers, and a gain of 26% of strong disapprovers.

If that rate of change continues, then by July of 2011 — in approximately 1.5 years, you’d expect to see a strong approval rating of 0% and a strong disapproval rating of 81%.  And a presidential approval rating of -81 would be the statistical equivalent of an open rebellion: massive public demonstrations, demanding Obama’s ousting.  Which is what an Orange Revolution is.

http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/rasmussen-polls-indicate-orange-revolution-by-July-2011
 
Stay tuned.

Buddy

The day’s top blogs:

1.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703499404574564291187747578.html

The Web Discloses Inconvenient Climate Truths 

Cap and Trade and global warming are proven to be massive frauds
 
L. GORDON CROVITZ

For anyone who doubts the power of the Internet to shine light on darkness, the news of the month is how digital technology helped uncover a secretive group of scientists who suppressed data, froze others out of the debate, and flouted freedom-of-information laws.

Their behavior was brought to light when more than 1,000 emails,and some 3,500 additional files were published online, many of which boasted about how they suppressed hard questions about their data.

The emails, released by an apparent whistle-blower who used the name "FOI," were written by scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England. Its 'scientists' are high-profile campaigners for the theory of global warming.

The findings from East Anglia have been at the core of policy reports by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The IPCC does not do its own research but compiles information relating to climate change. It has declared the evidence that the globe is warming to be "unequivocal," a claim routinely cited by lawmakers in the U.S. and elsewhere as authoritative.

The IPCC stresses honest science. According to its Web site, its goal is to "assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."

The panel, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, now faces the inconvenient truth that it relied on scientists who violated scientific process.

In one email, the Climate Research Unit's director, Phil Jones, wrote Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, promising to spike studies that cast doubt on the relationship between human activity and global warming. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," he said.

He pledged to "keep them out somehowven if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
In another email exhange, Mr. Mann wrote to Mr. Jones: "This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature.' Obviously, they found a solution to thatake over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."

Other emails include one in which Keith Briffa of the Climate Research Unit told Mr. Mann that "I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same," and in which Mr. Jones said he had employed Mr. Mann's "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures.

A May 2008 email from Mr. Jones with the subject line "IPCC & FOI" asked recipients to "delete any emails you may have had" about data submitted for an IPCC report. The British Freedom of Information Act makes it a crime to delete material subject to an FOI request; such a request had been made earlier that month.

Over the weekend, East Anglia officials disclosed they had disposed years ago of the historic weather data underlying their analysis. This may be one reason they've fought information requests. They say they'll release the data they still have some time next year.

The emails showed how the global-warming group stifled dissent.

They controlled the peer-review process, keeping opposing views unpublished, then cited "peer review" as evidence of their "consensus." One of the dissident scientists, Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado, wrote on his blog that the emails show the "collusion to suppress other scientifically supported views of the climate system, and the human role within it, is a systemic problem with the climate assessment process."

These disclosures have led to some soul-searching. "Opaqueness and secrecy are the enemies of science," wrote George Monbriot, a leading British environmentalist. "There is a word for the apparent repeated attempts to prevent disclosure revealed in these emails: unscientific."

Demetris Koutsoyiannis, a hydraulic engineer who has written on climate change, wrote that scientists who suppressed others "must have felt that this secrecy was their best weapon: to censor differing opinions, to develop 'trick' procedures, to 'balance' the needs of the IPCC, and even to 'redefine' peer review."

This unseemly business reveals another flaw. Why are scholars who review papers allowed to remain anonymous?

Reforming scientists and lawmakers might put the question more concretely: How many of the anonymous reviewers who spiked skeptical scientific papers over the years are the people who wrote these emails detailing how they abused peer review to block contrary evidence?

Science was one of the first disciplines to insist on transparency in order to foster competition in data and ideas. In the case of global warming, transparency is better late than never, as policy makers now have the chance to review the facts.

Facing up to high-profile flaws is hard for any profession, but honest scientists will cheer how in our digital era eventually the truth will out, and will accept that no scientific hypothesis can be viewed as sacred or can be proved in secret.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal,

2.

http://mountainmanna.com/

CROSSING OUT THE CHRISTMAS TREE
Mountainmanna ^
Pastor Terry Hagedorn

I know why they don’t want to call it a Christmas Tree anymore! I know why they want to banish it from the public square!

An evergreen is a symbol of eternal life; yet, it is cut down and nailed to two wooden members— reminding men of the Eternal Son of God Who was nailed to the Cross.

It is topped with a star reminding men of the Bright and Morning Star or the Star of Bethlehem; or, it’s topped with an angel who announced and attended His birth; or, the bow— a love-knot binding the two: man and God together in One.

It is illuminated with the rainbow of colors reminding men of Him, Who is the Light of the World and Who loves the little children of the world: red, brown, yellow, black or white— they are precious in His sight.

It is bedecked with gold and silver. Gold reminding men that the King of Kings came to serve men by giving His life a ransom for their sins . The silver reminds us of the price of that redemption: the shedding of His blood— more precious than silver or gold.

The candy cane, with its red and white stripes, remind men of the Good Shepherd who shed His blood that their sins might be made whiter than snow. By His stripes men are healed.

Beneath the boughs of this tree gifts are given to men. That is why men hate it and reject it. There is the gift of His Word (II Timothy 3:16).The gift of eternal life (John 3:16). The gift of salvation. (Ephesians2:8,9). And, most importantly, the Gift of His Son— in Whom is every good and perfect gift (Romans 8:32).

Men reject the light— to them it is foolishness. So, they change the name— but, they cannot change the message. When I see a Christmas Tree, a Seasonal Tree or a Festival Tree, I think about Christ. Don’t you?

Pastor Terry K. Hagedorn
Calvary Baptist Church
PO Box 282 Reedsville, WV
Ph. 304-864-3870

http://mountainmanna.com

3.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2009/11/29/fnc-uniquely-reports-plight-navy-seal-heroes-charged-prisoner-abuse

FNC Reports Plight of Navy SEAL Heroes Charged with Prisoner Abuse

Brad Wilmouth 

In the past several days, FNC has given attention to the plight of three Navy SEALs who helped capture one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq – a man named Ahmed Hashim Abed who is believed to have planned the savage murder of four Blackwater security guards in Fallujah in 2004. Due to accusations of prisoner abuse by Abed, these American troops are now facing the possibility of court-martial. On Wednesday’s Special Report with Bret Baier, correspondent Steve Centanni began his report:

It was March of 2004. Fallujah was a hotbed of insurgent activity. Four Blackwater contractors were ambushed and killed. Their bodies were mutilated and burned, then dragged through the streets and hung from a bridge over the Euphrates River. The man believed to have planned that attack, Ahmed Hashim Abed ... had long evaded capture. But when a team of Navy SEALs finally did catch up with him in September of this year, they weren't hailed as heroes. Instead, three of them were brought up on charges.

Fox and Friends also raised the story Wednesday morning, and Thursday’s show delved further into the matter as former JAG officer and defense attorney Tom Kenniff appeared as a guest and argued that the accusations of abuse are consistent with al-Qaeda’s practice of advising its members to level false accusations of abuse against American troops if captured. Kenniff:

This is right out of the, you know, al-Qaeda employee handbook. I mean, they tell their guys, look, the first thing to do in a post-Abu Ghraib era if you're detained by American forces is to allege detainee abuse. So this is nothing new. We've seen repeated cases of this since the whole conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have began.

Kenniff also relayed to viewers that the troops are determined to prove their innocence in court which could give them jail time rather than plead guilty for a light punishment. Kenniff:

In this particular case, these individuals have said, you know, thanks, but no thanks, we’re maintaining our innocence. If you want to try and bring a case against us, you’ll do it via courts-martial.

Below are transcripts of relevant portions of FNC coverage of the story from the Wednesday, November 25, Special Report with Brit Hume, and the Thursday, November 26, Fox and Friends :
#From the Wednesday, November 25, Special Report with Bret Baier:

CHRIS WALLACE: One of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq has been captured by American commandos. But national correspondent Steve Centanni reports three of the Navy SEALs responsible for that capture are now in trouble themselves. A warning, some of the video in this report is graphic.

STEVE CENTANNI: It was March of 2004. Fallujah was a hotbed of insurgent activity. Four Blackwater contractors were ambushed and killed. Their bodies were mutilated and burned, then dragged through the streets and hung from a bridge over the Euphrates River. The man believed to have planned that attack, Ahmed Hashim Abed, was known to the U.S. military as "Objective Amber" and had long evaded capture. But when a team of Navy SEALs finally did catch up with him in September of this year, they weren't hailed as heroes. Instead, three of them were brought up on charges. Only one is accused of actual assault. He's 24-year-old Matthew McCabe, originally from Perryville, Ohio – a member of SEAL Team 10 based in Norfolk, Virginia.

AUDIO OF NEAL PUCKETT, ATTORNEY OF MATTHEW MCCABE: It's incredibly unfair given the lack of severity of the alleged misconduct.

CENTANNI: When Abed was captured, he was brought to Camp Baharia, a U.S. base just two miles outside Fallujah. According to one attorney in the case, Abed was turned over to the Iraqis by mistake and was later returned to U.S. custody. There are differing reports that he was punched in the gut and was hit in the face.

PUCKETT: The possibility is that the blood was caused by a self-inflicted wound to his face so that he could later claim that he was abused.

CENTANNI: The defendant's lawyers are trying to get government evidence, including any medical exams or photos. A Navy SEAL who was part of the team that captured Abed and later saw him in custody filed a statement saying, "I gave the detainee a glance over and then left. I did not notice anything wrong with the detainee, and he appeared to be in good health." The SEALs could have had an administrative hearing, facing no possibility of jail time or dishonorable discharge. But instead, they chose a court-martial that could, if they're convicted, land them behind bars and end their military careers.

TOM KENNIFF, DEFENSE ATTORNEY/FMR JAG LAWYER: Now what the soldiers are basically doing is calling the military's bluff saying, hey, we want a trial, we want to exonerate ourselves.

CENTANNI: Kenniff says the Navy SEALs could be the victims of a new military attitude toward detainees.

KENNIFF: I mean, it is very hard to equate. I mean, we understand, look, you know, in the wake of Abu Ghraib and all the fallout, the military is extremely hypersensitive to these type issues.

CENTANNI: The Navy SEALs are free pending their courts-martial. An arraignment is set for next month, and then three separate military trials will be held beginning January 17 in Norfolk, Virginia.
#From the Thursday, November 26, Fox and Friends:

RICK FOLBAUM: Three Navy SEALs captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq, but they are now getting dragged into court for allegedly giving the terrorist a fat lip. Now faced with a court-martial, what are the legal options for these guys? I'm joined by criminal defense attorney and former JAG officer Thomas Keniff. ... First of all, how does it get to the point where a suspected terrorist is able to level charges against our Navy SEALS?

TOM KENNIFF, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, look, this is right out of the, you know, al-Qaeda employee handbook. I mean, they tell their guys, look, the first thing to do in a post-Abu Ghraib era if you’re detained by American forces is to allege detainee abuse. So this is nothing new. We’ve seen repeated cases of this since the whole conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have began.

FOLBAUM: Now, the SEALs turned down, I guess, a non-judicial route. First of all, what does that mean?

KENNIFF: Non-judicial punishment. In the Navy, they usually refer to it as an admirable's mass. In the Army we call it an Article 15. Best comparison I can kind of come up with is think of an administrative hearing or an arbitration in the civilian world. You basically, you know, tell these soldiers, these Navy seamen that, look, you know, if you elect non-judicial punishment, we basically, you know, you’re going to protect yourself against the possibility of jail and you’re going to protect yourself against a dishonorable discharge. And the only punishment that you might be facing is sort of, you know, noncriminal in nature, restricted duty, reduction in rank, maybe some forfeiture in pay and that's it. In this particular case, these individuals have said, you know, thanks, but no thanks, we’re maintaining our innocence. If you want to try and bring a case against us, you’ll do it via courts-martial.

FOLBAUM: What happens? I mean, if they are found guilty of this, what are they facing? Are they looking at possibly being discharged from the military?

KENNIFF: They’re looking at a possible dishonorable discharge as well as a possible five-year jail sentence for that one charge alone for offering a false written statement. That charge alone could carry with it a maximum of five years jail. It doesn’t mean they’re going to get that, but it’s still some, you know, it’s a high stakes case for these guys.

FOLBAUM: This seems crazy to me and I'm sure to a lot of other people out there. These are heroes who are putting their lives on the line trying to track down terrorists who want to kill Americans. If one guy gets socked in the mouth, I mean, I'm sorry, that's the price of doing business. If you want to be a terrorist, I mean, that's just the way that it goes.

KENNIFF: He’s not a very nice guy. This is where it gets interesting. This is why I think this is a brilliant move on the part of these individuals, the individual Navy men as well as their attorney. You know, in the United States, we have something via the Sixth Amendment as you know known as the Confrontation Clause. Now, in non-judicial punishment context that would look more like an administrative hearing. The standard of proof would be much lower for the government. However, in a courts-martial these individuals are going to have the right to face their accuser. Who’s their accuser in this case? This, you know, dirt bag terrorist. So they’re putting the government in the very precarious situation of now if they want to go forward and prosecute them via courts-martial, who’s their star witness going to be? They’re going to have to bring this guy into court, you know, this loathsome figure that orchestrated this terrible murder of these four civilians in Fallujah and put them on the witness stand as their witness-in-chief. Tough situation.

FOLBAUM: We’re looking at a trial that could start, I'm told in January. So we’ll be following the story very closely.

RICK FOLBAUM: Well, here’s a story we’ve been talking about this morning. Three Navy SEALs captured one of the most notorious, most wanted terrorists for the 2004 murder of four Blackwater agents. This was in Fallujah. You remember this story. But instead of being honored, the elite SEAL commandos are now facing criminal charges for allegedly giving the terrorist a bloody lip. Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson, Jr., joining us now. ... This case, I think, to a lot of people, is appalling, that these heroes would go and capture this guy only to now have to face these charges.

PETER JOHNSON JR. You know, we give thanks for our troops and we send our prayers to them today, and you have to pray for the families of three members of SEAL Team 10, out of Little Creek, Virginia, who are now being pilloried in the world press for allegedly either punching Ahmad Hashim Abed who is accused of murdering these operators for America, in 2004, in Fallujah, hanging them, burning them, dragging them through the streets and then parading their bodies over the Euphrates. The allegation against these three members of the SEALS is that they either split his lip or punched him in the stomach. We don’t know the exact details. They’ve only been brought forth exclusively by Fox News. But on this Thanksgiving, you have to believe in and understand – or perhaps hope – that the President is saying to himself – because he’s a man of great common sense – what are we doing to ourselves, what are we doing to our troops to put these heroic young men under this prism, under this microscope, not only of suspicion, but of accusation?

FOLBAUM: So you say the President should pardon them right now before this gets any further?

JOHNSON: What I’m saying is that Army Major General Charles Cleveland, who is the commander of that unit, who is going to preside over this court-martial, there will be a court-martial beginning in January to prosecute and/or jail and/or separate these men from the Navy by virtue of their conduct with regard to this war criminal. We don’t have all the details as to what went on. If they engaged in torture, then they should be prosecuted, but the indications are, at this point, that this calls for the discretion of, A, the commanders of our military, and if they don’t step up to the plate, yes, the Secretary of Defense, say to them, "Listen, have some common sense. What are we doing to ourselves?" And if the Secretary of Defense doesn’t stand up, then the President needs to stand up and say, "Yes, listen, even if they made a mistake, even if there was a bloody lip, even if there was a punch in the gut, we’re in a war. And as a matter of discretion, as the Commander-in-Chief, I say step away, let these men go, let these men go forward with their proud military careers." It’s an abomination. And we can only pray on this Thanksgiving that the President – in his prayers today – is thinking about these men because a lot of Americans are.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2009/11/29/fnc-uniquely-reports-plight-navy-seal-heroes-charged-prisoner-abuse
 

 

Sunday's Web

The contents are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited. 

The day’s top political news:

Sen. John Kerry’s Democrat Senate report: “Bin Laden was ‘within our grasp’”

Osama bin Laden was “unquestionably” within reach of U.S. troops in the mountains of Tora Bora when American military leaders made the crucial and costly decision not to pursue the terrorist leader with massive force, a Senate report says.

Staff members for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Democratic majority prepared the report at the request of the chairman, Sen. John Kerry, as President Barack Obama prepares to boost U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Kerry’s own military background and “career” severely undercuts any credibility on issues involving the military – his minions toiled to besmirch the military career of his political opponent – George Bush.  Democrat rumors were proven to be myths, Kerry failed to earn an honorable discharge and his resentment is bitter.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34189238/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia

Climategate e-mails sweep America, may scuttle Barack Obama's Cap and Trade laws

In addition to previous remarks about the explosion of the East Anglia Climategate e-mails in America. The reaction is growing exponentially there.

Senator James Inhofe’s Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has written to all the relevant US Government agencies, acquainting them with the nature of the e-mails. But the real car crash for Obama is on Capitol Hill where it is now confidently believed his Cap and Trade climate legislation is toast.

Sired by the global warming myths of Al Gore and others, Cap and Trade remains pending in the Senate – it stands a primarily one more Democrat scheme through which to impose higher and  higher taxation and cause a huge increase in such products as gasoline and groceries.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100018034/climategate-%20%20e-mails-sweep-america-may-scuttle-barack-obamas-cap-and-trade-laws/

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

A week after James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated,

What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

Opinion:
Obama on Tuesday: a defining speech, a call to victory, no time for just another “teachable moment”.

Tuesday, Obama will interrupt normal programming to speak to the nation about the war in Afghanistan.  It is clear the air will be think with political PR.  A Democrat Senate report was cunningly released Sunday – a report claiming the US was close to capturing Osama Bin Laden at Tora Bora way back in 2001, The Democrat report claims George Bush refused to push its advantage and then capture or kill the world’s number one Islamic terrorist. 

It must be noted the report is being issued by none other than liberal Democrat Senator John Kerry – whose own military and war time exploits are far too well known.   Kerry’s report claims Bush was too timid to make the OBL grab – thus Kerry has Bush fumbling the ball in a similar manner as Bill Clinton.

Kerry, of course, faced Bush at the ballot box…and lost.  Kerry’s Democrat fellow travelers spent quite an effort attacking the Bush military career an attack that unraveled completely when CBS and Dan Rather were caught red-handed forging “evidence” claiming Bush got special treatment while serving in the Texas and Alabama Air Guard.

It turns out that no such special treatment was in play and the Democrat charges and accusations were bald faced lies.  Not only did Bush serve as required, but he earned with his military service, something that Kerry could not: an Honorable Discharge. 

Any anti Bush report that bears sponsorship of John Kerry, is highly suspect and will likely be all political.  Kerry has zero credibility in things military.

Kerry has been assigned the role of setting Obama’s stage with reports claiming Bush could have ended the war eight years back and thus Obama is riding to America’s rescue – even as he projects US departure. In Tuesday’s speech, Obama is expected to finally reveal his plan for Afghanistan.  Obama has been dithering and unable to reach a timely decision on the matter.

War strategy as political theater is very obvious in Obama’s making our military academy at West Point, his backdrop.  He will ooze patriotism – a trait he has worked hard to deny.
 
Carefully structured “leaks” say Obama will announce sending about 35,000 additional troops to Afghanistan – 5,000 less than what was requested by his generals.

Obama could use Winston Churchill as a model and issue a rallying cry for victory.  But Obama hates Churchill and even his massive array of cleverly placed teleprompters cannot hide his lack of enthusiasm for the task.

Obama’s position is more likely to resemble that of the timid Carter Secretary of Army Cyrus Vance, who resigned because of his refusal to endorse a secret military rescue of 53 American hostages being held by Iran.

Obama promised his far left core constituency that he would follow the conventional Democrat Party strategy  of cut, run, and surrender.  They want out.

The bottom line is Obama’s handlers are masters at dealing with show and stagecraft, ignoring substance when substance gets in the way of winning politics.

Make no mistake about it – Obama’s “West Point Story” will be a theatrical hit.  The media will swoon and Chris Mathews will get more tingles up his leg than a teen aged girl at her first rock concert.

What should be most troubling for Americans who pay close attention to things military, is the prediction Obama will pledge to leave Afghanistan within two years.  Announcing a date of retreat is hardly smart strategy.  It provides the enemy a huge asset in planning its own strategy.  Simplistically, Al Qaeda and the Taliban need only to sit back, lay low, and prepare to take over everything as soon as US boots climb about the last helicopter out.

Obama has already demonstrated his own strategy for foreign relations.  He wants to communicate a much kinder and gentler American persona than the elder Bush would ever envision.

“Peace through strength” was the path followed by Reagan – encapsulated in his strategy that held simply: “we win, they lose”.  Reagan won the Cold War even as many Democrats on Capitol Hill were quietly cheering for the commies.

Obama apologizes to the world for imagined missteps by America.  His model is not Churchill or Reagan, but more resembles that of Rodney King’s plea “can’t we all just get along?”  The answer is “no”.  Today’s world remains a dangerous place and the sort of effete weakness communicated by Obama is a sure and certain direction that will end in disaster.

Obama will give us another bad hour of television Tuesday night.  Hopefully, it will not become a long lasting re-run. America needs dedicated action throughout the Middle East, one Carter was enough.

Buddy

The day’s top blogs:

1.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/obamas_deadly_strategy_of_comp.html

Obama's Deadly Strategy of "Compromise"
Kyle Nathaniel Alfred Becker
 
The announcement of the announcement of President Obama's decision to make a decision to possibly, maybe increase troops in Afghanistan comes across with all the power and majesty of Churchill's "We Shall Fight Them" speech. Or not so much.

The setting for the absurd public "leak" of yet another prime-time speech came across with all the authenticity of one of those fake documentaries like The Office or The Modern Family. It was contrived, slightly awkward, and ultimately laughable. It would be even funnier if so many people's lives didn't rest on Obama's decisions. Such is the nature of life while living in the magical land of Hopenchange.

The risible projection of Obama as a commanding military leader, while attractive to the sycophantic, navel-gazing press, contrasted mightily with his simultaneously fawned-over persona of a pensive, cerebral man of the world. It is mighty hard to imagine George S. Patton hemming and hawing as if he were lecturing at an academic symposium before issuing his decision to make a decision to increase troops and "finish the job."

Further muddying the waters is Obama's self-serving pronouncement that the military strategy in Afghanistan under Bush lacked clear vision, sufficient manpower, ample resources, and was carried out "with not enough urgency." This would be more apt criticism if it were not issued by a president ostensibly gauging the number of troops to be sent based on polling rather than in accordance with the requests for additional troops from top commander in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal.
Obama's intermittent bellicose posturing would also be more convincing if his own party had not presented roadblock after roadblock during the Bush administration to frustrate the military's aggressive pursuit of the wars overseas. And the president's remarks would also be more salient if he had not made these same criticisms in March, when in self-congratulatory fashion he unveiled his "comprehensive new strategy" for Afghanistan and Pakistan, which he claimed marked the "conclusion of a careful policy review that [he] ordered as soon as [he] took office."

When Obama just recently proclaimed with repetitive finality that he had made a decision to make a decision whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan, he was careful to appear thoughtful and deliberative for his rabid anti-war audience and authoritative for his Bible-toting, gun-clinging audience. This triangulation is often thought of in academic circles as marking the thought of a sophisticated intellectual and conditions the perception that Obama's decision will be based on "compromise" between conflicting political interests. Thus we can expect Obama to announce that he is sending about 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan, as this is the "pain threshold" that marks the dividing line of tolerance within the crucially important "moderate" camp. But such "satisficing" of groups can often lead to inferior decision-making. In no case is this truer than when applied to warfare.

Military theorist Carl Von Clausewitz, in his seminal treatise On War, illustrates that one must know one's political objectives before fighting a war. This is the point underlying his famous statement, "War is the continuation of policy by other means." There is sufficient cause to suspect that Obama is a follower of the Primat der Innenpolitik school of politics, which sees foreign policy as driven by domestic policy. This is a powerful theory for deciphering Obama's actions: He is simultaneously playing the part of strong, visionary leader for his conservative audience and peaceful diplomatist for his leftist audience.
 
But this is fatal in warfare, according to Clausewitz's advisement. One cannot carry out a war that was intended to defeat a brutal, elusive enemy and deprive them of using a country as a base of operations, while ultimately seeking to resolve political disagreements among clashing interests. Obama cannot do the tough-talk routine that he is fighting al-Qaeda (with no mention of the Taliban) and its allies while inviting the "moderate elements" of the Taliban, the brutal regime that terrorized the Afghan people, to take part in a provisional government. This is a vivid example of Obama's moral equivocation and the shortcomings of the philosophical school of pragmatism: Can one imagine the moderate members of the Nazis being invited to take part in the post-war government of the Republic of Germany?

We must come to terms with the reality that Obama is a Marxist who sees the world as an interrelated whole. Thus the causal mechanism for all suffering and injustice in his eyes is inequality. If the United States seeks to defeat an enemy, it is automatically an oppressor. If it fights a war in a foreign country, it is inherently neo-colonialist. If it seeks to expand trade, it is certainly neo-imperialist. If it is more economically successful, it is intrinsically exploitative. If it is patriotic, it is virulently nationalistic.

Nihilism and its philosophical progeny, moral relativism and political correctness, have been used by America's enemies to morally incapacitate the nation and prevent it from vigorously promoting its interests. Marxism, the philosophy of economic destruction and statism, has produced a vision of equality that entails in reality an ever-entrenched state redistributing wealth from the successful to the less successful, all while oligarchs build a patron-client network under the rubric of democracy.
 
Islamism works hand in hand with both of these ideologies to destroy the United States as a bastion of freedom. Moral relativism and the victim narratives of the Marxist left signal Islamists to violently go on the offensive. Such is the signal we can make out from Obama's political decision to provide the war criminals of the United States with all the amenities of a civilian trial. It is an open invitation for perpetual conflict.

What the less strident leftists need to realize is that when fighting with a mortal enemy such as the Islamic jihadists, the compassionate thing to do is not to compromise with them but to end them. This requires decisive and deadly action combined with the moral fortitude and clarity to carry it out. Commander-in-Chief is not a position for the morally challenged, nor for pontificators spilling out platitudes as if they were vying for first place in a popularity contest. It requires the character and strength to make unsavory and unpopular decisions in the interest of protecting the nation long after one has left office. It requires the courage and humility of a man like George W. Bush.

2.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/afraid_to_kill_CzGsPbHtyjNSdib4rBnt5H

Afraid to kill
RALPH PETERS   

It's not true that the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist. Even dead terrorists aren't good. But at least they're dead.

And that helps.

But political correctness has possessed Washington. It's so bad that even Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who's done a great job in many other respects, parrots the cliché that "we can't kill our way out of this."

Well, folks, there's no other way out of this all-or-nothing struggle with fanatics. Three thousand years of history teach that there's no alternative -- none -- to killing fanatics in large numbers when your enemies are ablaze with religious zeal.

What Gates and countless others really mean is that we're unwilling to kill our way out of this assault on our civilization. So the terrorists keep on killing us.

We tell ourselves that one more charm offensive, one more inept aid program, one more surge of troops who aren't allowed to fight will persuade terrorists on a murderous mission from their god to lay down their arms and run for alderman.

We refuse to see the world through terrorist eyes. Instead, we superimpose liberal-arts-faculty values on bloodthirsty zealots, asking what we've done to make them so angry.

The result? We grant captured terrorists more rights and better treatment than nonviolent offenders in a US county jail. We cater to them at the gentrified prison at Guantanamo (yet the global media insist that Gitmo's just a big torture chamber).

We tell ourselves we'll impress our enemies with our humanitarianism. But how many Gitmo prisoners have turned pacifist or expressed regrets? If you were convinced that you were doing God's will, would you be budged by a captor who gives you priority health care, a religiously correct diet, special worship privileges and free legal counsel? Allah has made his enemies weak.

The laws of war provide for the battlefield execution of illegal combatants -- those who refuse to wear uniforms or identifying insignia or who commit atrocities. Instead, we give them flu shots before American citizens can get them.

When a madcap ideologue such as Attorney General Eric Holder tells Congress we mustn't be afraid to try terrorists in our judicial system, he gets it exactly wrong. The terrorists believe we're afraid to kill them. And they're right.

So we'll get the upcoming propaganda bonanza of the trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his terrorist barbershop quartet. And we'll squander hundreds of millions of dollars on special security precautions in Manhattan. The inevitable outcome? We'll make heroes of the terrorists throughout the Muslim world.

Meanwhile, down in Texas, terrorist assassin Maj. Nidal Hasan's lawyer is already making a mockery of our judicial system. Hasan will become a terrorist icon, too.

And even if Hasan, KSM and the boys are all convicted of multiple counts of premeditated murder, they won't be executed for many years to come -- if ever.

How does this deter fanatical enemies? Our insistence on treating terrorism as shoplifting that got a little out of hand does not protect Americans.

Terrified of the new global reality, Washington refuses to accept that we're no longer dealing with the political terrorists of the 20th century -- some of whom could, indeed, be won over or bought off.

We're now dealing with religious madmen hungry for an apocalypse. And our government and the media scramble to deny that Islam has anything to do with it. The poor terrorists just have grievances.

If Khalid Sheik Mohammed has a heart attack during his trial, he'll get better health care than most Post readers. Paralyzed from the waist down, Maj. Hasan will get priority on rehab treatment over our vets from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bring terrorists to Manhattan? They should never have made it to Gitmo.

http://www.americanthinker.com/

3.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/justice_for_accused_navy_seals.html
 
Justice for Accused Navy SEALs?
Jonathan F. Keiler
 
A report that three Navy SEALs will face court martial charges for allegedly abusing a long-sought Iraqi terror suspect during or after his capture has produced quite a bit of outrage and controversy.  While it is too early in the process to make a judgment as to the commandos' guilt or innocence, there is good reason to suspect the military has overreacted in pressing criminal charges. 
 
In recent years the military has been quick to press charges when dealing with service-members who, in attempting to do their duty in difficult circumstances, run afoul of overly detailed rules of engagement and regulations.  The likely reasons range from the age old tradition of officers covering their backsides, to deeply ingrained political correctness (witness the case of Major Hasan), to genuine confusion dealing with complex (and usually classified) rules of engagement. 
 
When it comes to dealing with common criminals the military justice system, operating under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) usually works just fine.  In some respects it affords the accused more rights, than does the civilian justice system.  Most notably, the Article 32 hearing, which substitutes for the civilian grand jury, gives accused service-members rights civilian defendants and their attorneys can only envy.  Unlike grand jury proceedings Article 32 hearings are generally open, allow the accused to examine and confront witnesses, and present evidence on his/her own behalf.
 
In other respects the military is less accommodating to defendants, particularly in not requiring unanimous verdicts, and generally providing juries of true peers, not marginal juries selected by jury consultants.
 
The problems arise in essentially "professional" cases of well meaning service-members who technically violate complex rules of engagement under the stress of combat.  The matter is further complicated by the nature of our recent unconventional wars, in which enemy combatants dress in civilian garb, hide among the civilian populace, deliberately use illegal deceptions, fight from the shadows, and generally violate the accepted laws of war.   Unfortunately, the tendency of commanders and Judge Advocates (JAGs) is often to charge suspect service-members first and ask questions later. 
 
Part of the rational for this approach is the versatile Article 32 hearing.  Commanders and JAGs figure that Article 32 proceedings, due to their extraordinary fairness, will shake out the bad cases from the good, while protecting the command from charges of coddling abusive soldiers or tolerating war crimes.
 
This pretty much happened in the infamous Haditha cases.  When news broke of the battle between Marines and insurgents in that Iraqi town, left leaning politicians and media outlets were quick to launch fevered claims of a massacre.  Most outrageous was the early accusation of Democrat Representative John Murtha that the charged Marines had killed Iraqi civilians in "cold blood."  Although a number of Iraqi civilians were killed in the battle, the reality was much different. 
 
Nonetheless several enlisted Marines were initially charged with murder, while their officers, including the battalion JAG officer, were charged with a variety of lesser offenses.  At the conclusion of Article 32 hearings, conducted by a variety of hearing officers, almost all the cases were dismissed, and the murder charges dropped -- replaced in the case of Sergeant Frank Wuterich, the last remaining defendant, with charges manslaughter. 
 
The Haditha cases are the best known, but hardly the only examples of servicemen falsely accused of war crimes in Iraqi and Afghanistan.   Even when exonerated, the careers of promising officers and men are permanently ruined, along with their reputations.  The military justice system is pilloried on both the left (for coddling war criminals) and the right (for persecuting innocents.)  Mostly, the initial reports of alleged war crimes are trumpeted in front pages of the media and the top of the evening news, besmirching the honor of the individuals involved and the country, while the eventual outcomes -- disproving the charges -- are relegated to side stories, or not reported at all.  
 
The SEALs were offered non-judicial punishment for their alleged crimes (called a Captain's Mast in the Navy), but turned it down, in favor of courts martial.  While technically not an admission of guilt, accepting a Captain's Mast is generally tantamount to the same thing.  Presiding officers very rarely find the accused sailors innocent of the charges, and instead impose effectively career ending punishment. 
 
Even if the SEALs prove their innocence in courts martial, or back the command down into dropping the charges, their careers might be ruined anyway.  The problem is the military's reliance on the justice system to address command problems.  If these SEALs did, as accused, punch a captured terrorist and bust his lip in the course of arresting and transporting him, there ought to be a less dramatic way of dealing with the issue than the slippery slide to courts martial.
 
Several years ago, in the midst of the Haditha hearings, I proposed in Proceedings Magazine ("Make the Military Justice System Fairer" November, 2007) a "good faith exception" to courts martial.  This would apply in cases where warriors technically ran afoul of complex rules of engagement, but where there was evidence that the service- member acted in the honest belief that he/she was properly performing his/her duties. Published guidelines could establish alternative means of discipline and victim compensation, short of dragging in the judicial system
 
Of course, my recommendations were ignored. 
 
We will have to await a more detailed accounting of the facts in the case of the SEALs to make a truly reasoned judgment regarding their guilt or innocence.  But the point is, unless there is a lot more here than initial reports suggest this is not a matter that should involve the military justice system.  
 

Saturday's Web

 The contents of these articles are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited. 

The day’s top political news:

Obama May Allow US Soldiers to be Tried in the Hague

Gateway Pundit ^

Obama may allow US soldiers to be tried in the Hague for war crimes. The Wall Street Journal reported, via Jihad Watch:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed “great regret” in August that the U.S. is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court (ICC). This has fueled speculation that the Obama administration may reverse another Bush policy and sign up for what could lead to the trial of Americans for war crimes in The Hague.

The ICC’s chief prosecutor, though, has no intention of waiting for Washington to submit to the court’s authority. Luis Moreno Ocampo says he already has jurisdiction—at least with respect to Afghanistan.

 http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/11/unreal-obama-may-allow-us-soldiers-to-be-tried-at-the-hague/

Justice Department Says Acorn Can Be Paid for Pre-Ban Contracts

The Justice Department has concluded that the Obama administration can lawfully pay the scandalous community group ACORN for services provided under contracts signed before Congress banned the government from providing money to the group.

The department’s conclusion, laid out in a recently disclosed five-page memorandum from David Barron, the acting assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, adds a new wrinkle to a sharp political debate over the group’s activities and recent efforts to distance the government from it.  ACORN is notoriously connected with Democrat political activities.

ACORN is facing prosecution in a dozen states on charges of voter registration fraud, and employees in several cities were caught on video helping promote child prostitution, smuggling of illegal aliens, and tax evasion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/28/us/politics/28acorn.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1259355860-u1P2DRmPrdFQwFuMP5+Gww

At Copenhagen Obama faces delicate balancing act on climate

Having vowed US climate action, Obama heads to Copenhagen needing to perform a delicate balancing act between huge expectations and the reality of a reluctant Congress.

Obama will travel to the Danish capital on December 9 to offer the first US plan to cut carbon emissions, officials said Wednesday, reviving hopes the closely watched meeting will succeed.

He will offer to curb US emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 – the meeting coming in the wake of discoveries of emails proving scientists fabricated data on global warming and holding the entire process up to controversy and exposure.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.dbd0d58212f48118340a6335d97e2c47.c1&show_article=1

Opinion:
Eric Holder v The American People – A case worth noting

Eric Holder has made himself the most unpopular member of a very unpopular cabinet.  Homeland Security has issued extremist memos labeling veterans and normal Americans who disagree with Obama as potential terrorists, and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, has been caught up in controversies over having been unprepared for meeting swine fly dangers and recommendations regarding breast cancer examinations, but Holder’s unpopularity and opposition has eclipsed all but his boss, Obama.

Holder has just “stepped in it again” with a ruling favoring Obama’s own ACORN organization – contending it remains lawful for the extremist group to continue being paid by the federal government.

ACORN became infamous after being caught using phony voter registration tactics and is currently facing prosecution in over a dozen states.  More recently, hidden videos showed ACORN employees in several cities willingly offering suggestions and guidance on issue such as child prostitution, human smuggling, and tax evasion.  Recent discoveries of ACORN documents in San Diego deepen the controversy and scandal.  Many in Congress have moved to cut off federal funds going to ACORN and the group has seen its ties to next year’s census process severed.

Now, Holder seems to side with ACORN.

Its not the first Holder action that seems more political than legal.  His office ignored the advice and findings of its professional staff, and insists on moving forward prosecuting CIA agents. 

Holder was assailed at the time of his nomination for his civil rights views revealed in earlier speeches and writings.  A major Holder gaffe is proving to be his incredible decision to try Islamic terrorists -- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other accused 9/11 masterminds -- now held at Git Mo in federal court in New York City.  Republicans have bitterly objected.  Holder’s actions – incredibly – grant civil rights to the terrorists.

Testifying before a Senate panel, Holder said "We need not cower in the face of this enemy,"

"I am a prosecutor," Holder said. "And as a prosecutor, my top priority was simply to select the venue where the government will have the greatest opportunity to present the strongest case and the best law."

The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions, accused the Obama administration of "a pre-9/11 mentality" and took Holder to task for trying the terrorists in a criminal court in New York City. "I believe this decision is dangerous. I believe it's misguided. I believe it is unnecessary," he said. "Mr. Holder, I don't think these are normal defendants. These are people we are at war with, and we are dropping bombs on them this very day attacking their lairs wherever they hide."

Obviously Holder fails to understand that convicting the terrorists is only one aspect of the issue.  His decision has provided the terrorists a podium from which to spew their poison to the world – one of the defense attorneys has openly admitted he intends to do as much.

Former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich sums up Holder this way: “the Attorney General's charge is upholding the rule of law - the glue that holds together a self-governing people.
In the latest skirmish in the Democratic Party's war on the CIA, Attorney General Eric Holder has failed to uphold this fundamental public trust. And for that, there should be consequences.”
Nuff said, Newt.
Buddy

The days top blogs:

1.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574557571615004170.html

Voter Anger Is Building Over Deficits
The generic poll shows a 16-point swing to the GOP over last year.
KARL ROVE

After engineering an unprecedented spending surge for nearly a year, President Barack Obama now wants to signal that he takes deficits seriously. So this week the White House announced that it is considering creating a commission to figure how to fix the budget mess.

Eureka!

Well, almost. What seems to concern the president is not the problem runaway spending poses for taxpayers and the economy. Rather, what bothers him is the political problem it poses for Democrats.
Last year, Mr. Obama made fiscal restraint a constant theme of his presidential campaign.

"Washington will have to tighten its belt and put off spending," he said back then, while pledging to "go through the federal budget, line by line, ending programs that we don't need." Voters found this fiscal conservatism reassuring.

However, since taking office Mr. Obama pushed through a $787 billion stimulus, a $33 billion expansion of the child health program known as S-chip, a $410 billion omnibus appropriations spending bill, and an $80 billion car company bailout. He also pushed a $821 billion cap-and-trade bill through the House and is now urging Congress to pass a nearly $1 trillion health-care bill.

An honest appraisal of the nation's finances would recommend dropping both of these last two priorities. But the administration has long planned to run up the federal credit card. In February, Mr. Obama's budget plan for the next decade projected that revenues would equal about 18% of GDP while spending would jump to 24% of GDP, up from its post World War II average of 21%. Annual deficits of about 6% of GDP were projected for years to come.   

When Mr. Obama was sworn into office the federal deficit for this year stood at $422 billion. At the end of October, it stood at $1.42 trillion. The total national debt also soared to $7.5 trillion at the end of last month, up from $6.3 trillion shortly after Inauguration Day.

This spending has been matched by a decline in the president's poll numbers. This week, Gallup found that his job approval rating slipped below 50%. Last March, Americans approved of Mr. Obama's handling of the deficit by a 52% to 43% margin in the ABC News/Washington Post poll. By October, his standing had flipped in the same poll, with 45% approving and 51% disapproving.   

Anger over deficits was picked up in a late October NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, which asked voters if they'd rather boost "the economy even though it may mean larger budget deficits" or keep the "budget deficit down, even though it may mean it will take longer for the economy to recover." Only 31% chose boosting the economy; 62% wanted to keep the deficit down.

These numbers suggest trouble for Democrats. In 1994, a wave of budget concerns (among other factors) handed Republicans control of Congress. Just before Election Day that year, 33% of voters approved and 59% disapproved of President Bill Clinton's handling of the deficit.

Today the latest Quinnipiac Poll tells us that only 19% of voters believe that Mr. Obama's health-care reform won't add to the deficit. The rest of us have reason to be skeptical. The bill includes all sorts of budget gimmicks, two of which illustrate that there is no fiscal restraint in it. One calls for steep cuts in Medicare and the other imposes a 40% excise tax on private, gold-plated health plans. It's just not plausible that this Congress will actually cut Medicare or tax health plans the unions have spent decades creating.

The administration says it is now instructing agencies to either freeze spending or propose 5% cuts in their budgets for next year. This won't add up to much unless agencies use the budgets they had before the stimulus inflated their spending as their baseline in calculating their cuts.

For example, if the Education Department uses its current stimulus-inflated budget of $141 billion instead of the $60 billion budget it had before Mr. Obama moved into the White House, freezing its budget will do nothing to fix the fiscal mess the president has created.

Ominously for Democrats, concerns over spending have recently helped to flip the Gallup generic ballot to now favor Republicans by four points (48% to 44%). Last year, Democrats held a 12-point generic ballot advantage. The change has been driven by independents, who now favor Republicans by 22 points. By comparison, in the run-up to the 1994 congressional elections, Republicans first eclipsed Democrats in March of that year, when they gained a one-point advantage, before falling behind Democrats until the fall.

Mr. Obama's spending choices are dragging congressional Democrats into ugly electoral territory where many are likely to meet a brutal fate next fall.

Mr. Rove, the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, is the author of the forthcoming book "Courage and Consequence" (Threshold Editions).

2.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/223821

George F. Will
The First ‘Pacific President’?
Inflation is not only a monetary matter.

Barack Obama's irresistible, or at least unresisted, propensity for self-aggrandizement bubbled up yet again during his recent trip to the Far East when he proclaimed himself "America's first Pacific president." Hearing this, Asians may have muttered about inscrutable Occidentals. Obama's exercise in rhetorical grandiosity, while hardly his first, was exquisitely meaningless. (Click here to follow George F. Will).

Yes, Obama lived for 14 years in Hawaii, which is in the Pacific. But two presidents (Ronald Reagan, and before him Richard Nixon, who in 1972 ended the freeze in U.S.-China relations that began in 1949) came from California, which is on the Pacific. So, is the world-historic difference in the preposition?

Yes, Obama lived four years, until the age of 10, in Indonesia. But two young men who were to become America's 35th and 41st presidents also had formative experiences in the Pacific: John Kennedy's PT-109 was sunk beneath him, and George Herbert Walker Bush, a future envoy to China, had his Grumman Avenger shot down. And before becoming America's 27th president, William Howard Taft governed the Philippines for about as many years as child Obama lived in Indonesia.

In May 1900, America's 25th president, William McKinley, sent U.S. troops to China to help put down the Boxer Rebellion. America's 33rd president, Harry Truman, waged serious war in Asia—in Korea, where Americans suffered 157,530 casualties, including 54,246 fatalities. Dwight Eisenhower vowed, during the 1952 campaign, "I shall go to Korea," which Americans correctly heard as a vow to end the war one way or another. In December of that year the president-elect did something no serving president had ever done: He set foot on the far side of the Pacific. America's 38th president, Gerald Ford, was the first to visit Japan while in office. (President Ulysses S. Grant visited Japan after leaving office, and is said to have been the first person to shake the emperor's hand. America's First Pacific President bowed.)

President Taft's predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt, sort of earned—imagine that—his Nobel Peace Prize for helping to mediate the end of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. (The mediation occurred in Portsmouth, N.H.; TR did not attend.) In October 1908, the "Great White Fleet" that TR sent around the world as an act of national exuberance arrived in Japan, where U.S. officers were housed in the emperor's palace.

In order to encourage Japan, then an almost hermetically sealed society, to play nicely with others, in March 1852 America's 13th president, Millard Fillmore, ordered Commodore Matthew Perry to go to Tokyo with the U.S. Navy's East India Squadron, which had first been dispatched across the Pacific in 1835 by America's seventh president, Andrew Jackson. Perry's 1853 visit to Tokyo Bay was not persuasive, so he returned in 1854—by then his commander in chief was America's 14th president, Franklin Pierce—with a larger fleet. The spectacle of what the Japanese called the "black ships" moved them to sign a treaty of "permanent" friendship, which became impermanent at 7:49 a.m., Dec. 7, 1941.

The first U.S. treaty with China was signed in 1844 under the 10th president, John Tyler. Pacific waves have lapped the republic's shores since California attained statehood in September 1850. The 11th president, James Polk, had wrested California from Mexico, and the 12th president, Zachary Taylor, died before statehood came under Fillmore.

All this—indeed, all of the human story—was but prologue to today's culmination in a president who, in his 10th month in office, flew across the Pacific for seven days in Asia, thereby becoming "America's first Pacific president." Such rhetorical inflation devalues the currency of words with which we think.

Not everywhere, though. Listeners to Garrison Keillor's A Prairie Home Companion know that one of the businesses in Lake Wobegon, Minn., is Ralph's Pretty Good Grocery. ("If you can't get it at Ralph's, you can probably get along without it.") In an age of pandemic hyperbole, the store's name is a refreshing zephyr of modesty.

Come 2012, America's First Pacific President—self-proclaimed "citizen of the world," whose advent marked, he said, "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal"—will be seeking reelection. Someone running against him might find that this resonates with a public suffering greatness fatigue: "Vote for me and get a pretty good president."

George Will is also the author of One Man's America: The Pleasures and Provocations of Our Singular Nation and With a Happy Eye But . . .: America and the World, 1997—2002 .
© 2009 

3.

Competitive Enterprise Institute Sues NASA in Wake of Climategate Scandal
A CEI fellow details their just-filed Freedom of Information Act suit regarding files requested three years ago and never received.
Christopher Horner
 
Today, the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies’ refusal — for nearly three years — to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

The information sought is directly relevant to the exploding “Climategate” scandal revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid complying with both countries’ freedom of information laws, and apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate science bodies.

Numerous informed commenters had alleged such behavior for years, all of which appears to be affirmed by leaked emails, computer code, and other data from the Climatic Research Unit of the UK’s East Anglia University.

All of that material, and that sought for years by CEI, goes to the heart of the scientific claims and campaign underpinning the Kyoto Protocol, its planned successor treaty, “cap-and-trade” legislation, and the EPA’s threatened regulatory campaign to impose similar measures through the back door.

CEI sought the following documents, among others.  NASA’s failure to provide them within thirty days will prompt CEI to file suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia:

– Internal discussions about NASA’s quiet correction of its false historical U.S. temperature records after two Canadian researchers discovered a key statistical error, specifically: discussion about whether and why to correct certain records, how to do so, the impact, or wisdom, or potential (or real) fallout there from or reaction to doing so (requested August 2007).

– Internal discussions relating to the email sent to James Hansen and/or Reto A. Ruedy from a Stephen (Steve) McIntyre calling their attention to the errors in NASA/GISS online temperature data (August 2007).

– Those relating to the content, importance, or propriety of workday-hour posts or entries by GISS/NASA employee Gavin A. Schmidt on the weblog or “blog” RealClimate, which is owned by the advocacy Environmental Media Services and was started as an effort to defend the debunked “Hockey Stick” that is so central to the CRU files. RealClimate.org is implicated in the leaked files and expressly offered as a tool to be used “in any way you think would be helpful” to a certain advocacy campaign, including an assertion of Schmidt’s active involvement in, e.g., delaying and/or screening out unhelpful input by “skeptics” attempting to comment on claims made on the website.

This, and the related political activism engaged in, are inappropriate behavior for a taxpayer-funded employee, particularly on taxpayer time. These documents were requested in January 2007 and NASA/GISS have refused to date to comply with their legal obligation to produce responsive documents.

Christopher Horner is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
 

 

Friday's Web

The contents are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited. 

The day’s top political news:

How to Forge a Consensus: Climategate emails strongly suggest The global warming scam has been rigged from the start.

The climatologists at the center of last week's leaked-email and document scandal have taken the line that it is all much ado about nothing. Yes, they admit, the wording of the some of their messages was unfortunate, but they insist this in no way undermines the underlying science, which is as certain as ever.

Phil Jones, Director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, from which the emails were lifted, is singing from the same climate hymnal. "My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues," he said this week.

The furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or even whether climatologists are nice people in private. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at in the first place, and how even now a single view is being enforced. In short, the impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax

ABC news reports that five frontbenchers from Australia’s opposition Liberal party have resigned their portfolios rather than follow their leader Malcolm Turnbull in voting with Kevin Rudd’s Government on a new Emissions Trading Scheme. Australia is leading the revolt against Al Gore’s great big AGW conspiracy.

Democrats in the US have been scheming and conspiring to impose a similar tax on Americans.  The bill narrowly passed the House and awaits debate in the Senate – threatening more than a new, and huge Democrat tax, but also sending prices of necessities sky high.  .

The Liberal Party is in turmoil with the resignations of five frontbenchers from their portfolios this afternoon in protest against the emissions trading scheme in Australia..

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018003/climategate-five-aussie-mps-lead-the-way-by-resigning-in-disgust-over-carbon-tax/

In his speech Tuesday, Obama must sell his far left base on unpopular war

Obama must convince supporters who thought they’d voted for an anti-war president to back a plan expected to roughly double the number of troops in Afghanistan

In major foreign policy speeches in August 2007 and July 2008, Obama spoke of  sending an additional six or eight thousand troops – to Afghanistan. However, the 21,000 troops he has already sent far exceed any troop increase he discussed publicly before the election, even before the 30,000 or so more he’s expected to announce he’ll add to that number in Tuesday’s speech.

Meanwhile, anti war Democrats scheme to impose a “War tax” on Americans – a clever ploy with a primary goal of increasing opposition to the war. (One supporter of such a tax is Congressman Charles Rangel – a notorious tax cheat who pays only some of the tax he owes)

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=327418D8-18FE-70B2-A887295DDBDCDA83

Opinion:
Understand the threat, realize what is the only solution

Democrats have arrayed a plethora of threats against normal America and have the power to impose the results.

Democrats have dominating numbers in the House and Senate.  Obama can force approval of any nominee he chooses for the Supreme Court, no matter how unprepared or unqualified.  (Being qualified for high office is certainly not a concern for those who support Obama – since he took the oath of office without having ever had training in management or administration, and had no experience with real employment)

The troika of threats facing normal Americans are Cap and Trade – a Democrat tax scheme based on Gore’s now discredited global warming myth; amnesty for illegal immigrants which will make more than 12 million people suddenly become citizens despite their having sneaked in; and health care “reform” – yet another Democrat scheme – in the case of health care it’s a design for government takeover of American health care and imposition of Canadian-style socialized medicine.

On many occasions, Americans can allow their eyes to glass over when people explain or discuss legislation pending on Capitol Hill – convinced honest debate and voting by honest representatives of the population at large, would produce results of minor tweaking of government and no noticeable change. 

However, they should keep in mind that Jimmy Carter, who arrived at victory with a very narrow margin (one that would almost certainly have been overturned had Ford allowed a challenge to vote tabulation in Ohio), was able to quickly saddle America with the huge Department of Education.  Creating the cabinet level organization took no heavy lifting on Carter’s part.  He could, so he did.  The move was a crass political pay off to the huge NEA teacher’s union that had handed Carter the Democrat nomination. 

The result was a huge voice in education by the far left union – now operating as an arm of the Democrat Party – and an immediate surge in the corruption of our public education.  Such subjects as American History were almost immediately distorted and changed.

Today’s Democrat schemes  threaten immediate results and immediate actions against normal America.  Cap and Trade – based on what is now understood to be phony and rigged data – will immediately cost each of us an additional $3,000 a piece each and every year, and will cause prices of groceries and gasoline to “skyrocket” to use Obama’s own words on the subject.

Meanwhile, debate on Harry Reid’s version of health care “reform” will begin when the Senate returns next week.  “Reform” disguises the real Democrat intent – a bare knuckled takeover of the health care industry and imposition of socialized medicine.  Even the highly controversial liberal extremist, Congressman Barney Frank, admits the Democrat “public option” plan is a direct pathway to Canadian style socialized medicine.  Canada’s experience has not been favorable.

On top of all this, the illegal immigration crisis confronts us.  While the Bush White House bumbled the issue, Republicans have  generally been steadfast in opposition to amnesty and an easy pathway to full citizenship for illegal aliens.  (It must be admitted that a few Republicans in the Senate have been very wrong on this issue – John McCain being one.  The GOP House, however, passed an effective bill, only to see it blocked in the Senate by Teddy Kennedy.)

Understand, Democrat can force us all to accept these distasteful schemes simply because they have the raw numbers of members in the House and in the Senate.  On Capitol Hill, it’s a simple and absolute matter of numbers.

For that reason, the only hope for America is for the handful of Republicans in the House and in the Senate to delay passage of as many of these Democrat schemes as possible, and hold them off until the elections of 2010 allow us to remove enough Democrats in each House, to retake our government and return some form of order and acceptability.

We must stop the extremists of the far left and their efforts to impose heavy taxation, amnesty for illegals, and take over our health care system.  That can only be done by defeating as many Democrats as possible.

Some RINOS will be elected, but they are far better for America than their Democrat counterparts.  No RINO will vote for Nancy Pelosi to remain Speaker of the House – any and all Democrats will vote for her.  If nothing else, keep that fact in mind.

Plus know that the three primary far left threats America faces today, are not the end to the liberal conspiracy.  Waiting in the wings are other Democrat schemes and scams.  Just this week, anti war liberals have proposed a “war tax” – a plan whose primary goal is making the war more and more unpopular and forcing an imposition of the traditional Democrat strategy for any war: “cut, run, and surrender”.

Thus has it always been, thus will it always be with liberal Democrats.

The plan and the strategy is as clear as it is undeniable.

Buddy

The top blogs of the day

1.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/25/AR2009112503535.html?wpisrc=newsletter

Playing by Reid's rules on filibusters
Jeff Sessions

Legal scholars have long debated whether the filibuster may be used to keep judicial nominees off the bench. For practical purposes, that question was answered on May 23, 2005. That night, while forging a settlement of a boiling debate, the bipartisan "Gang of 14" established that filibustering judges is allowed, but only under "extraordinary circumstances."

This controversy arose when Democratic senators met at a strategy retreat shortly after President George W. Bush took office. There, they made a calculated and historic decision to cast aside more than 200 years of Senate precedent and to openly and systematically filibuster even highly qualified Bush nominees.

Uproar ensued, leading to contentious debate and even an all-night Senate session. Then-Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) led a major effort to reestablish the tradition through a dramatic rule change referred to as the "nuclear option." At the last moment, a group of seven Democrats and seven Republicans reached a compromise: Henceforth, for them, judicial filibusters should not be undertaken unless "extraordinary circumstances" were present to justify the higher vote requirement to end debate.

Before that night, Democrats had succeeded in holding up a host of superb judicial nominees, including the current chief justice of the United States, John Roberts.

Then a federal appeals court nominee, Roberts waited two years for an up-or-down vote on his nomination, and he was among the lucky ones. Fantastic judges such as Terrence Boyle, Carolyn Kuhl and Miguel Estrada never even received a vote.

The Democrats' tactics were a dramatic change of Senate precedent, which had generally limited filibusters to legislative matters. These were politically motivated obstructions, not thoughtful debates on the nominees' character or judicial philosophy. In the midst of a filibuster of Priscilla Owen's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) suggested that 10 additional hours be allowed before a final vote. Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) objected. How long did he need? "[T]here is not a number [of hours] in the universe that would be sufficient," Reid replied.

In all, 1,044 total votes were cast in attempts to deny 17 Bush nominees a chance at confirmation -- and 99.9 percent of them came from Democrats under Reid's leadership.

I wasn't among the handful of senators who arrived at the "extraordinary circumstances" compromise in 2005. In fact, I felt strongly, and had said publicly, that the use of the filibuster was inappropriate for judicial nominations. Even so, I recognized then -- as I do now -- that the Senate can set its own rules and that those rules had changed.

So, given this context, it's difficult to understand the majority leader's recent indignation over a Republican attempt to block only one of President Obama's most troubling nominees, Judge David Hamilton (since confirmed). It's curious that the architect of the judicial filibuster is complaining about its use.

In my view, Hamilton's record and past statements demonstrate an activist judicial philosophy that qualifies as "extraordinary." He has endorsed the view that judges write "footnotes to the Constitution" and has unapologetically embraced the flawed "empathy standard." His record includes a number of troubling rulings that evidence those beliefs.

To be clear, I believe that the president is entitled to a reasonable degree of deference on his judicial nominations. I supported more than 90 percent of President Bill Clinton's judicial nominees, and I hope I am able to do the same for President Obama, even if they would not be my top choices.

But I take seriously the Senate's constitutionally mandated role to "advise and consent," and I am obligated to oppose nominees who have demonstrated either an unwillingness to subordinate themselves to the Constitution or a desire to advance a political, social or economic agenda from the bench.

This year, a number of my colleagues and I have voted against just three judicial nominees, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Only in the case of Judge Hamilton have we raised a procedural objection to Majority Leader Harry Reid's desire to proceed to a vote.

For Republicans to ignore the changed rules would be to acquiesce in a system where 60 votes are needed to confirm judges nominated by Republicans, but only 51 are required to confirm judges nominated by Democrats. To allow such a double standard would be akin to unilateral disarmament.

A return to the tradition of up-or-down votes on all judicial nominees would, I believe, strengthen the Senate. I have offered to discuss with my colleagues ways this could be permanently codified in the Senate's official rules. So far, no takers.

The writer, a senator from Alabama, is the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee

2.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/025016.php?format=print

http://www.powerlineblog.com

A Sickening Story
Power Line Blog: John Hinderaker, Scott Johnson, Paul Mirengoff

You could call this pre-September 11 thinking, except that there never was a time when it would have been sane:

Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq -- the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.

Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors -- and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

(NOTE: We seem to be facing a case of outrageous accusations being lodged against our troops.  A year of so back, infamous Democrat Congressman John Murtha, accused a group of Marines of murder – the marines were exonerated in court.  A probe  is needed to determine if the accusations against the SEALs is legitimate, or another case of political correctness gone mad.)

The source said intelligence briefings provided to the SEALs stated that "Objective Amber" planned the 2004 Fallujah ambush, and "they had been tracking this guy for some time."

The Fallujah atrocity came to symbolize the brutality of the enemy in Iraq and the degree to which a homegrown insurgency was extending its grip over Iraq.

The four Blackwater agents were transporting supplies for a catering company when they were ambushed and killed by gunfire and grenades. Insurgents burned the bodies and dragged them through the city. They hanged two of the bodies on a bridge over the Euphrates River for the world press to photograph.

Intelligence sources identified Abed as the ringleader, but he had evaded capture until September.
Our armed forces have become exquisitely sensitive--toward Nidal Malik Hasan and Ahmed Hashim Abed, and one wonders who else. Such sensitivity comes at a price, of course. But for now, at least, that price won't be paid by those who set the policy.

3.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34594

MSNBC Exclusive: Fort Hood Never Happened!

Ann Coulter 
 
It's been weeks since eyewitnesses reported that Maj. Nidal Hasan shouted "Allahu akbar" before spraying Fort Hood with gunfire, killing 13 people.

 Since then we also learned that Hasan gave a medical lecture on beheading infidels and pouring burning oil down their throats (unfortunately not covered under the Senate health care bill). Some wondered if perhaps a pattern was beginning to emerge but were promptly dismissed as racist cranks.

 We also found out Hasan had business cards printed up with the jihadist abbreviation "SOA" for "Soldier of Allah." Was that enough to conclude that the shooting was an act of terrorism -- or does somebody around here need to take another cultural sensitivity class?

 And we know that Hasan had contacted several jihadist Web sites and that he had been exchanging e-mails with a radical Islamic cleric in Yemen. The FBI learned that last December, but the rest of us only found out about it a week ago.

 Is it still too soon to come to the conclusion that the Fort Hood shooting was an act of terrorism?

 Alas, it is still too early to tell at MSNBC. For Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews -- at least two of whom would be severely punished under Shariah law -- the shooting of George Tiller was an act of terrorism, no question. The death of a census taker in Kentucky was also an act of terrorism. (We learned this week that it was a suicide/insurance scam.) But as to Maj. Hasan, the jury is still out -- and will be out for many, many years.

 Actually, according to Keith, the Fort Hood massacre may not have happened at all. He has argued persuasively, on several occasions, that it is impossible, literally impossible, to commit mass murder at a military base.

 Like many on the left, Keith loved to sneer at all terrorist plots allegedly foiled by the Bush administration. He was particularly contemptuous of the purported plan of six aspiring jihadists to sneak onto the Fort Dix army base and kill as many soldiers as they could.

 On Nov. 11, 2008, he explained why the Fort Dix terrorist plot was a laughable fraud, saying the "morons" apparently didn't realize that "all the soldiers have these big guns."

 Keith, the moron, apparently doesn't realize that on military bases on U.S. soil only MPs have guns. (Special authorization is required for soldiers to carry a firearm, which can be granted only in the case of a specific and credible threat against military personnel in that region. Thank you, Bill Clinton.)

 Again on May 21 this year, Olbermann ridiculed the Fort Dix terror plot, pointing out that the six alleged terrorists seemed to be "forgetting that every man there was armed."(Curiously, even though ROTC was offered at the ag school Keith attended, he appears not to have investigated it.)

 But it was not until Aug. 21 of this year that Olbermann hit upon the true reason for the Bush administration's hyping of this implausible terror plot. According to Keith -- and I'm not kidding -- it was to distract from Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' announcement that her state had been unable to respond adequately to a tornado because Bush had diverted the National Guard to his crazy war in Iraq!

 The Bush administration, you see, had revealed the arrest of the Fort Dix conspirators the day after Sebelius' world-reverberating bombshell about Kansas' decimated National Guard! Eureka!

 This little theory of Keith's, adorable though it is, has problems apart from his insistence that it would be impossible to kill army personnel on "a closed compound full of trained soldiers with weapons." The other problem is Gov. Sebelius was full of crap.

 First, Sebelius wasn't in much of a position to know how well Kansas responded to the tornado, inasmuch as she had been partying at New Orleans' Jazzfest the day after the tornado hit -- while Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts and both local congressmen were on the scene, helping the rescue efforts.

 Second, the manager of the actual rescue team soon contradicted Sebelius, saying: "We have all the staff that we need and can manage at this time. If we had more people right now, it would just start being a cluster."

 The Kansas National Guard had 352 Humvees, 72 dump trucks and more than 320 other trucks, which would seem to be sufficient for the town hit by the tornado, Greensburg, Kan., population 1,574. That's almost one National Guard truck for every two people. (This is the same tornado that Obama claimed had killed 10,000 people. He was off by 9,988.)

 Third, it turned out that Gov. Sebelius had rejected offers of additional help from neighboring National Guard units.

 Consequently, the day after her dramatic cri de coeur for more National Guard resources, Sebelius' office completely reversed course, telling The Associated Press that the rescue efforts were going "just fine."

 What the governor had meant, her office explained, was that Kansas' National Guard might be stretched thin if, hypothetically, another natural disaster were to strike immediately after the tornado.

 Keith, unfortunately, was unaware of Sebelius' humiliating about-face, as it was not carried on Daily Kos.

 Last December, five of the Fort Dix plotters were found guilty by a federal jury of conspiring to kill American soldiers. The sixth had already pleaded guilty.

 Still, compare the macho posturing of the Bush administration over thwarting the Fort Dix terror plot to the masterful handling of domestic terrorist plots since the angel Obama has taken the helm. Why, the Obama administration managed to capture and arrest Maj. Hasan without violating a single American's civil liberties!

Wednesday's Web

The contents are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited. 

The day’s top political news:

Illinois Democrats: Keeping Obama Senate seat not easy

The White House and Illinois Democrats admit their bid to hold on to Obama's old Senate seat won't be easy and their difficulties aren't just because of the scandal that engulfed ousted Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Next year is the first major election for Democrats since Blagojevich was arrested last year on federal corruption charges and removed from office. He has pleaded not guilty to charges that he tried to sell or trade Obama's Senate seat.

Republicans are pushing hard to claim Obama's old Senate seat. The seat is currently held by Sen. Roland Burris, who was appointed to the post by Blagojevich after the then-governor was arrested last year.  A crowded GOP primary includes U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk of Chicago's northern suburbs, the best-known of the candidates in the field.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ILLINOIS_SENATE_RACE?SITE=SCAND&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Obama to attend beginning of U.N. climate meeting

Obama will go to Copenhagen for a U.N. climate change meeting on December 9, hoping to add momentum to an international process despite slow progress on a domestic bill to cut carbon emissions.

Most nations have given up hopes of agreeing to a binding legal treaty text in Copenhagen, partly because of uncertainty about what the United States will be able to offer.

The meeting comes in the immediate wake of discovery of fraud by scientists supporting the Global Warming theories.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5AO2F120091125

Economy's rebound not as strong as first thought

The economy grew at a 2.8 percent pace last quarter, as the recovery got off to a slower start than first thought.

The Commerce Department's new reading on gross domestic product wasn't as energetic as the 3.5 percent growth rate for the July-September period estimated just a month ago.

The main factors behind the downgrade: consumers didn't spend as much, commercial construction was weaker and the nation's trade deficit was more of a drag on growth. Businesses also trimmed more of their stockpiles, another restraining factor.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091124/D9C5UBSO2.html

Opinion:
Liberals in the media try to ignore Al Gore’s Global Warming being proven a phony scam

I’ve long realized liberal Democrats have neither pride nor shame.

We saw that demonstrated last week end when Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu openly sold her vote on Reid’s health care scheme for $300 million and bragged about it.

But that was Louisiana, and Democrat politicians there have done such things openly for generations.  Edwin Edwards, as governor, was openly crooked, yet he got re-elected again and again.

But liberal efforts to effect a denial of recent proof of scientific dishonesty about the myths of Global Warming, may reach new limits.  Giving the devil his due, the NY Times has run an article – while more responsible media such as the Washington Times has actually editorialized on it.

The importance of driving a final stake through the heart of this Gore-created monster, is the pending legislation in the Senate, involving Cap and Trade. It was a bill liberals claimed answered Gore’s global warming threat, but is actually a thinly disguised Democrat scheme to create a new and extremely high tax.

The revealed truth regarding this issue, should end the Cap and Trade threatm and with it the collateral damage.  (Under Cap and Trade grocery prices and gasoline prices at the pump would also rise)

Here is a quick take on the story:

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?
James Delingpole Politics

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka  CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations  – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters.

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next

time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.”

What else is new?

Liberals have long toiled mightily to keep dissenters to their schemes and scams on the outside of things.  We see the same approach on Capitol Hill these days – Liberal Democrats conspire in private, behind closed doors, and keep rational suggestions from Republicans off the table.

No wonder we see such outrageous scandals as the Global Warming myth being a basis for terrible legislation, but we also are witnessing the bare knuckled efforts by liberals to take over our health care system, raise our taxes, and destroy access and quality.

Buddy

The day’s top blogs:

1.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125908904046562751.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Bachus Seeks Data on Bank Loans to AIG, Subsidiaries

MEENA THIRUVENGADAM

WASHINGTON -- The top Republican on the House Financial Services Committee is demanding data on banks he suspects are being asked to take significant haircuts on loans they extended to subsidiaries of American International Group, now effectively a ward of the state.

"While foreign and domestic counterparties were made whole, AIG has been attempting to force many of its creditors that are U.S. banks to accept severe reductions in the debt owed to them," Rep. Spencer Bachus (R., Ala.) wrote in a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner this week.

At least 17 banks are being asked to accept less than what is owed to them, Mr. Bachus said in an interview, citing information he has received.

"It's tremendously unfair. What is it about a [credit default swap] that makes it any more sacred?" Mr. Bachus asked. "The credit default swaps were a bet ... gamble ... a risk."

In an earlier letter to Mr. Geithner, Mr. Bachus said one AIG subsidiary, AIG Baker, was demanding a 72% reduction in principal on a $45 million syndicated loan made by a trio of unnamed U.S. banks. AIG Baker is an Alabama-based developer of shopping centers with a presence in about 20 states.

Mr. Bachus now is requesting details on banks providing credit to AIG and any of its real estate subsidiaries that have received federal assistance. Further, he wants to know the amount of the banks' exposure to AIG, the names of all AIG subsidiaries that had relationships with small regional banks and the extent to which AIG has met its obligations to U.S. bank creditors.

The Treasury on Tuesday declined to comment on Mr. Bachus's request.

The Treasury has been facing growing anger on Capitol Hill in recent weeks after the emergence of an oversight report that confirms the government failed to negotiate the best possible deal for taxpayers in connection with its $180 billion bailout package for AIG.

The report, from a special inspector general overseeing the rescue of AIG and other firms, suggests the Treasury and the New York Fed -- headed by Mr. Geithner at the time -- could have pressed AIG counterparties harder to accept less than the full amount they were owed in connection with credit default swaps written by the firm.

The report showed the government negotiated with AIG counterparties for only two days, stressing that taking haircuts on their positions was voluntary.

AIG counterparties paid in full include Goldman Sachs, Societe Generale and Deutsche Bank.
"They could have paid the regional and community banks for the amount of money they gave to any one of those institutions," Mr. Bachus said.

Write to Meena Thiruvengadam at meena.thiruvengadam@dowjones.com

2.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17183

Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding “Climategate”  scandal

 “The files contain so much material that it is going to take some time t o put it all in context,” says Ball.  “However, enough is already known to underscore their explosive nature.  It is already clear the entire claims and positions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are based on falsified manipulated material and is therefore completely compromised.

“The fallout will be extensive as material continues to emerge.  Reputations of the scientists involved are already destroyed, however fringe players will continue to be identified and their reputations destroyed or sullied.”

While the mainstream media is bending into pretzels to keep the scandal under the rug, Climategate is already the biggest scientific scandal in history because of the global policy implications.

A throwback to the intro of the television series Dragnet, “Ladies and Gentlemen:  “The story you are about to hear is true, only the names have been changed to protect the innocent”, the innocent in Climategate have already been thrown to the ravening wolves.

“There is a multitude of small but frightening stories in the massive files,”  Ball writes.  “For example I’ve known solar physicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon for a long time. I’ve published articles with Willie and enjoyed extensive communication. I was on advisory committees with them when Sallie suddenly and politely withdrew from the fray. I don’t know if the following events were contributing factors but it is likely.

“Baliunas and Soon were authors of excellent work confirming the existence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from a multitude of sources. Their work challenged attempts to get rid of the MWP because it contradicted the claim by the proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Several scientists challenged the claim that the latter part of the 20th century was the warmest ever. They knew the claim was false, many warmer periods occurred in the past. Michael Mann ‘got rid’ of the MWP with his production of the hockey stick, but Soon and Baliunas were problematic. What better than have a powerful academic destroy their credibility for you? Sadly, there are always people who will do the dirty work.”

Indeed, Holdren’s emails show how sincere scientists would be made into raw “entertainment”.
How the deed was done

“A perfect person and opportunity appeared. On 16th October 2003 Michael Mann, infamous for his lead in the ‘hockey stick’ that dominated the 2001 IPCC Report, sent an email to people involved in the CRU scandal; “

Dear All,

Thought you would be interested in this exchange, which John Holdren of Harvard has been kind enough to pass along…” At the time Holdren was Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy & Director, Program in Science, Technology, & Public Policy, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is now Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology—informally known as the United States Science Czar.

““In an email on October16, 2003 from John Holdren to Michael Mann and Tom Wigley we are told:

”“I’m forwarding for your entertainment an exchange that followed from my being quoted in the Harvard Crimson to the effect that you and your colleagues are right and my “Harvard” colleagues Soon and Baliunas are wrong about what the evidence shows concerning surface temperatures over the past millennium. The cover note to faculty and postdocs in a regular Wednesday breakfast discussion group on environmental science and public policy in Harvard’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences is more or less self-explanatory.”

The Wednesday Breakfast Group

“This is what Holdren sent to the Wednesday Breakfast group.

“I append here an e-mail correspondence I have engaged in over the past few days trying to educate a Soon/Baliunas supporter who originally wrote to me asking how I could think that Soon and Baliunas are wrong and Mann et al. are right (a view attributed to me, correctly, in the Harvard Crimson). This individual apparently runs a web site on which he had been touting the Soon/Baliunas position.”

“The exchange Holdren refers to is a challenge by Nick Schulz editor of Tech Central Station (TCS). On August 9, 2003 Schulz wrote;

“In a recent Crimson story on the work of Soon and Baliunas, who have written for my website [1 techcentralstation.com, you are quoted as saying: My impression is that the critics are right. It s unfortunate that so much attention is paid to a flawed analysis, but that’s what happens when something happens to support the political climate in Washington. Do you feel the same way about the work of Mann et. al.? If not why not?”

“Holdren provides lengthy responses on October 13, 14, and 16 but comments fail to answer Schulz’s questions. After the first response Schulz replies, “I guess my problem concerns what lawyers call the burden of proof. The burden weighs heavily, much more heavily, given the claims on Mann et.al. than it does on Soon/Baliunas. Would you agree?” Of course, Holdren doesn’t agree. He replies, “But, in practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing-it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows.” No it doesn’t evolve; it is either on one side or the other. This argument is in line with what has happened with AGW. He then demonstrates his lack of understanding of science and climate science by opting for Mann and his hockey stick over Soon and Baliunas. His entire defense and position devolves to a political position. His attempt to belittle Soon and Baliunas in front of colleagues is a measure of the man’s blindness and political opportunism that pervades everything he says or does.

“Schulz provides a solid summary when he writes, “I’ll close by saying I’m willing to admit that, as someone lacking a PhD, I could be punching above my weight. But I will ask you a different but related question. How much hope is there for reaching reasonable public policy decisions that affect the lives of millions if the science upon which those decisions must be made is said to be by definition beyond the reach of those people?”

“We now know it was deliberately placed beyond the reach of the people by the group that he used to ridicule Soon and Baliunas. Holdren was blinded by his political views, which as his record shows are frightening. One web site synthesizes his position on over-population as follows, “Forced abortions.

Mass sterilization. A “Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death over American citizens.”

“Holdren has a long history of seeking total government control. He was involved in the Club of Rome providing Paul Ehrlich with the scientific data in his bet with Julian Simon. Ehrlich lost the bet.

 Holdren’s behavior in this sorry episode with Soon and Baliunas is too true to form and shows the leopard never changes his spots,” Ball concludes.

Meanwhile, even with an AWOL mainstream media, the Climategate snakes continue to slither out from under the rocks.

3.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56879

Intel Committee Republican Says Administration is Withholding Information on Fort Hood Attack

CNSNews.com ^

Christopher Neefus

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the ranking Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said Monday that the Obama administration has been withholding “critical information” on the Fort Hood murders allegedly committed by Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan.

Hoekstra is demanding that the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Security Agency and the Director of National Intelligence preserve documents relating to the incident for use in possible future congressional investigation.

"President Obama said people should not jump to conclusions about what happened at Fort Hood, but the administration is in possession of critical information related to the attack that they are refusing to release to Congress or the American people," Hoekstra said in a statement. "I intend to push for intense review of this and other issues related to the performance of the intelligence community and whether or not information necessary for military, state and local officials to provide for the security of the post was provided to them."

The Michigan lawmaker sent a letter Saturday to the top administration intelligence officials, saying he saw “serious issues” with their performance related to the Fort Hood murders, and indicating that the intelligence community had refused to comply with his request to review certain information related to the case.

 

Tuesday's Web

The contents are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited. 

The day’s top political news:

NY Times: Wave of Debt Payments Facing US Government

The United States government is financing its more than trillion-dollar-a-year borrowing with i.o.u.’s on terms that seem too good to be true.

Treasury officials now face a trifecta of headaches: a mountain of new debt, a balloon of short-term borrowings that come due in the months ahead, and interest rates that are sure to climb back to normal as soon as the Federal Reserve decides that the emergency has passed.

With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government’s tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. Other forecasters say the figure could be much higher.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/34104722

ACORN Dumped Sensitive Documents in advance of  Investigation by California Attorney General

A private investigator says he found tens of thousands of sensitive documents dumped outside a California ACORN office just days after the state attorney general announced an inquiry into the community organizing group.

Derrick Roach, a licensed investigator based in San Diego, told FoxNews.com he paid an impromptu visit to the city's ACORN branch on Oct. 9 and watched from his car as a man tossed bags of files into a Dumpster outside the building.

In one document shared with FoxNews.com, an ACORN employee's name, address, date of birth, Social Security number and driver's license number were revealed, and photocopies of the employee's license and Social Security card were also included. Another document showed bank account information for a woman paying an ACORN membership fee by check.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576466,00.html

Ex-ACORN official gets probation for voter registration plan

A former field director for the political advocacy organization ACORN has been sentenced in a district court in Nevada to up to three years of probation.

Christopher Edwards, who in August pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy to commit a crime of compensation for registration of voters, a gross misdemeanor, received a suspended jail sentence and a $500 fine. He has agreed to testify against ACORN and one of its former regional directors, Amy Busefink.

The Nevada attorney general’s office has accused ACORN and Busefink of operating an illegal bonus system. Tying money to or setting quotas for collecting voter registration cards is illegal under Nevada law.  ACORN, with close ties to Obama himself, faces prosecution for voter registration irregularities in several states.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/nov/23/ex-acorn-official-gets-probation-voter-registratio/

Opinion:
Al Gore’s “Global Warming” scam is unraveling rapidly

That Al Gore’s claims of global warming being a result of man made factors is a fraud, comes as no surprise to huge numbers of normal Americans.  That such a large group of people are now admitting the scam is a scam, is not only surprising – it’s downright shocking.

But that now seems to be the case.

What’s next?  An admission Democrat health care reform is really nothing but a massive power grab of the health care industry?  Discovery of an Obama birth certificate?

At first blush, this climate change development spells doom for the threat of pending Cap and Trade legislation. That means we’ve all been spared a new Democrat tax scheme that would have cost us each more than $3,000 a year and would have sent prices on many crucial products such as gasoline and groceries through the roof.

Obama himself admitted liberal efforts to confront Al Gore’s Global Waraming threat would cause prices to “skyrocket”.  Now we can all breath a sigh of relief.  The seas wont rise, the ice caps wont melt, and Democrats will be denied their new ravenous tax scheme.

Cap and Trade only narrowly passed the House, and debate in the Senate has been delayed.  Now, there is legitimate hope the scam has ended and that liberal insanity will fade away.

The Washington Times editorializes:

“Scientific progress depends on accurate and complete data. It also relies on replication. The past couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations about the baloney practices that pass as sound science about climate change.

“It was announced Thursday afternoon that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.

“Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline [in temperature]."

“Mr. Mann admitted that he was party to this conversation and lamely explained to the New York Times that "scientists often used the word 'trick' to refer to a good way to solve a problem 'and not something secret.' " Though the liberal New York newspaper apparently buys this explanation, we have seen no benign explanation that justifies efforts by researchers to skew data on so-called global-warming "to hide the decline." Given the controversies over the accuracy of Mr. Mann's past research, it is surprising his current explanations are accepted so readily.

“There is a lot of damning evidence about these researchers concealing information that counters their bias. In another exchange, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and, "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?"

“In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!’"

Don’t expect forces on the left to go away without so much as a whimper.  These people have no shame or pride, and lie with alacrity.  They will continue to deny the facts, but that horse is out of the barn.

But a lot is at stake for liberals and there are a lot of red faces on the part of those who swallowed Al Gore’s scam.  Gore himself was well on his way to becoming a multi multi millionaire from selling his scheme’s by products.

The Nobel Prize Committee wont be all that embarrassed, after all, it also accorded Obama its “Peace Prize” when he had done nothing either.

Now we have another reason for celebration in this year’s Thanksgiving Holiday.

Buddy

The Day’s top blogs:

1.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/23/lawmakers-propose-war-surtax-pay-troop-increase-afghanistan/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528FOXNews.com+-+Politics%2529

Democrat Lawmakers Propose 'War Surtax' to Pay for Troop Increase in Afghanistan
FOXNews.com

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., are proposing new taxes to pay for more U.S. troops in Afghanistan. 

(NOTE: There are few things dearer to the hearts of liberal Democrats such as Obey and Levin that new and higher taxes.  Of course, many of their fellow high ranking Democrats are far less dedicated to paying them.)

These two top Democrats say they want to impose a new tax on the wealthy to finance any increase in U.S. troops for the Afghanistan war.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the purse string-controlling House Appropriations Committee, is calling the idea a "war surtax." He said that just as the federal government is expected to pay for its proposed intervention in the health care sector with new taxes, any escalated involvement in Afghanistan should come with a payment plan.

"If we have to pay for the health care bill, we should pay for the war as well ... by having a war surtax," Obey told ABC News in an interview that aired Monday. "The problem in this country with this issue is that the only people that has to sacrifice are military families and they've had to go to the well again and again and again and again, and everybody else is blithely unaffected by the war."

(NOTE: Obey was a major anti war legislator during Vietnam.  It must be speculated that the real strategy behind his high tax strategy may be -- not simply funding the war -- but creating grass root opposition to the war,  That would be a major hidden liberal goal.)

Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is making a similar demand.

President Obama plans to hold his ninth meeting Monday evening with his national security team to discuss options for overhauling the strategy in Afghanistan. The president has been considering requests for tens of thousands more U.S. troops from his top commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, for nearly three months. He is not expected to announce his new strategy before Thanksgiving.

But any request would likely come with a hefty price tag. One option presented by McChrystal would bring 40,000 more troops into Afghanistan -- a proposal estimated to cost about $40 billion, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

Obey said if an increase like that is approved without any payment mechanism, then other domestic initiatives would be wiped out.

"On the merits I think it's a mistake to deepen our involvement. But if we are going to do that, then at least we ought to pay for it. Because if we don't, if we don't pay for it, then the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every other initiative that we have to rebuild our economy," he said. "Ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan."

Obey's proposal would be a "graduated tax" on income. It reportedly would start at 1 percent for low-income earners and rise to 5 percent for high-income earners. He's calling it a surtax because it would essentially be a tax on income that is already subject to federal income tax.

Levin, D-Mich., offered a similar proposal in an interview with Bloomberg Television. He said he wants an additional tax on those making more than $200,000 or $250,000.

"They have done incredibly well, and I think that it's important that we pay for it if we possibly can," Levin said.

But the tax talk comes as Congress is already considering new taxes and fees to pay for health care reform. The proposals put out by the House and Senate versions include taxes on high-value health care plans as well as new taxes on the wealthy.

Asked about the resistance he would likely face in a push for new taxes to finance the Afghanistan war, Obey suggested he would use his position as chairman to push his demand.

"I'm going to be there fighting to get whatever they do paid for," he said. "I don't give up before I start." 

Fox News' Mike Emanuel contributed to this report.

2.

WW II Battleship sailor tells Obama to shape up or ship out !
 
(NOTE:  This venerable and much honored WW II vet is well known in
 Hawaii for his seventy-plus years of service to patriotic organizations and causes
 all over the country. A humble man without a political bone in his body, 
 he has never spoken out before about a government official, until now.
  He dictated this letter to a friend, signed it and mailed it to the president.) 
 
 Dear President Obama,     
 
 My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year.  People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.
 
 I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate.  Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor, allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.
 
  One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.
 
  So here goes.
 
  I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.
 
 
 I can't figure out what country you are the president of.
 
 
  You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies
 despicable lies like:
  
             
 " We're no longer a Christian nation"
 
              
 " America is arrogant" - (Your wife even announced to the world, "America is mean-spirited. " Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all over the globe who
died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.)
 

 I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don't think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you.  To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.
 
 After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals."

 Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British?  Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War?  I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.
 
 
 I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination.  You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.
 
 
 Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.


 Shape up and start acting like an American.  If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue.  You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.
 
  
 And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts, who was putting up a fight?  You don't mind offending the police calling
them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.
 
 
 One more thing.  I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son.  Do your job.  When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him.  But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out.  The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.
 
 
  You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president. 
 
 
 You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy.  That's not our
 greatest threat.  Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now. And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.
 
 Sincerely,
 
 Harold B. Estes

3.

http://webmail.aol.com/29202/aol-1/en-us/Suite.aspx

Cloward-Piven Government

A possible explanation of where liberals are leading us and why

James Simpson <http://www.americanthinker.com/james_simpson/>;

It is time to cast aside all remaining doubt. President Obama is not trying to lead America forward to recovery, prosperity and strength. Quite the opposite, in fact.

In September of last year, American Thinker <http://www.americanthinker.com/>;  published my article, Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis <http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html> . Part of a series <http://truthandcons.blogspot.com/2009/03/links-to-all-three-manufactured-crisis.html> , it connected then-presidential candidate Barack Obama to individuals and organizations practicing a malevolent strategy <http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6967> for destroying our economy and our system of government. Since then, the story of that strategy has found its way across the blogosphere, onto the airwaves of radio stations across the country, the Glenn Beck television show <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O373c7Up4KQ&feature=player_embedded> , Bill O'Reilly <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juVCmOYJWgI&feature=player_embedded> , and now Mark Levin <http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=1595814&spid=32364> .

The methodology is known as the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and we can all be grateful to David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks <http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/>;  for originally exposing and explaining it to us. He describes it as:

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were two lifelong members of Democratic Socialists of America who taught sociology at Columbia University (Piven later went on to City University of New York). In a May 1966 Nation magazine article titled "The Weight of the Poor," they outlined their strategy, proposing to use grassroots radical organizations to push ever more strident demands for public services at all levels of government.

The result, they predicted, would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces ... for major economic reform at the national level."

They implemented the strategy by creating a succession of radical organizations, most notable among them the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), with the help of veteran organizer Wade Rathke. Their crowning achievement was the "Motor Voter" act, signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993 with Cloward and Piven standing behind him.

As we now know, ACORN was one of the chief drivers of high-risk mortgage lending that eventually led to the financial crisis. But the Motor Voter law was another component of the strategy. It created vast vulnerabilities in our electoral system, which ACORN then exploited.
ACORN's vote registration scandals throughout the U.S. are predictable fallout.

The Motor Voter law has also been used to open another vulnerability in the system: the registration of vast numbers of illegal aliens, who then reliably vote Democrat. Herein lies the real reason Democrats are so anxious for open borders, security be damned.

It should be clear to anyone with a mind and two eyes that this president and this Congress do not have our interests at heart. They are implementing this strategy on an unprecedented scale by flooding America with a tidal wave of poisonous initiatives, orders, regulations, and laws. As Rahm Emmanuel said, "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste."

The real goal of "health care" legislation, the real goal of "cap-and-trade," and the real goal of the "stimulus" is to rip the guts out of our private economy and transfer wide swaths of it over to the government to control. Do not be deluded by the propaganda. These initiatives are vehicles for change. They are not goals in and of themselves except in their ability to deliver power. They and will make matters much worse, for that is their design.

This time, in addition to overwhelming the government with demands for services, Obama and the Democrats are overwhelming political opposition to their plans with a flood of apocalyptic legislation. Their ultimate goal is to leave us so discouraged, demoralized, and exhausted that we throw our hands up in defeat. As Barney Frank said, "the middle class will be too distracted to fight."

These people are our enemies. They don't use guns, yet, but they are just as dangerous, determined, and duplicitous as the communists we faced in the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, and bush wars across the globe, and the Nazis we faced in World War II.

It is time we fully internalized and digested this fact, with all its ugly ramifications. These people have violated countless laws and could be prosecuted, had we the political power. Not only are their policies unconstitutional, but deliberately so -- the goal being to make the Constitution irrelevant. Their spending is off the charts and will drive us into hyperinflation, but it could be rescinded, had we the political power. These policies are toxic, but they could be stopped and reversed, had we the political power. Their ideologies are poisonous, but they could be exposed for what they are, with long jail sentences as an object lesson, had we the political power.

Every single citizen who cares about this country should be spending every minute of his or her spare time lobbying, organizing, writing, and planning. Fight every initiative they launch. It is all destructive. If we are to root out this evil, it is critical that in 2010 we elect  competent, principled leaders willing to defend our Constitution and our country. Otherwise, the malevolent cabal that occupies the government today will become too entrenched.

After that, all bets are off.

Businessman and Examiner.com <http://www.examiner.com/x-25466-DC-Independent-Examiner> columnist Jim Simpson is a former White House staff economist and budget analyst. You may read more of his articles on his blog, Truth and Consequences <http://truthandcons.blogspot.com/> .

Monday's Web

The contents are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited. 

The day’s top political news:

Support for Reid’s Health Care Scheme Falls to New Low

Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan.

Half the survey was conducted before the Senate voted late Saturday to begin debate on its version of the legislation. Support for the plan was slightly lower in the half of the survey conducted after the Senate vote.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

Splits widen for Democrats over health reform

Obama’s mission to “reform” US health care vaulted another legislative hurdle over the weekend, but the scramble to secure his own party’s votes sheds light on the messy compromises that may be needed to get it to the finish line.  Far left Democrats are unhappy.

Fissures between liberal and centrist Democrats cracked open on Sunday in the aftermath of a procedural vote, which paved the way for the estimated $848bn (€570bn, £514bn) draft Senate bill to be debated on the floor. Leaders hope there will be a vote on the bill by Christmas. If passed, the House and Senate versions will have to be mashed together.

In what wags have already dubbed the “Louisiana Purchase”, Mary Landrieu was offered at least $100m in extra federal money for her state. Ben Nelson won the omission of a provision that would strip health insurers of their anti-trust exemption. Blanche Lincoln won more time.  The group’s disproportionate power in the debate has antagonized some liberal Democrats.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d8e2ec4c-d794-11de-b578-00144feabdc0.html

Sarah Palin vs. Barack Obama: The approval gap silently shrinks to a few points

Sarah Palin's poll numbers are strengthening. President Obama's are sliding. Guess what? They're about to meet in the 40s.

Depending, of course, on which recent set of numbers you peruse and how the questions are phrased, 307 days into his allotted 1,461, the 44th president's approval rating among Americans has slid to 49% or 48%, showing no popularity bounce from his many happy trips, foreign and domestic.

One poll even gives Palin a 47% favorable measure.  Her nationwide book selling blitz is just beginning,.  How well she is treated by the exposure is interesting to contemplate..

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/not-that-it-matters-politically-because-shes-a-republican-idiot-and-hes-a-democrat-geniusbut-sarah-palins-poll-numbers-are-c.html.

Opinion:
Democrat health care votes and next year’s list of targets for defeat in the Senate:  (mark them well)

The primary strategy for saving America from such threats as socialized medicine and other far left legislation and pressures, is a simple one: go after and defeat all vulnerable Democrats and replace them.

Certainly every Democrat representing a Congressional District that voted for McCain over Obama in last year’s election, must be designated a target for defeat.  Other Democrats will be added to that list as well, based on other factors.

For example, in the Senate, revelations hinting misdeeds and potential corruption on the part of Chris Dodd has made him quite vulnerable – as should be the case.

But every Democrat who voted for Harry Reid’s health care scheme, should be targeted in the short run.  Others will be added.
 
But here is the first cut:

Blanche Lincoln   (Arkansas)
Barbara Boxer   (California)
Ken Salazar    (Colorado)
Daniel Inouye    (Hawaii)
Evan Bayh    (Indiana)
Barbara Mikulski   (Maryland)
Harry Reid    (Nevada)
Chuck Schumer   (New York)
Byron Dorgan    (North Dakota)
Ron Wyden    (Oregon)
Patrick Leahy    (Vermont)
Russ Feingold   (Wisconsin)
Christopher Dodd   (Connecticut)
Arlen Specter    (Pennsylvania)

Several of these are probably secure: Mikulski, Feingold, Leshy, Inouye, and Bayh.
That leave nine on which to focus efforts.

Dodd, Reid, Specter, and Boxer are all vulnerable, and Blanche Lincoln chose to make herself vulnerable with her vote Saturday.

The reasons for defeating the Reid scam are obvious, have been discussed at length, and will be examined more in the future.  For the moment, we must do all that can be done to delay any possibility of passage and push this bill into a year in which a host of Democrats will have to vote then face voters at the ballot box.

Our duty is clear.

Buddy

But to make matters even more obvious and the issue even clearer:

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/20/the-demcare-bribe-list/

The Democare bribe list
Michelle Malkin  

Scroll for updates…Landrieu boasts that her payoff was $300 million, not $100 million…

The Most Transparent Administration Ever won’t keep this list.

The Most Ethical Congress ever won’t keep it either.

So we’ll do the list ourselves and shine the light on the payoffs and last-minute backroom deals being made as Demcare heads for the first test vote tomorrow. (On a procedural note, Hill folks note that “Senate Republicans started floor debate today at 11:00 a.m. and will continue until 11:00 p.m. to discuss the $2.5 trillion, 2,074-page health care bill drafted in Senator Harry Reid’s office” ahead of the Saturday cloture vote. C-SPAN’s covering.)

Here are the top five Demcare bribes. Keep an eye out on bribes/offers for Democrat Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska; Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas; and Evan Bayh of Indiana. Leave comments or e-mail any new info to add to the list.

Here we go:

1) MARY LANDRIEU AND LOUISIANA: $100 million via Jonathan Karl:

On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”

The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”

I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)

Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu.

How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.

2) CALIFORNIA: $300 million, via LA Times:

Contained in the nearly 2,000-page House healthcare bill is a little-noticed provision — worth $300 million to California — that would increase federal Medicare payments to doctors in a wide swath of the state in response to complaints that low reimbursement rates have kept them from taking new patients.

Rep. Sam Farr (D-Carmel) was able to include a reimbursement calculation fix in the overhaul legislation. It was a testament to California’s political muscle in the House, where its delegation is the largest of any state and includes Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D- San Francisco) and five committee chairs.

3) AARP (a long time stealth Democrat organization - not an honest representative of seniors)

a) Via Philip Klein: $18 million in stimulus money
b) The Medigap royalty/kickback scheme

4) THE ABORTION LOBBY, via LifeNews:

Two leading pro-life organizations that have analyzed the new 2,000-page government-run health care bill released by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid late yesterday say the legislation contains massive abortion funding and a fake amendment that does not truly ban it.

The Senate health care bill does not contain the Stupak amendment the House approved that stops abortion funding under the public option and affordability credits.

Instead, the measure contains a slightly-reworded version of the much-maligned Capps amendment, which a House committee approved on a partisan vote and which pro-life groups say is an accounting scheme to hide government-funded abortions.

“Reid has rejected the bipartisan Stupak-Pitts Amendment and has substituted completely unacceptable language that would result in coverage of abortion on demand in two big new federal government programs,” National Right to Life legislative director Douglas Johnson assured LifeNews.com late Wednesday.

“Reid seeks to cover elective abortions in two big new federal health programs, but tries to conceal that unpopular reality with layers of contrived definitions and hollow bookkeeping requirements,” he continued.

Rep. Lois Capps, whose amendment was deleted when the House adopted the Stupak language, has applauded Reid’s language.

“It appears that their approach closely mirrors my language which was originally included in the House bill,” she said in a statement.

Johnson notes that Reid’s bill establishes the public option and authorizes (on page 118) the Secretary of Health and Human Services to require coverage of any and all abortions throughout the public option program.

“This would be federal government funding of abortion, no matter how hard they try to disguise it,” he says.

He also says the bill creates the affordability credits — new tax-supported subsidies to purchase private health plans — and that these government-funded credits can be used to purchase health insurance plans that directly pay for abortions.

Attorney Mary Harned of Americans United for Life, has also examined the abortion sections of Reid’s new measure, which she says “provides for an unprecedented expansion of federally-funded abortion. ”
“The bill includes pro-abortion language and mirrors the false compromise Capps Amendment from the House debate — it allows the public option to include abortion coverage and provides federal subsidies for private plans which cover abortion,” she said.

5) BIG LABOR

Via Houston Chronicle, Goodies for labor tucked away in health bill:

While higher-profile aspects of health care reform drew attention, pro-union legislators slipped a variety of big benefits for labor into the proposed legislation. Quietly tucked among the proposals’ thousands of pages, these provisions have avoided much scrutiny.

One provision epitomizes the nature of this ploy. According to research firms, unions are woefully short of funds to pay their retirees’ anticipated insurance claims. Thus, under the House resolution, union leaders who have mismanaged these plans for their members could receive up to $10 billion in taxpayer-funded bailout money, innocuously referred to as a “reinsurance program.”

Unfortunately, this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Under the proposed public option, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius would wield tremendous discretionary authority to regulate participating health care workers. She and various federal panels, where the unions would have guaranteed seats, would take the lead in recommending health care policy. Thus, labor would have considerable influence over decisions affecting most doctors, nurses and patients.

The House resolution establishes a scenario that would effectively exclude non-union employers from eligibility to work on program-funded contracts. It also requires participating health care providers to pay wages and benefits that have been collectively bargained or that union-friendly appointees determine are competitive. This is plainly a move toward coerced unionization. With guaranteed seats at the table, unions are poised to control many newly formed oversight posts and/or committees, formed in connection with new employer mandates and cooperative health care associations.

Yet another provision would establish lucrative state training partnerships that contain little or no opportunities for non-union employee organizations. Provisions in Senate proposals would exempt union-negotiated health care plans from taxes on “Cadillac” health plans.

These features all encourage more unionization. The unions know that under Canada’s nationalized system, union membership among all health care workers is 61 percent, compared to just 11 percent in the U.S.

Increasing membership similarly in this country would swell labor’s coffers with as much as another $2 billion in dues.

In fact, Senate proposals include language that could force home health workers into unions. Disgraced former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and former California Gov. Gray Davis used this approach to repay political debts to the SEIU in their states. They reclassified state-reimbursed home health contractors as state employees, thus forcing them to pay union dues. Again and again, it is apparent that these union-friendly proposals have nothing do with improving our health care system.

Sunday's Web

These contents are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited. 

The day’s top political news:

 

Sen. Mary Landrieu’s (D-La.) vote for Harry Reid’s health care scheme: Staffers on Capitol Hill call it the “Louisiana Purchase”.

On the eve of Saturday's showdown in the Senate over health-care reform, Democratic leaders still hadn't secured the support of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of the 60 votes needed to keep the legislation alive. The wavering lawmaker was offered a sweetener: at least $100 million in extra federal money for her home state.

And so it came to pass that Landrieu walked onto the Senate floor mid-afternoon Saturday to announce her aye vote -- and to trumpet the financial "fix" she had arranged for Louisiana. "I am not going to be defensive," she declared. "And it's not a $100 million fix. It's a $300 million fix."

Only a Louisiana Democrat would think such a public admission of corruption not a political risk.  Now the base cause of the Katrina disaster is a bit more obvious.  Among Louisiana Democrat politicians “follow the money” is an answer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102272_pf.html

Cong Patrick Kennedy: Barred from Communion by the bishop

Providence Bishop Thomas J. Tobin has forbidden Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy to receive the Roman Catholic sacrament of Holy Communion because of his advocacy of abortion rights, the Rhode Island Democrat said Friday.

Kennedy says the bishop has explained the penalty by telling him “that I am not a good practicing Catholic because of the positions that I’ve taken as a public official,” particularly on abortion. He declined to say when or how Bishop Tobin told him not to take the sacrament. And he declined to say whether he has obeyed the bishop’s injunction.

Finally, it seems far left Democrats are being faced with legitimate actions by the leaders of their church when they refuse to follow the tenets of their Faith.

http://www.projo.com/news/johnmulligan/KENNEDY_COMMUNION_11-22-09_7PGHOLP_v17.38abb89.html

Congressman Joe Wilson and Obama lies about the “stimulus” and jobs

Wilson notes: The Obama Administration recently launched a website at www.recovery.gov to track stimulus spending, fraud, and abuse, but unfortunately the website seems to be its very own worst offender. It reports millions of dollars spent to create jobs in congressional districts that do not exist.  
 
Fake jobs in fake districts. In South Carolina alone, the website reports spending $40 million to create 155 jobs in our 16th, 43rd, 45th 32nd, and 12th districts. The problem is South Carolina only has 6 congressional districts. Somehow, $1.8 million was even spent for 1.4 jobs in district 00 and $3 million couldn’t even produce a single job in South Carolina’s 43rd imaginary Congressional District.  
 
This would all be funny if we weren’t talking about the biggest expansion of government in decades and real jobs for American families who need to get back on their feet. American taxpayers deserve to know where their hard-earned dollars are being spent.  

action@joewilsonforcongress.com

Opinion:
Harry Reid, Christmas presents for Republicans

(NOTE: “Christmas” not “Holiday” or some other liberal term designed to cover up and hide the real motivation for the celebration.  Let the ACLU sulk in the corner.)

Harry Reid certainly didn’t intend to do so, but he may have provided a real boost to Republicans with his health care take over scheme and the steps he employed building up to bringing it to a vote by opening up debate.

Not the least of Reid’s accomplishment is providing GOP grass root activists with a facile targeting process, allowing us to so easily identify real political enemies next year…Democrats in the Senate who face re-election bids.  Mary Landrieu comes to mind immediately.  Her vote supporting Reid will deny her the tag of being “moderate” and many observers say she is now a sure bet for defeat next year.

Nothing like volunteering to wear a bulls eye just to please Reid, or to kiss up to a far left President who is unpopular among constituents whose votes will be needed next year.

Reid crafted his bill in secrecy.  The work went on day after day behind closed doors.  No Republican was allowed near the Reid process. Throughout the days from his bunker, Reid would occasionally emerge to issue threats he intends to manipulate Senate rules and use the huge majority he enjoys to impose his bill on an unwilling America.

His threats underscore the critical necessity for defeating every vulnerable Democrat next year in order to allow real Americans an honest shot at retaking their government and protecting their futures and those of their families.

There may remain a possibility of defeating the infamous “public option” schemes through which liberals intend to sneak in Canadian style socialized medicine – rationed care and all.  Pelosi, Reid, et al, deny that is the case, ridiculing those who point out that  fact saying the “Options” only create competition through which real insurance companies will be induced to lowering prices.  If they were honest, these liberal schemers would have to admit the real result would be the dissolution of real insurance companies and their replacement by the government run process.  Infamous Congressional far left extremist, Barney Frank, let slip an admission that “public option” is a pathway to the Canadian form of health care diminished in quality and access.

It gets even worse.

The Wall Street Journal has revealed another threat from the Democrat proposals:

“The Rationing Commission”, an unelected body that will dictate future medical decisions.

The threat is dire and very real. 

This aspect of Democrat plans is a new commission (Surprise, more and more bureaucracy) telling Congress how to control health spending. Democrats are quietly attempting to impose a "global budget" on Medicare.  It has radical implications for U.S. medicine. Congress will arbitrarily decide how much to spend on health care for seniors every year — and then invest an unelected board with extraordinary powers to dictate what is covered and how the resulting cost will be paid. White House budget director Peter Orszag admits this Medicare commission is "critical to our fiscal future" and "one of the most potent reforms."

The scheme gets worse and becomes more and more ominous the more we read.
Get fuller details at:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703792304574504020025055040.html

This scheme has been sneaked in as craftily as a gaggle of illegal aliens on our border.  Liberals hope real Americans will go on their way, oblivious of both such threats.

If we have missed a detail as horrendous as this, imagine what other horror stories hide within the combined total of four thousand pages of governmental verbiage.  One thing is for sure – we have only raised a tiny corner and can see only some of the threats to our freedoms, the threats to health care quality, and schemes envisioning a rationing of health care that will leave many seniors abandoned and deserted.

That inclusions such as that constituted “death panels” or seem to make that claim, then so be it.

This is no time for political correctness insanity.  Our nation and our futures are in danger.

Buddy

Top blogs of the day:

1.

200 Web sites spread al-Qaida's message in English

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia – Increasing numbers of English-language Web sites are spreading al-Qaida's message to Muslims in the West. They translate writings and sermons once largely out of reach of English readers and often feature charismatic clerics like Anwar al-Awlaki, who exchanged dozens of e-mails with the Army psychiatrist accused of the Fort Hood shootings.

The U.S.-born al-Awlaki has been an inspiration to several militants arrested in the United States and Canada in recent years, with his Web-based sermons often turning up on their computers.

"The point is you don't have to be an official part of al-Qaida to spread hatred and sectarian views," said Evan Kohlmann, a senior investigator for the New York-based NEFA Foundation, which researches Islamic militants.

"If you look at the most influential documents in terms of homegrown terrorism cases, it's not training manuals on building bombs," Kohlmann said. "The most influential documents are the ones that are written by theological advisers, some of whom are not even official al-Qaida members."

Most of the radical Islamic sites are not run or directed by al-Qaida, but they provide a powerful tool for recruiting sympathizers to its cause of jihad, or holy war, against the United States, experts who track the activity said.

The number of English-language sites sympathetic to al-Qaida has risen from about 30 seven years ago to more than 200 recently, said Abdulmanam Almushawah, head of a Saudi government program called Assakeena, which works to combat militant Islamic Web sites.

In contrast, Arabic-language radical sites have dropped to around 50, down from 1,000 seven years ago, because of efforts by governments around the world to shut them down, he said.

Al-Qaida has long tried to reach a Western audience. Videotaped messages from its leader, Osama bin Laden, and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri usually have English subtitles. But translations of writings and sermons that form the theological grounding for al-Qaida's ideology, along with preachers like al-Awlaki, mostly eliminate the language barrier.

Al-Awlaki's sermons have turned up on the computers of nearly every homegrown terror suspect arrested in the United States, Kohlmann said.

Members of a group of Canadian Muslims arrested in 2006 for allegedly forming a training camp and plotting bombing attacks in Toronto listened to his online calls for jihad, according to the case against them in court. According to prosecutors, an al-Awlaki sermon on jihad was among the numerous materials — including videos of beheadings — found on the computers of five men convicted in December of plotting attacks on the Fort Dix military base in New Jersey.

On his Web site and in widely circulated lectures, the 38-year-old al-Awlaki, now in hiding in Yemen, often calls on Muslims to fight against the United States, accusing it of waging war on Islam in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nidal Hasan, who has been charged in the Fort Hood shootings, contacted al-Awlaki nearly a year ago.

In an interview published in The Washington Post, al-Awlaki said he did not pressure Hasan to carry out the shooting, but after the attack, al-Awlaki praised him as a hero. U.S. investigators have said Hasan appears to have acted alone, not on orders from anyone, when he opened fire Nov. 5 at the Texas military base, killing 13.

The cleric met two of the 9/11 hijackers at mosques where he preached in the United States, and after his return to Yemen he was detained for more than a year on suspicion of involvement in a kidnapping gang. Yemeni officials released him because they could not confirm an al-Qaida link, but they say they are hunting for him again on suspicion he may have ties.

U.S. intelligence officials declined comment on the spread of English-language jihadist Web sites.

Such sites are expected to follow closely the upcoming trials of Hasan and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is accused of being a top architect of the 9/11 attacks, said Rita Katz, head of the U.S. based SITE Intelligence Group, which follows on line militant traffic. The Obama administration announced this week that Mohammed and four others will be put on trial in New York City.

Almushawah said clerics like al-Awlaki are "more dangerous than any other group." And if these clerics are jailed, "it's no big loss for al-Qaida because they don't belong to the network," he said.

Many of the sites post speeches by English-speaking clerics like al-Awlaki or, more often, translations of sermons and lectures by Arabic-speaking clerics.

One site, the Pulpit of Monotheism and Jihad links to sermons by al-Awlaki, alongside English versions of speeches by some of the top sheikhs of jihadist ideology — even some who are dead like Abdullah Azzam.

The proliferation of sites in English means "potential jihadists can know only their native language and still be radicalized," Katz said.

While al-Awlaki has become popular, "other, more prominent and influential Arabic-speaking jihadist sheikhs ... have had their works and speeches translated into English and other languages. Their works tend to be used more often by the jihadist community to justify violence," she said in an e-mail interview. Al-Awlaki "fills a void in that he can directly interact, understand and communicate with English-speaking jihadists in a way that Arabic-speaking clerics cannot."

Almushawah says most of the servers for the sites are in Britain, but they can be run from anywhere and most of them are operated and receive content from the U.S. Most of the clerics who appear on them are in the Arab world with some in France and England.

U.S. intelligence officials declined to comment on the spread of English language sites and their influence.

Saudi Arabia set up its Assakeena program after authorities found that 70 percent of al-Qaida sympathizers were drawn to the group through the Internet. In the campaign, government-backed preachers monitor 400 radical Islamic web sites and inject a more moderate message on the sites.

The campaigners also directly contact and dialogue with militants they encounter on the Web, conversations that can take weeks or months. Of 2,631 militants contacted by the group, 1,170 withdrew their support for radicals, according to the campaign. About a fifth of the militants were from Europe and North American, and the rest from Arab countries.

Assakeena — the name is Arabic for "Tranquility from God" — is part of other hearts-and-minds programs the kingdom launched to complement its crackdown on al-Qaida after the group carried out a series of attacks on foreigners and oil infrastructure in 2004.

2.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/19/AR2009111903434.html?wpisrc=newsletter

Travesty in New York

 Charles Krauthammer

For late-19th-century anarchists, terrorism was the "propaganda of the deed." And the most successful propaganda-by-deed in history was 9/11 -- not just the most destructive, but the most spectacular and telegenic.

And now its self-proclaimed architect, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, has been given by the Obama administration a civilian trial in New York. Just as the memory fades, 9/11 has been granted a second life -- and KSM, a second act: "9/11, The Director's Cut," narration by KSM.

September 11, 2001 had to speak for itself. A decade later, the deed will be given voice. KSM has gratuitously been presented with the greatest propaganda platform imaginable -- a civilian trial in the media capital of the world -- from which to proclaim the glory of jihad and the criminality of infidel America.

So why is Attorney General Eric Holder doing this? Ostensibly, to demonstrate to the world the superiority of our system, where the rule of law and the fair trial reign.

Really? What happens if KSM (and his co-defendants) "do not get convicted," asked Senate Judiciary Committee member Herb Kohl. "Failure is not an option," replied Holder. Not an option? Doesn't the presumption of innocence, er, presume that prosecutorial failure -- acquittal, hung jury -- is an option?

By undermining that presumption, Holder is undermining the fairness of the trial, the demonstration of which is the alleged rationale for putting on this show in the first place.

Moreover, everyone knows that whatever the outcome of the trial, KSM will never walk free. He will spend the rest of his natural life in U.S. custody. Which makes the proceedings a farcical show trial from the very beginning.

Apart from the fact that any such trial will be a security nightmare and a terror threat to New York -- what better propaganda-by-deed than blowing up the courtroom, making KSM a martyr and turning the judge, jury and spectators into fresh victims? -- it will endanger U.S. security. Civilian courts with broad rights of cross-examination and discovery give terrorists access to crucial information about intelligence sources and methods.

That's precisely what happened during the civilian New York trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. The prosecution was forced to turn over to the defense a list of 200 unindicted co-conspirators, including the name Osama bin Laden. "Within 10 days, a copy of that list reached bin Laden in Khartoum," wrote former attorney general Michael Mukasey, the presiding judge at that trial, "letting him know that his connection to that case had been discovered."

Finally, there's the moral logic. It's not as if Holder opposes military commissions on principle. On the same day he sent KSM to a civilian trial in New York, Holder announced he was sending Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, (accused) mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole, to a military tribunal.

By what logic? In his congressional testimony Wednesday, Holder was utterly incoherent in trying to explain. In his Nov. 13 news conference, he seemed to be saying that if you attack a civilian target, as in 9/11, you get a civilian trial; a military target like the Cole, and you get a military tribunal.

What a perverse moral calculus. Which is the war crime -- an attack on defenseless civilians or an attack on a military target such as a warship, an accepted act of war that the United States itself has engaged in countless times?

By what possible moral reasoning, then, does KSM, who perpetrates the obvious and egregious war crime, receive the special protections and constitutional niceties of a civilian courtroom, while he who attacked a warship is relegated to a military tribunal?

Moreover, the incentive offered any jihadist is as irresistible as it is perverse: Kill as many civilians as possible on American soil and Holder will give you Miranda rights, a lawyer, a propaganda platform -- everything but your own blog.

Alternatively, Holder tried to make the case that he chose a civilian New York trial as a more likely venue for securing a conviction. An absurdity: By the time Barack Obama came to office, KSM was ready to go before a military commission, plead guilty and be executed. It's Obama who blocked a process that would have yielded the swiftest and most certain justice.

Indeed, the perfect justice. Whenever a jihadist volunteers for martyrdom, we should grant his wish. Instead, this one, the most murderous and unrepentant of all, gets to dance and declaim at the scene of his crime.

Holder himself told The Post that the coming New York trial will be "the trial of the century." The last such was the trial of O.J. Simpson.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

3.

 EMPLOYMENT
Parties Sharpen Their Partisan Attacks About Job Creation

While House leaders from both parties insist they are focusing on how Congress can help the economy rebound, the two sides seem just as intent on sharpening partisan attacks they can use if the economy continues to wobble in advance of next year's congressional elections.

Republicans have been emphasizing what they see as a failure of President Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus plan pushed through Congress in February. They see this week's call by Speaker Pelosi for the House to move a jobs bill by Dec. 18 as a tacit admission by Democrats that the stimulus isn't working.

"Are Democrats in Washington finally admitting their so-called stimulus package was an enormous failure?" House Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price of Georgia asked Wednesday. "If so, the real question is, 'what took them so long?' "

(NOTE: It should be noted, that government cannot create real jobs.  Only business – usually small business can do that.  That wont keep Obama and his far left Democrats from staging the usual “mating dances” to seem to be doing something they are powerless to do.)

A day earlier, House Minority Whip Cantor said House Democrats have, until now, been more focused on climate change and healthcare reform, and "leaving a wake of deficits in their trail." Meanwhile, he said, Republicans have been working on "real solutions" to the nation's economic woes.

Cantor said he hoped Pelosi would include some of the GOP proposals, which he said focus primarily on business tax breaks aimed at reinvigorating the sluggish economy. But he and other Republicans question Democratic seriousness in moving a bill targeted at job growth.

"Republicans have focused on jobs, the economy, and the deficit since January, and unlike some, not because our pollsters told us to," said Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring.

That theme is expected to be underscored today as Cantor reconvenes the House Republican Economic Solutions Group. The session will focus on GOP ideas as well as Obama's planned Dec. 3 jobs conference -- the GOP meeting notice calls it a "jobs summit not focused on jobs" and the Democrats' plan for a jobs bill, which the Republicans refer to as "a second stimulus bill."

For their part, Democrats led by House Majority Leader Hoyer are questioning what besides tax breaks House Republicans have offered in their repeated opposition to Democratic efforts to create jobs during the recession.

Hoyer's office issued a statement pointing out that not only did House Republicans vote unanimously against Obama's recovery plan in February, but most Republicans voted against a number of other economic-relief measures.

Only 10 Republicans crossed party lines to help pass a bill to give the Treasury Department power to block federal bailout money from companies that didn't curb excessive executive compensation, and all but 59 Republicans voted against the "cash for clunkers" program to help the auto industry,
"Republicans have offered little more than empty rhetoric, distractions, and misrepresentations -- playing politics with important issues -- and have overwhelmingly opposed legislation that would spur economic growth and create jobs," Hoyer said. "Votes don't lie. Republicans have consistently said 'no' to creating jobs and helping Americans during this recession."

In the Senate, Majority Leader Reid has said the jobs bill will follow healthcare reform to the Senate floor this year. About 20 Democrats were already meeting Wednesday to talk about what might go into the package.

"We've got more ideas than we've got room," said Senate Democratic Policy Committee Chairman Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, who with Senate Majority Whip Durbin was heading up Senate work on the bill.

Billy House, with Dan Friedman contributing

 

 

 

Saturday's Web

The contents are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited. 

The day’s top political news:

Christian leaders take a major political stand – a document called The Manhattan Declaration – a focus on opposing abortion.

Christian leaders from many faiths, met in Washington Friday to announce  a document declaring a political position in terms of morality – especially opposition to abortion.

The Manhattan Declaration reminds Americans that for 2,000 years, Christians have borne witness to the truths of their faith. This witness has taken various forms—proclamation, seeking justice, resisting tyranny, and reaching out to the poor, oppressed, and suffering.

Having reminded people about why and how Christians have spoken out in the past, the Declaration then turns to what especially troubles them today—the threats to the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and religious freedom.

Upper-Bracket Tax May Be Needed for Afghan War Cost, Democrat Senator Carl Levin Says

Higher-income Americans should be taxed to pay for more troops sent to Afghanistan and NATO should provide half of the new soldiers, says Democrat Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

White House Budget Director Peter Orszag has estimated that each additional soldier in Afghanistan could cost $1 million, for a total that could reach $40 billion if 40,000 more troops are added.

Thus the White House begins laying a foundation for excusing Obama’s incredible delay and inability to reach a decision on troop strength in Afghanistan.  Our troops there have been left hanging and far left Democrats demand we cut, run and surrender.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aI4IdHYuAl94

Ft Hood terrorist, Major Hasan, intensified conversations with the radical Islamic leader just prior to the attack and slaughter.

The Major and Imama began to discuss surreptitious financial transfers and other steps that could translate his thoughts into action, according to two sources briefed on a collection of secret e-mails between the two.

The e-mails were obtained by an FBI-led task force in San Diego between late last year and June but were not forwarded to the military, according to government and congressional sources. Some were sent to the FBI's Washington field office, triggering an assessment into whether they raised national security concerns, but those intercepted later were not, the sources said.

Hasan's contacts with extremist imam Anwar al-Aulaqi began as religious queries but took on a more specific and concrete tone before he moved to Texas, where he allegedly unleashed the Nov. 5 attack that killed 13 people and wounded nearly three dozen, said the sources who were briefed on the e-mails, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the case is sensitive and unfolding.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004381.html?hpid=topnews

Opinion:
“Integrity” in the usual sense, is not a liberal trait in legislative action

When they are caught stretching the truth, or outright lying, Democrats and their media helpmates usually adopt a shrug, a wink, and a “boys will be boys” demeanor.  Truth doesn’t count and it certainly doesn’t buy much when it comes to legislation.

We see this exemplified in Democrat maneuvering on their health care bills. 

First, let’s make one point crystal clear: the Democrat bills have nothing real to do with “reform” and every thing to do with grabbing power – raw power.  The sort of power grabbing that has made the Chicago Democrat machine famous – and infamous.  After all, its earned a reputation for being the most corrupt political operation in the country.

(If you’ve ever worked politically in Louisiana or in a Georgia general election campaign, such an evaluation can only be described as “awesome”.)

The Senate begins its mating dance for Harry Reid’s version of the bill this morning, and is slated to vote on it tonight.  This is a vote to bring the scheme to the floor for debate, voting on passage will come later – probably much later.

Unfortunately, Democrats have dominating numbers in both houses so Republicans and normal Americans, as well, are badly outnumbered and can only wage a rear guard action, hoping other Democrats will join Joe Lieberman and others and prevent Reid from being able to impose this bill on the country.  If Reid does that, Americans should keep in mind far into the future, that this mess is a Democrat one – an ALL Democrat one.

Democrats are quite willing to go through that wink, nod, and shrug rite explained at the start of this report.  Lying is in style wherever needed.  We’ve already watched Speaker Nancy Pelosi demonstrate that act in the House.  Pelosi allowed the handful of pro-life Democrats in Congress to introduce an amendment that reinforced the outlawing of federal funding of abortion.

Even before janitors has cleared up the Democrats celebration left overs, Pelosi was gleefully assuring her pro-abortion allies that she would strip the anti abortion amendment out of the compromise with the Senate that comes later.  It was a smug “let them have their moment, I’ll have mine later” sort of maneuver by Pelosi.  Shucks,. Growing up under the  influence of the mob  from Baltimore, such things come quite naturally.

We witnessed her arm twisting and threatened legislative knee-capping when she shoe horned the infamous Cap and Trade tax scam into passage a month or two ago. 

Republicans have stood firmly against the Liberal onslaught.  A few turncoats dropped off – eight on Cap and Trade, and only one on health care – so the interests of normal Americans survive.  So far.
However, we have not seen the end game.

Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson calls the Democrat
healthcare scheme a "Trojan Viper”.  Wilson says  Democrat Congressman Henry Waxman "let the cat out of the bag," when he told a Washington news bureau, "If we get it in place, we can build on it later."

Wilson explains how liberals deal with such matters. He says they get a big government program in place, and then expand on it until it costs trillions and dictates every move Americans make. It's all intentional. Obamacare,” says Wilson, “is their next Trojan Viper."

There is no reason to doubt his prediction.

When Democrats deny their bill will lead to rationing of care, limited access to care for seniors and the disabled, or that their plan will not lead to socialized medicine – don’t believe them or buy their claims.  They mean nothing, nada, zip.

That’s why its so important to defeat Reid’s health car maneuver…then defeat Cap and Trade later.

 (Not to mention the looming threat of amnesty for illegal immigration that is next on the agenda.)

The Senate will vote tonight, and almost certainly Reid and the Democrats will win.  This is not a vote on passage, but only a vote to have a vote.  The real discussion and debate follows.  Be alert for liberal trickery and deceit, and stand ready for political squirming, chicanery, and old fashioned smoke filled room efforts to become involved.

Come to think of it, we’ve already seen the smoke filled room.  Reid concocted this bill in secret, behind closed doors, with no GOP participation asked or allowed.  If the nature of that first step in this operation doesn’t scream “corruption”, nothing will.  In a real democracy, government should be open, transparent, and developed from the will of the governed.

Democrat liberals don’t buy that sort of government.  Their view more closely reflects Chicago and its machine.

Buddy

Top Blogs This Morning:

1.

“Raising America’s Debt Limit Is a Sign of Leadership Failure”
But Not When You Use the Troops as Political Pawns, Apparently
 
Washington, DC – The reckless spending spree perpetrated this year by President Obama and his fellow Democrats in Congress has helped push the federal debt to unprecedented levels. Aided by a record deficit of $1.4 trillion, the national debt recently topped the $12 trillion mark. It’s precariously close to the statutory limit of $12.104 trillion, so the Obama administration is frantically trying to get Congress to raise the limit. And they don’t care how it happens.
 
“[Obama] administration officials said the White House is open to any legislative vehicle that will raise the debt limit, by any amount.” (Bloomberg, 11/13/09)
 
Naturally, free-spending Democrat leaders in Congress are more than happy to oblige. But they need some political cover with the American people crying out for an end to Washington’s extraordinary addiction to debt, spending, and higher taxes. Thank goodness for the troops, right?
 
“The White House is keen to have the DOD appropriations bill passed, ideally before Obama makes a decision on the Defense Department's recommendations on military strategy in Afghanistan, but it is also pressing for passage of an increase of the national debt ceiling to more than $13 trillion…Which is why, according to Senate Appropriations Committee staff and Senate Democrat leadership staff, White House legislative director Phil Schiliro, and his deputy in charge of the Senate, Shawn Maher, supported the idea of attaching the debt limit increase as an amendment to the DOD bill, one that will garner far greater bipartisan support than a stand alone deficit increase bill would.” (American Spectator, 10/26/09)
 
So while the troops keep waiting and waiting for the Commander-in-Chief to make a decision on Afghanistan, his administration is plotting to use them as political pawns to further their reckless deficit spending. Nice.
 
Of course, this won’t be the first time in history Congress has voted to raise the debt limit. When the Senate was debating an increase in 2006, one Senator in particular had some rather biting comments.
 
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.” (Congressional Record, 3/16/06)
 
And who was this Senatorial budget hawk? None other than President Barack Obama, the same man now willing to hold our troop funding hostage in order to raise the limit on his federal credit card. My how things have changed.
 
When it comes to the dangers of more deficit spending and the dire need to rein in our debt, President Obama’s rhetoric is right on. But unlike his job-killing agenda, words are cheap. The truth is the Obama budget plan projects the national debt to reach nearly $24.5 trillion by 2019. The RSC has a plan to curb this reckless spending spree and bring the budget into balance. President Obama? Let’s just say he hasn’t shown signs of “leadership success” on the issue.

2.

Olbermann Furious Palin Reads Newsmax

 Jim Meyers  

 When Sarah Palin told Fox News Wednesday night that she turns to Newsmax as one of her primary news sources, she ticked off MSNBC host Keith Olbermann.

On Thursday night, the left-leaning Olbermann opened a broadside against the former Alaska governor for her choice of reading matter — especially her use of Newsmax.

Olbermann reacted to statements the former vice-presidential candidate had made to Sean Hannity when the Fox host asked her what she regularly reads.

"I read Newsmax and the Frontiersman and Wall Street Journal and everything online," Palin responded. "I absorb the news via many, many sources."

On Thursday night, Olbermann featured the Palin response in a full segment on his cable show.

Olbermann opened the segment by alluding to Palin's interview with Katie Couric during last year's campaign, when Palin declined to tell Couric what newspapers and magazines she reads regularly.

Referring to Palin's statements on Hannity's show, Olbermann snarled that "a year and six weeks" after the Couric interview, Palin announced that she reads Newsmax.

Olbermann displayed three headlines from the Newsmax Web site, derisively noting a Newsmax headline: "Sarah Palin tells Hannity: I read Newsmax."

(Face it -- Olbermann is just jealous. No one really cares what he thinks. His audience is meager compared with any on Fox.  MSNBC has no audience)

Olbermann's guest Craig Crawford, columnist and political analyst for CQPolitics, then said: "I would like to see politicians where they talk about something like this to show a little balance, that they try to get information [from] both sides. We've got so many people just reading what they want to hear.

And in this case, Newsmax.”

But Crawford then added — no doubt surprising Olbermann — “I actually read Newsmax. I read Talking Points Memo, Huffington. I mean, I like to get a wide range."

Olbermann also may be steaming about Palin's comments during an exclusive Newsmax interview on Tuesday, when she said: "Thank you so much for your daily updates. If it weren't for Newsmax, there'd be a lot of us wondering what the heck was going on that day.

"It is very valuable, very helpful, and I appreciate all that you guys are doing to get a good message out there."

Newsmax, founded in 1998, reaches about 6 million Americans each month. Its popular Web site, Newsmax.com, reaches an average of 4 million unique visitors monthly, which would rank it among the top 10 newspaper web sites in the United States. More than 2 million Americans subscribe to its e-mail news alerts, and its monthly magazine, Newsmax, has a readership of more than 800,000.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved. 

3.

White House Seeks to Retain Firm Grasp on $700 Billion Slush Fund
Brags about Paying Down Deficit, Even Though Required to By Law 
 
Washington, D.C. – Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) issued the following statement in response to reports that the administration is organizing to announce a plan to extend the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).
 
“This administration better get the message quickly that TARP dollars belong to taxpayers, not the Treasury Secretary,” said Chairman Price. “The White House has been so reckless with the deficit that it now wants credit just for partially following the law which says repaid TARP funds should be returned to the taxpayers from whom the money was taken. In reality, this is only a distraction from the fact the administration is seeking to keep its hold on a large share of the disastrous slush fund that has distorted our markets and delayed our recovery. Against the wishes of the American people and in violation of free market principles, the TARP has been used to buy, bailout, and takeover car companies, insurance companies, mortgage underwriters, and more. We need to end the bailout mentality once and for all, and doing away with this White House slush fund immediately is a necessary step. This is not funny money for Washington Democrats to hand out to achieve political goals; it belongs to the hard-working taxpayers of this country. The taxpayers want their money back, and this time, the Obama administration can’t keep the change.”
 
Note: The Republican Study Committee has introduced H.R. 3140, the Reducing Barack Obama’s Unsustainable Deficit Act. Also known as the REBOUND Act, this legislation will reduce the President’s deficit and promote a real economic recovery by: 1) Repealing the spending portion of the President’s “stimulus” package; 2) Leaving intact the package’s tax relief and unemployment benefits; 3) Prohibiting the Treasury Secretary from obligating any further TARP funds; and 4) Requiring all repayments of TARP money to go exclusively to debt reduction – no open-ended slush fund. A one-pager on the legislation can be found here.

 4.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/17/broken-promises-on-abortion/
 
EDITORIAL: Broken promises on abortion
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

President Obama promised taxpayer funds would not pay for abortion if the Democrats' health care legislation were passed. "Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions," he said during his Sept. 9 address to Congress. That was then.

This is now. On Sunday, White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod told CNN that Mr. Obama will make sure that the Stupak amendment, which would restrict federal funding for abortions, is stripped from final legislation. Without a ban on abortion funding, the government health care bill never would have passed the House, where a switch of three votes on Nov. 7 would have made the difference.

A national survey was released right as the president was addressing Congress, which may explain his swerving around on the issue. According to a poll by Public Opinion Strategies, 43 percent of adult voters would be less likely to support a health care bill that funds abortions. In contrast, only 8 percent would be more supportive.

Parliamentary shenanigans were employed to sneak the bill through the lower chamber. Some of the Democratic members who voted for the Stupak amendment "didn't really mean it, because they expected the amendment to be stripped out later," according to the Wall Street Journal. Politico also ran a story on Saturday quoting unnamed "Democratic budget experts in Congress and the administration" who claimed that if a filibuster-proof reconciliation bill is used to get the health care legislation through, Democrats will easily strip out the pro-life amendment.

he liberal Democratic leadership in Congress knows full well where Americans stand on this issue. That is why they did not come out in the open to defend their position in favor of federal abortion funding and instead engaged in subterfuge to get legislation through the House. Republicans don't have the votes to stop the bill no matter what it contains. It is up to moderate Democratic senators such as Nebraska's Ben Nelson to prevent the government from forcing taxpayers to pay for others' abortions.

5.

Waxman "Let's Cat Out of Bag" Says ALG's Wilson,
Current Healthcare Legislation a "Trojan Viper"
 
November 17th, 2009, Fairfax, VA—Terming the current Obama healthcare legislation a "Trojan Viper," Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson today said that Democrat Congressman Henry Waxman "let the cat out of the bag," when he told a Washington news bureau, "If we get it in place, we can build on it later."
 
"That," said Wilson, "is the liberal MO: get any big government program in place, and then expand on it later until it costs trillions and dictates every move Americans make. It's all intentional. Obamacare is their next Trojan Viper."
 
"They will make whatever deals they have to make now just to get this in place, and then just 'build on it later,' costing taxpayers trillions of dollars," Wilson explained.  "In the Senate, they might offer the so-called 'trigger' tied to escalating health costs, only to later simply pull the trigger themselves and implement the government takeover.  It's an example of a 'compromise' to win enough votes, along with state "opt-outs," or restricting abortion funding in the House bill."

"As bad as the current healthcare legislation already is, it is really intended to be a Trojan Viper. It will open the door a total government healthcare takeover—even if as Waxman says he doesn't get everything he wants right away," said Wilson.  "Then they'll just 'build on it later.'"
 
Wilson said that, like other government programs, "The costs are radically understated at first, and then they are phased in later with a vengeance."
 
In the interview, Waxman told the Washington News Observer broadcast news bureau that he thought it was vital to get the bill passed "by the end of the year."
 
"There are going to be so many pressures next year, especially with the elections looming, that this is our opportunity," said Waxman.  "When the Clinton Administration tried to do it, they pushed it off into the second year, and the closer it got to the election, the special interests were able to bring it down."
 
Wilson agreed that time was not on Congress' side.  "The more the people learn about the the government health care takeover, the less they like it, and so Waxman wants the bum's rush," Wilson said.  He called on members of the Senate to delay procedural votes on the bill "for as long as they possibly can.  The final text of the Senate bill is still not available, and a complete analysis of its contents should be made publicly available prior to any votes."
 
The Senate is expected to vote on proceeding to the bill tomorrow night at 8PM.  "This is an opportunity for the Senate kill this bill.  If the vote to proceed passes, then at least 41 Senators must filibuster.  It's the only way to stop this madness," Wilson said.
 
The Senate version of the "public option" will start operating at massive budget-busting deficits starting in 2015, according to an Americans for Limited Government analysis of Congressional Budget Office data.  By 2019, the "public option" will have spent some $361 billion more than it took in via new taxes. 
 
"The 'public option' will be losing billions within 5 years," Wilson said, concluding, "and when it's fully implemented, this Trojan Viper government takeover will be losing trillions of dollars, ration health care away from seniors, raise the cost of premiums, drive the American people off of private health options, and bankrupt the Treasury."
 

 

Friday's Web

The contents are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited.  
 
The day’s top political news:

Army limits media access at Palin event at NC base

The U.S. Army will allow the media limited coverage of Sarah Palin's appearance at Fort Bragg, but will bar reporters from interviewing her or her supporters on the post.

A Fort Bragg spokesman initially said the Army would ban the media from Palin's book signing next week, fearing it would turn into political grandstanding against  Obama. After The Associated Press and The Fayetteville Observer protested, Col. Billy Buckner said the post would permit restricted access.

Buckner said the setup will allow reporters their right to access while preventing the appearance from turning political - something that officials believe would violate policy. They also know it would not help Obama.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091120/D9C31PS80.html

House Republicans call on Treasury Secretary Geithner to resign

An angry Congress lashes out at Obama as economic woes take their toll

Growing discontent over the economy and frustration with efforts to speed its recovery boiled over Thursday on Capitol Hill in a wave of criticism and outright anger directed at the Obama administration.

Episodes in both houses of Congress exposed the raw nerves of lawmakers flooded with stories of unemployment and economic hardship back home. They also underscored the stiff headwinds that the administration faces as it pushes to enact sweeping changes to the financial regulatory system while also trying to create jobs for ordinary Americans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/19/AR2009111903167.html?hpid=topnews

Jesse Jackson: 'You can't vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man'

The Rev. Jesse Jackson on Wednesday night criticized Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.) for voting against the Democrats’ signature healthcare bill.“We even have blacks voting against the healthcare bill from Alabama,” Jackson said at a reception Wednesday night. “You can’t vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man.”

The remark stirred a murmur at the reception, held by the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Foundation as part of a series of events revolving around the 25th anniversary of Jackson’s run for president. Several CBC members were in attendance, including Chairwoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who’d introduced Jackson.

Davis, is running for governor of Alabama and a vote for the Pelosi health scheme would have been politically damaging.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/68451-jackson-you-cant-vote-against-healthcare-and-call-yourself-a-black-man=

Opinion:
Liberal obsession with Sarah Palin is very telling and may result in unintended consequences

I’m not yet ready to sign onto a Sarah Palin presidential run, but her recent round of interviews through which she is pushing her new book, produces some thoughts worth sharing.

Liberals are revealing deep seated terror at the thought of a Sarah Palin loose across the nation – but are also so intrigued, they can’t help themselves when it comes to talking about her.

I think back to a Georgia gubernatorial campaign in the mid 60s.  A flurry of billboards appeared across the state, touting an unknown peanut farmer’s campaign.  The billboard displayed a very interesting political tactic.

It was printed in green and included a picture of the candidate in one corner.  A political rule holds that campaigns should avoid reprinting photos in colors other than black.  The colored ink makes fat look fatter, bald look balder, and, in the case of Jimmy Carter, made him look rather toothless.

It made Carter look as ugly as possible.  The strategy was to introduce Carter in this unflattering manner, then, when he actually appeared in person or on television, people would have an immediate and more positive impression.  “He’s really rather nice looking” was the response Jodie Powell and Hamilton Jordan intended to generate.  To a great extent, their ploy seemed to work.  Thus Carter got an early boost, not to mention rapid name ID because the tactic generated a fair amount of discussion.

bottom line – Carter benefitted from the use of the ugliest and most unflattering presentation.

All this came to my mind as I watched Sarah Palin on interviews with Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly over the past two days.  Liberal efforts to undercut and destroy Palin may be having a result for which the far left didn’t bargain.

Liberals are terrified of Palin.  I suspect she is the subject of many really bad dreams for Democrat politicians.  She is what liberals fear most: a conservative woman, who is attractive and who can make a good appearance.

Despite some missteps during the presidential campaign, Palin has managed to do just that.  Of course her strange decision to suddenly step down from her gubernatorial post, remains puzzling.

She handles herself well these days, a big improvement from some network gaffes during the campaign.  She has learned.

The AP reveals just how seriously Palin scares liberals.  As her book is being released, they have assigned a huge fact checking task force – eleven reporters at least – to focus entirely on sifting through every sentence and paragraph, every tidbit or footnote they can find, seeking anything with which they can embarrass or inflict political damage on Palin herself and any future political outing she may decide to undertake.

We can all wish the AP had offered us as much effort in providing similar scrutiny to the Pelosi and Reid health care bills – all four thousand pages.  Of course they didn’t – those bills are designed – not for honest reform but for government take over of our health care system.

Palin’s book is a huge distribution success.  Even before it was released, it was designated a best seller – a huge best seller.

Now America gets a good look at her and sees the contrast between liberal images of her as an extremist, way out, wacko political nut case.  She is not.  Plus, in truth, she has a far more impressive personal background that Biden – and Obama – based on what we are allowed to know about Obama.

Palin has no hidden stories, no secret ventures or experiences, and she is openly patriotic and honesly religious.

What a contrast!

People can recognize this contrast and draw their own conclusions.  Plus timing favors Palin.  Her reintroduction comes at a time in which the waves of activism fostered by the tea party movement, are in full sway.  Democrat efforts to impose an extreme form of health care reform, plus the new Democrat tax scheme disguised under the Cap and Trade misnomer, spurs along grass root resentment.  On top of this, Homeland Security Secretary – who sees those Americans (especially veterans) who differ with Obama on key political issues as potential terrorists – now tells us another attempt to grant amnesty to the millions of illegal aliens, is on the Obama play sheet.

The overreaching frenzy of the liberal media to shoot down Palin has already failed.  How far the momentum it has created carries her toward further political success, awaits the unfolding of future events.

There is yet no strong bet on who will run as the GOP candidate in 2012 or beyond, but the choice is one Sarah Palin need not hurry.  Her opposition is doing all it can to push her along toward whatever victory she chooses.

Buddy

NEWS: Democrat Senate Leader Harry Reid has filed cloture on the motion to proceed to consider his health care scheme (HR 3590), which will be the shell he’ll use to ultimately proceed to his health care language. The vote will be this Saturday night at 8 pm.

The Ron Paul Amendment Passes Financial Services Committee

Washington, DC – Congressman Ron Paul (TX-14) announces that amendment based on HR 1207 has passed in the Financial Services Committee by a vote of 43-26 and will be included in major banking reform legislation.

The Paul amendment:

• Removes the blanket restrictions on GAO audits of the Fed
• Allows audit of every item on the Fed's balance sheet, all credit facilities, all securities purchase programs, etc.
• Retains limited audit exemption on unreleased transcripts and minutes
• Sets 180-day time lag before details of Fed's market actions may be released
• States that nothing in the amendment shall be construed as interference in or dictation of monetary policy by Congress or the GAO

“While HR 3996, if passed, will grant sweeping new powers to the Federal Reserve, at least with this amendment attached, it won’t be acting in secret anymore.  This is a major victory for Federal Reserve transparency and government accountability.  I am very grateful to Congressman Bachus and all the other Members who were so supportive and helpful in this effort,” stated Congressman Paul.

The days’ top blogs:

1.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/18/AR2009111802697.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

Unlawful health reform?
George F. Will

PHOENIX
In 2006, long before there was an Obama administration determined to impose a command-and-control federal health-care system, a young orthopedic surgeon walked into the Goldwater Institute here with an idea. The institute, America's most potent advocate of limited government, embraced Eric Novack's idea for protecting Arizonans from health-care coercion. In 2008, Arizonans voted on Novack's proposed amendment to the state's Constitution:

"No law shall be passed that restricts a person's freedom of choice of private health care systems or private plans of any type. No law shall interfere with a person's or entity's right to pay directly for lawful medical services, nor shall any law impose a penalty or fine, of any type, for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any particular health care system or plan."

Proponents were outspent five to one by opponents who argued, meretriciously, that it would destroy Arizona's Medicaid program, with which many insurance companies have lucrative contracts.

Nevertheless, the proposition lost by only 8,687 votes out of 2.1 million cast, and Arizonans will vote on essentially the same language next November.

But does not federal law trump state laws? Not necessarily. Clint Bolick, a Goldwater Institute attorney, says, "It is a bedrock principle of constitutional law that the federal Constitution established a floor for the protection of individual liberties; state constitutions may provide additional protections."

In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court held that under the Constitution's system of "dual sovereignty," states' "retained sovereignty" empowers them to "remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority." The court has been critical of the "federalism costs" of intrusive federal policies and recently has twice vindicated state sovereignty in ways pertinent to Novack's plan.

In 2006, the court overturned an interpretation of federal law that would have nullified Oregon's "right to die" statute. The court said states have considerable latitude in regulating medical standards, which historically have been primarily state responsibilities.

In 2000, Arizona voters endorsed an English immersion policy for students for whom English is a second language. Federal courts had issued an injunction against such policies because they conflicted with federal requirements of bilingual education. This year, however, the Supreme Court mandated reconsideration of the injunctions because they affect "areas of core state responsibility."

The court says the constitutional privacy right protects personal "autonomy" regarding "the most intimate and personal choices." The right was enunciated largely at the behest of liberals eager to establish abortion rights. Liberals may think, but the court has never held, that the privacy right protects only doctor-patient transactions pertaining to abortion. David Rivkin and Lee Casey, Justice Department officials under the Reagan and first Bush administrations, ask: If government cannot proscribe or even "unduly burden" -- the court's formulation -- access to abortion, how can government limit other important medical choices?

Democrats' health bills depend on forcing individuals to buy insurance or face severe fines or imprisonment. In 1994, the Congressional Budget Office said forcing individuals to buy insurance would be "an unprecedented form of federal action," adding: "The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."

This year, the Congressional Research Service delicately said "it is a novel issue whether Congress may use the [commerce] Clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service." Congress has the constitutional power to "regulate commerce . . . among the several states." But a Federalist Society study by Peter Urbanowicz and Dennis Smith judges it perverse to exercise coercion under the commerce clause "on an individual who chooses not to undertake a commercial transaction." As Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) says, there is "a fundamental difference between regulating activities in which individuals choose to engage" -- e.g., drivers can be required to buy auto insurance -- "and requiring such activities" just because an individual exists.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) says Congress can tax -- i.e., punish -- people who do not buy insurance because the Constitution empowers Congress to tax for "the general welfare." So, could Congress tax persons who do not exercise or eat their spinach?

When asked whether any compulsory insurance purchases are constitutional, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was genuinely astonished: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" In 1803, in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, "The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written." He was serious.

georgewill@washpost.com

2.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/66717-obamacare-endorsements-what-the-bribe-was
 
ObamaCare endorsements: What the bribe was - The Hill's Pundits Blog 
 
Check this out from The 29th Day - Solutions in a World of Accelerating Change.

This my father's collaborative online book. He was a health actuarial consultant for many years and an expert in health care financing.

This is the old "Put the $250 billion physician payment fix in a separate Bill to keep it out of the Health Care Reform Bill, so cost estimates for the Health Care Reform Bill would exclude it, thereby 'reducing' the cost estimate for the Health Care Reform Bill by $250 billion" trick.

OR, to put it more succintly, "The health care overhaul bill produced by House Democrats ... The measure also drops a reprieve for doctors from scheduled pay cuts for treating Medicare patients, which House leaders now plan to pursue separately from the broader health bill." Source: fox news
OR, to put it more verbosely, "The Senate is poised to take action on a costly bill to hike Medicare payments to physicians just weeks before bringing a sweeping healthcare overhaul to the floor.

Next year, without congressional intervention, Medicare’s fees to physicians would drop by 21 percent.

In addition to their desire to prevent those cuts, Democrats are eager to win the support of physicians for healthcare reform. The American Medical Association (AMA) has already endorsed the House healthcare reform bill, which contains a $245 billion payment fix.

But doing so would also open Democrats to charges they were skirting the budget rules they established for themselves and were underestimating the cost of healthcare reform by moving a related bill separately.

The congressional budget resolution contains provisions that originated in the House allowing Congress to pass a physician payment fix without paying for it.

House Democrats are also considering moving a physician-payments bill in a separate, non-offset vehicle from healthcare reform.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) are continuing to back the House's approach, which is a permanent fix at a cost of roughly $240 billion, rather than an offset, one- or two-year fix." source: thehill.com/homenews/senate/63141-senate-eyes-hike-to-physicians-medicare-fees-

3.

Wall Street Journal – Market Watch
Lawmakers cap leverage limits for 'too-big-to-fail' institutions
Big banks and funds couldn't have a debt to equtiy ratio of greater than 15 to 1

Ronald D. Orol, MarketWatch

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Large systemically significant financial institutions can't over-leverage themselves and have a debt to equity ratio greater than 15 to 1, according to a provision approved by the House Financial Services Committee on Thursday.

"Leverage was a key contributor to the financial crisis," said Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., the provision's author.

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., backed the provision, arguing that it would likely impact the largest 20 or 25 financial institutions while allowing smaller regional banks "which do not pose a threat to the economy" a bit more flexibility.

The proposal was approved along with several other provisions as part of a broad bank regulatory reform bill that has been under consideration by the committee since Tuesday. The panel is expected to complete work on regulatory reform by Friday.

On Thursday, the committee is scheduled to examine a wide variety of controversial provisions, including a measure to audit the Federal Reserve and a provision that would decide which institutions would pay into a fund that would be used to dismantle a large financial institution so that its collapse does not unsettle the markets.

The Senate Banking Committee also is expected to consider bank regulatory reform legislation starting later this week and running throughout December.

The panel's ranking member, Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., expressed skepticism about the leverage limit.

"I know the amendment addresses excessive leverage which we're all concerned about," Bachus said. "Although we're capital starved right now, leverage creates jobs, but also produces risk."

Risk retention flexibility

Late Thursday, the committee approved a Rep. Walt Minnick, D-Idaho, provision, which would give bank regulators the flexibility to identify how much of a stake originators of securitized products would need to retain. Based on the provision, lenders would need to hold as little as zero of the security in the case of low-risk products to as high as 10% of it for risky securities.

The provision was approved with the bipartisan support of both Frank and Bachus.

"If the securitizer is packaging high risk junk bonds, the bank regulator may want to have the originator boost the amount they need to hold onto from 5% to 10%," Minnick said. "If it is a plain vanilla or low risk product, such as a corporation offering a credit enhanced short term note, the regulator could have the authority to say that there would not be any risk retention by the originator."

4.

Government Data Imply High Immigrant Crime Rates

Study: Findings Contradict Older Research Showing Low Rates

WASHINGTON – Center for Immigration Studies has published a detailed report on immigration and crime based on a variety of recently released data, including some obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests. The newer government data implies that immigrants have relatively high rates of crime. This contradicts older academic research that generally found low rates of crime. The overall picture of immigrants and crime remains confused due to conflicting information and a lack of good data.

The report, 'Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue,' is authored by Steven Camarota and Jessica Vaughan.

Among the findings:

• The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimates that immigrants (legal and illegal) comprise 20 percent of inmates in prisons and jails. The foreign-born are 15.4 percent of the nation’s adult population. However, DHS has not provided a detailed explanation of how the estimates were generated.

• Under contract to DHS in 2004, Fentress, Inc. reviewed 8.1 million inmate records from state prison systems and 45 large county jails. They found that 22 percent of inmates were foreign-born. But the report did not cover all of the nation’s jails.

• The 287(g) program and related efforts have found high rates of illegal-alien incarceration in some communities. But it is unclear if the communities are representative of the country:

o Maricopa County, Ariz.: 22 percent of felons are illegal aliens;
o Lake County, Ill.: 19 percent of jail inmates are illegal aliens;
o Collier County, Fla.: 20 to 22 percent of jail inmates and arrestees are illegal aliens;
o Weld County, Colo.: 12.8 to 15.2 percent of those jailed are illegal aliens.

• DHS states that it has identified 221,000 non-citizens in the nation’s jails. This equals 11 to 15 percent of the jail population. Non-citizens are 8.6 percent of the nation’s total adult population.

• The Federal Bureau of Prisons reports that 26.4 percent of inmates in federal prisons are non-citizens. However, federal prisons are not representative of prisons generally or local jails.

• Recent reports by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) and Immigration Policy Center (IPC) showing low rates of immigrant incarceration highlight the data problems in many studies. The 2000 Census data they used are not reliable.

• An analysis of the data used in the PPIC and IPC studies by the National Research Council found that 53 percent of the time the Census Bureau had to make an educated guess whether a prisoner was an immigrant. The studies are essentially measuring these guesses, not actual immigrant incarceration.

• The poor quality of data used in the PPIC and IPC studies is illustrated by wild and implausible swings. It shows a 28 percent decline in incarcerated immigrants 1990 to 2000 – yet the overall immigrant population grew 59 percent. Newer Census data from 2007 show a 146 percent increase in immigrant incarceration 2000 to 2007 – yet, the overall immigrant population grew only 22 percent.

• The 'Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities' shows that 8.1 percent of prisoners in state prisons are immigrants (legal and illegal). However, the survey excludes jails and relies on inmate self-identification, which is likely to understate the number of immigrants.

• In 2009, 57 percent of the 76 fugitive murderers most wanted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) were foreign-born. It is likely however that because immigrants can more readily flee to other countries, they comprise a disproportionate share of fugitives.

• Most studies comparing crime rates and immigration levels across cities show no clear correlation between the immigrant share of a city’s population and its level of crime. This is one of the strongest arguments that immigrants do not have high crime rates. However, such studies generally measure only overall crime, not crimes specifically committed by immigrants. Also, a 2009 analysis by DHS’ Office of Immigration Statistics found that crime rates were higher in metropolitan areas that received large numbers of legal immigrants.

• From 1998 to 2007, 816,000 criminal aliens were removed from the United States because of a criminal charge or conviction. This is equal to about one-fifth of the nation’s total jail and prison population. These figures do not include those removed for the lesser offense of living or working in the country illegally. The removal and deportation of large numbers of criminal aliens may reduce immigrant incarceration rates because many will not return and re-offend, as is the case with many native-born criminals.

• Some have argued that the fall in overall national crime rates since the early 1990s is evidence that immigration actually reduces crime. However, overall crime rates are affected by many factors. Moreover, the 1970s and 1980s saw crime rates rise along with immigration levels.

• Overall incarceration rates are also a poor means of examining the link between immigration and crime. Since the 1970s, the share of the U.S. population that is incarcerated has grown almost exactly in proportion to the share of the population that is immigrant. But unless inmates can be identified as immigrant or native-born this information sheds little light on the issue of immigrant criminality.