Israel Military Forum

Welcome to the Israel Military Forum. You are currently viewing our Israel Forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, Image Forum and access our other features. By joining our Israel Military Forum you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so
Join Our Israel Community Today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go Back   Israel Military Forum > Social > World News > North America
Register FAQ Pictures Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1001  
Old 09-30-2011, 07:46 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Obama's Strongest Base Remains Muslim Bloc (Editorial)

Obama's Strongest Base Remains Muslim Bloc (Editorial)
Election 2012: Hispanics, blacks and others among President Obama’s base may be abandoning him, but Muslims are holding fast. Apparently, theirs is a special bond born of shared interests.

When Barack Hussein Obama first stepped into office in January 2009, he had 92% approval among blacks, 75% approval among Hispanics and 58% approval among whites, according to Gallup.

Since then, his monthly approval has dropped eight points among blacks, 27 points among Hispanics and 25 points among whites.

Blacks are frustrated with Obama's failure to create jobs in a recession that has hit African-Americans hardest. Discord is so bad that even the Congressional Black Caucus is taking jabs at the first black president.
Hispanics, meanwhile, are miffed at Obama's failure to ram amnesty for illegal immigrants through Congress.

Polls show Obama also has lost ground with independents, while young people have cooled off on him.

He is losing much of his 2008 base of voters with one notable exception: Muslim-Americans. They remain exceedingly loyal to the president. In fact, their enthusiasm for Obama has swelled.

Last month, Pew Research Center released a survey of U.S. Muslims that was almost universally overlooked. It found that Muslims overwhelmingly approve of the way Obama is handling his job as president. Fully three-quarters (76%) favor him, compared with just 46% of the general public.


President Bush, in contrast, garnered a lowly 15% approval rating among Muslim-Americans. "Muslim-Americans clearly see a friend in Obama," Pew said in its report.

Obama came into office pledging to improve relations with the Muslim world, and he's more than delivered on that promise. Almost two-thirds of U.S. Muslims say Obama is generally friendly toward them, Pew found. Just 4% see him as unfriendly.

And many see him as one of their own. One in 10 say they think the president is a Muslim, while a third say they don't know or refused to answer.

Nonstop pandering has also made Obama popular in the Muslim community.

He's appointed a record number of Muslims to his administration — including at least three radical Muslim Brotherhood agents to White House jobs, according to Muslim reformer Tarek Fatah. And he's killed Justice Department probes of Muslim Brotherhood front groups at home, while paving the way for Brotherhood-run theocracies abroad.

Muslims also are in Obama's corner because he's vowed to provide more "social services" for them — including "jobs, education, health care and civil rights" — as part of his new PC counterterror program.

This is music to their ears. According to the new Pew poll, Muslims love big government as much as Obama. The vast majority say they'd rather have a bigger government with more services than a smaller one with fewer services.

In fact, 68% say they'd prefer an even larger and more activist government than what Obama has engineered.

Obama's core constituency, in the end, may be Muslims. They seem to be singing from the same hymnal.
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1002  
Old 10-01-2011, 03:01 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow New Fast and Furious docs released by White House

New Fast and Furious docs released by White House
Who at the White House knew?



WASHINGTON - Late Friday, the White House turned over new documents in the Congressional investigation into the ATF "Fast and Furious" gunwalking scandal.

The documents show extensive communications between then-ATF Special Agent in Charge of the Phoenix office Bill Newell - who led Fast and Furious - and then-White House National Security Staffer Kevin O'Reilly. Emails indicate the two also spoke on the phone. Such detailed, direct communications between a local ATF manager in Phoenix and a White House national security staffer has raised interest among Congressional investigators looking into Fast and Furious. Newell has said he and O'Reilly are long time friends.

Newly-released White House documents (pdf)

ATF agents say that in Fast and Furious, their agency allowed thousands of assault rifles and other weapons to be sold to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels. At least two of the guns turned up at the murder scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry last December.

ATF Manager says he shared Fast and Furious with the White House

The email exchanges span a little over a month last summer. They discuss ATF's gun trafficking efforts along the border including the controversial Fast and Furious case, though not by name. The emails to and from O'Reilly indicate more than just a passing interest in the Phoenix office's gun trafficking cases. They do not mention specific tactics such as "letting guns walk."

A lawyer for the White House wrote Congressional investigators: "none of the communications between ATF and the White House revealed the investigative law enforcement tactics at issue in your inquiry, let alone any decision to allow guns to 'walk.'"

ATF Fast and Furious: Who at the White House knew?

Among the documents produced: an email in which ATF's Newell sent the White House's O'Reilly an "arrow chart reflecting the ultimate destination of firearms we intercepted and/or where the guns ended up." The chart shows arrows leading from Arizona to destinations all over Mexico.

In response, O'Reilly wrote on Sept. 3, 2010 "The arrow chart is really interesting - and - no surprise - implies at least that different (Drug Trafficking Organizations) in Mexico have very different and geographically distinct networks in the US for acquiring guns. Did last year's TX effort develop a similar graphic?"

The White House counsel who produced the documents stated that some records were not included because of "significant confidentiality interests."

Also included are email photographs including images of a .50 caliber rifle that Newell tells O'Reilly "was purchased in Tucson, Arizona (part of another OCDTF case)." OCDTF is a joint task force that operates under the Department of Justice and includes the US Attorneys, ATF, DEA, FBI, ICE and IRS. Fast and Furious was an OCDTF case. An administration source would not describe the Tucson OCDTF case. However, CBS News has learned that ATF's Phoenix office led an operation out of Tucson called "Wide Receiver." Sources claim ATF allowed guns to "walk" in that operation, much like Fast and Furious.

Congressional investigators for Republicans Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) have asked to interview O'Reilly by September 30. But the Administration informed them that O'Reilly is on assignment for the State Department in Iraq and unavailable.

One administration source says White House national security staffers were "briefed on the toplines of ongoing federal efforts, but nobody in White House knew about the investigative tactics being used in the operation, let alone any decision to let guns walk."




White House sends Hill Fast & Furious docs, but withholds some

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshge...olds_some.html


The White House sent another installment of documents to Congress on Friday detailing White House staffers' knowledge about the controversial "Operation Fast & Furious" gunrunning probe run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives.

However, the chief counsel to President Barack Obama, Kathryn Ruemmler, indicated that the White House was withholding an unspecified number of internal e-mails exchanged among three National Security Staff aides.

"These internal NSS emails are not included in the enclosed documents because the [Executive Office of the President] has significant confidentiality interests in its internal communications," Ruemmler wrote in a letter to House Oversight & Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). The letter, posted here, was obtained Friday by POLITICO.

The latest batch of 102 pages of records partially duplicated information previously sent to Congress and didn't appear to include any smoking guns showing that White House officials were aware that the operation involved allowing hundreds or thousands of guns to flow essentially unimpeded from the U.S. to Mexican drug cartels.

"As today's production makes clear, none of the communications between ATF and the White House revealed the investigative law enforcement tactics at issue in your inquiry, let alone any decision to let guns 'walk,'" Ruemmler wrote in response to a letter Issa and Grassley sent to National Security Adviser Tom Donilon earlier this month.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshge...olds_some.html
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 10-01-2011 at 03:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1003  
Old 10-02-2011, 05:06 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Thumbs down U.S. met with Egypt Islamists: U.S. diplomat

U.S. met with Egypt Islamists: U.S. diplomat
By Edmund Blair




(Reuters) - U.S. officials have met members of the Muslim Brotherhood's political party, a U.S. diplomat said, after Washington announced it would have direct contacts with Egypt's biggest Islamist group whose role has grown since U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak was ousted.


Washington announced the plans in June, portraying such contacts as the continuation of an earlier policy. But analysts said it reflected a new approach to the way it dealt with a group which Mubarak banned from politics.

The Brotherhood is one of Egypt's most popular and organized groups, with a broad grassroots network built up partly through social work even in Mubarak's era.

The contacts may unsettle Israel and its U.S. backers. The Brotherhood renounced violence as a means to achieve political change in Egypt years ago. But groups like Hamas, which have not disavowed violence, look to the Brotherhood as a spiritual guide.

Under the previous policy, U.S. diplomats were allowed to deal with the Brotherhood's members of parliament who had won seats as "independents" to skirt the official ban. This offered a diplomatic cover to keep lines of communication open.

"We have had direct contacts with senior officials of the Freedom and Justice party," the senior diplomat told Reuters, referring to the Brotherhood's party that was founded after politics opened up following the ouster of Mubarak.

The diplomat said U.S. officials did not make a distinction between members of the Brotherhood or its party. "We don't have a policy that makes a distinction, that one or the other is off limits," he said, without saying when the meetings took place.

The diplomat was responding to a question about whether any meetings had occurred, after Freedom Justice Party Chairman Mohamed Mursi told Egypt's Al-Dostour newspaper last week that U.S. officials had not made contact since the policy shift.

Speaking to Reuters on Sunday, the party deputy head Essam el-Erian also denied any meetings had taken place with U.S. officials when asked about the diplomat's comments.

It was not immediately clear why the two sides gave different accounts.

"HIGH-LEVEL" MEETINGS
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked in an interview broadcast on Saturday with Egypt's Al-Hayat television whether Washington would be ready to work with a future government that included members of the Brotherhood.

"We will be willing to and open to working with a government that has representatives who are committed to non-violence, who are committed to human rights, who are committed to the democracy that I think was hoped for in Tahrir Square," she replied, according to a U.S. transcript.

Under the former Egyptian president, the Brotherhood was banned and its members often detained. Mubarak often presented himself as the bulwark preventing Egypt's slide into Islamist hands, an approach that analysts said help secure him backing from Washington and other Western powers wary that Egypt could turn into another Iran or Gaza.

The group took a backseat in the early part of the anti-Mubarak uprising, which was broadly led by youth groups who put national concerns above religion. But the Brotherhood and its party have taken a increasingly prominent role since.

The diplomat said the U.S. contacts had been with "high-level" members of the Brotherhood's party but did not give names. From the U.S. side, he said the contacts were not at ambassadorial level but he did not give further details.

"We had occasionally had these contacts in the past ... The difference is in the past we had seen parliamentarians," he said.

Egypt's parliament was dissolved after Mubarak's fall. Fresh elections for the lower house are due to start in November, with a vote for the upper house early next year.

The Brotherhood is expected to perform well in the vote, although many analysts expect a fairly fragmented parliament with no single unified voice emerging.

The diplomat said contacts with the Brotherhood were part of an bid to understand Egypt better and explain U.S. policies.

"From our perspective it is important to be in touch with all of the emerging political forces here in Egypt, across the board, that are peaceful and committed to non-violence," he said.

"It helps to understand Egypt and the way the political system is developing, and it helps us to deliver our message and get them to understand where we are coming from," he added.

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1004  
Old 10-02-2011, 05:15 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Thumbs down Clinton warns against even symbolically recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital

Secretary of State Clinton warns against even symbolically recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital


http://www.nysun.com/foreign/clinton-in-a-sharp-turnaround-warns-against-even/87496/

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/10/secretary-of-state-clinton-warns-against-even-symbolically-recognizing-jerusalem-as-israels-capital.html


Warning against a law she voted for as a Senator. Apparently working for Barack Obama can cloud one's mind -- and sense of justice. "Clinton, in a Sharp Turnaround, Warns Against Even Symbolically Recognizing Jerusalem as Capital of Israel," by Rick Richman for the New York Sun, September 27:
Secretary of State Clinton, in a sharp departure from her stance when she was a senator, is warning that any American action, even symbolically, toward recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel must be avoided for the reason that it would jeopardize the peace process.

Her warnings were issued in a brief she has just filed with the Supreme Court — in which she is arguing that a law she voted for when she was Senator is unconstitutional because it could require the U.S. government to give to an American citizen born at Jerusalem papers showing the birthplace as Israel.

The law requiring the government to issue such documents on request passed the Senate unanimously at a time when Mrs. Clinton was a member. But Presidents Bush and Obama have taken the position that the law infringes on the president’s prerogatives in respect of foreign policy. Mrs. Clinton is being sued by an American youngster, Menachem Zivotofsky, who was born at Jerusalem in 2002 to American parents who want his birthplace to be listed on his passport as Israel.

In addition to citing the peace process as the excuse for not issuing the birth document the Congress wants issued, Mrs. Clinton’s brief adds a new twist to the story of the White House photos first disclosed last month by the New York Sun. The story involved the discovery that even while the White House was fretting over the requirement to list Jerusalem, Israel, as Master Zivotofsky’s birthplace, the White House’s own website was featuring a series of pictures from Vice President Biden’s 2010 trip to the Jewish state and identifying the pictures as showing him at “Jerusalem, Israel.” The Sun queried whether the Zivotofsky case really rose to constitutional proportions, since the White House on its own website treated Jerusalem as being in Israel.

Five days later, the White House removed “Israel” from each of the Biden pictures, without announcing the deletion. The State Department also quietly deleted “Israel” from references to “Jerusalem, Israel” on numerous official documents on its own website, dating from the Bush administration.

Mrs. Clinton’s brief alleges that any American action that “symbolically or concretely” signals it recognizes Jerusalem being in Israel would “critically compromise the ability of the United States to work with Israelis, Palestinians and others in the region to further the peace process.” The brief contends that American policy is to remain neutral over all sovereignty issues, leaving them to negotiations, and that the U.S. thus “does not recognize Palestinian claims to current sovereignty” in the West Bank or Gaza either.

It is that latter statement that requires further revision to the Biden photos on the White House website. Two of the photos from Biden’s trip show him meeting with Palestinian officials in the “Palestinian Territories.”

The proper reference is to “territories” – the word used in U.N. Resolution 242, the foundational document of the “peace process,” which did not affix the adjective “Jordanian” or “Arab” or “Palestinian” to the territories, nor require that “all of the” territories be relinquished by Israel, but rather left an unspecified portion to be traded for a defensible peace. America has never assigned that land to the “Palestinians” and maintains that only negotiations can create Palestinian sovereignty there....

If the Obama administration believes in the neutrality principle it is asserting in the Supreme Court — and that the mere mention of “Jerusalem, Israel” on its website, or putting “Israel” on an individual’s passport, would violate that principle – the question will arise as to whether it will also scrub also the references to the “Palestinian” territories....
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1005  
Old 10-03-2011, 04:18 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow The Secret Memo That Explains Why Obama Can Kill Americans

The Secret Memo That Explains Why Obama Can Kill Americans
The Department of Justice produced it prior to the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki. But they won't release it.




Outside the U.S. government, President Obama's order to kill American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without due process has proved controversial, with experts in law and war reaching different conclusions. Inside the Obama Administration, however, disagreement was apparently absent, or so say anonymous sources quoted by the Washington Post. "The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials," the newspaper reported. "The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said."

Isn't that interesting? Months ago, the Obama Administration revealed that it would target al-Awlaki. It even managed to wriggle out of a lawsuit filed by his father to prevent the assassination. But the actual legal reasoning the Department of Justice used to authorize the strike? It's secret. Classified. Information that the public isn't permitted to read, mull over, or challenge.

Why? What justification can there be for President Obama and his lawyers to keep secret what they're asserting is a matter of sound law? This isn't a military secret. It isn't an instance of protecting CIA field assets, or shielding a domestic vulnerability to terrorism from public view. This is an analysis of the power that the Constitution and Congress' post September 11 authorization of military force gives the executive branch. This is a president exploiting official secrecy so that he can claim legal justification for his actions without having to expose his specific reasoning to scrutiny. As the Post put it, "The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process."

Obama hasn't just set a new precedent about killing Americans without due process. He has done so in a way that deliberately shields from public view the precise nature of the important precedent he has set. It's time for the president who promised to create "a White House that's more transparent and accountable than anything we've seen before" to release the DOJ memo. As David Shipler writes, "The legal questions are far from clearcut, and the country needs to have this difficult discussion." And then there's the fact that "a good many Obama supporters thought that secret legal opinions by the Justice Department -- rationalizing torture and domestic military arrests, for example -- had gone out the door along with the Bush administration," he adds. "But now comes a momentous change in policy with serious implications for the Constitution's restraint on executive power, and Obama refuses to allow his lawyers' arguments to be laid out on the table for the American public to examine." What doesn't he want to get out?



__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1006  
Old 10-06-2011, 04:01 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Occupy Wall Street 'Stands In Solidarity' With Obama Front Group

Occupy Wall Street 'Stands In Solidarity' With Obama Front Group




Why is the official OWS website in league with lobbying fronts for the Wall Street-backed Obama White House?

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Fears expressed by some that the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement is being hijacked by the Democratic Party establishment have intensified after the official OWS website announced that it “stands in solidarity” with MoveOn.org, a lobbying group for the Wall Street-backed Obama administration.

The front page of the http://occupywallst.org/ proudly announces that numerous union groups will be present in New York today to join demonstrators in marches taking place this afternoon.


“Together we will protest this great injustice. We stand in solidarity with the honest workers of….MoveOn.org,” states the website, as well as listing numerous other organizations.

What is MoveOn.org?

MoveOn.org is a lobbying organization that routinely backs Democratic candidates. The group aggressively supported Barack Obama’s 2008 election campaign and is now “Perhaps the lead lobby organization for his policies….apart from Obama’s own Organizing for America,” reports Source Watch.

When MoveOn organized an online donation drive for Obama which raised $320,000, the Obama campaign responded in kind with the legally dubious action of paying MoveOn $18,000 in “credit card processing fees”.

The group also received a $5 million dollar donation from George Soros, who is a keen supporter.

Back in 2007, many leftists spoke of their betrayal by MoveOn.org after the group advocated Nancy Pelosi’s funding bill that actually prolonged the war in Iraq and prevented the troops being brought home.

“Join us on Wednesday to create a huge show of support for anti-Wall Street actions nationwide. Together, we’ll add hundreds of thousands of voices expressing our solidarity with the protests at Occupy Wall Street and across the country targeting the bankers who wrecked our economy,” states MoveOn.org’s website.

Yes – the very same bankers – Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup prime amongst them – who financed the Obama campaign, the same campaign vehemently supported by MoveOn.org.

Why does Occupy Wall Street’s support for MoveOn.org represent a problem? Because MoveOn.org is little more than a lobbying front for the Obama administration, which itself is a creature of Wall Street.

Another group that OWS website expresses its “solidarity” with, AFL-CIO, has also announced that it will likely back Wall Street puppet Obama in 2012.

The OWS website also stands in solidarity with SEIU (Service Employees International Union), a group that spent $28 million dollars supporting Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, making it the “organization that spent the most to help Barack Obama get elected president.”

Why is the website that has positioned itself as the central hub for Occupy Wall Street activists announcing its support for groups which are little more than Barack Obama lobbying fronts? Wall Street spent millions financing Obama’s path to the White House and are supporting him to an even greater extent in 2012.

Why is a website that claims to represent anti-Wall Street demonstrators siding with groups that have aggressively supported the Wall Street-backed Obama administration?

Some have argued that it is not fair to cite postings on OccupyWallst.org as representative of the movement’s character or goals. However, this is not a forum posting by an individual, it is prominently displayed on the front page of the website claiming it represents OWS.

Either the Occupy Wall Street website represents an accurate reflection of the sentiments of the protesters, that is supportive of the Wall Street-financed Obama administration and its lobbying front groups such as MoveOn.org, or the message has been hijacked by these very groups.

Either way it represents a threat to the promise made by other OWS activists to remain non-partisan.

Who is running this website and why are they ‘standing in solidarity’ with organizations like MoveOn.org that have aggressively supported the Wall-Street backed Obama administration?

I am going to submit this question to the forum users on the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ website and write a follow up piece on their response. That way we can move a lot closer to understanding whether what is posing as the official website for this “leaderless” group is really representative of the OWS demonstrators or not.




Occupy Wall Street Jumps the Shark
Marxist mobocracy turns surreal
by Matthew Vadum




It hasn’t taken long for the socialist-organized “occupation” of Wall Street to jump the shark.

In a surreal news conference at the United Nations, anti-American radical and rogue financier George Soros​ (net worth: $22 billion) threw in his lot with the thousands of Communists, anarchists, eco-feminists, malingerers, and professional protesters who have been baiting and taunting police in lower Manhattan as part of a mass demonstration that began September 17.

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) also jumped on the anti-Wall Street bandwagon. In a move that ought to permanently disqualify him as a GOP presidential candidate, Paul gave aid and comfort to the radicals who want to destroy America. “If they were demonstrating peacefully, and making a point, and arguing our case, and drawing attention to the Fed — I would say, good!” Paul said.

When told that a New York police officer pepper-sprayed protesters, Paul reflexively took the side of the radicals. “I didn’t read the stories about it. But that means government doesn’t like to be receiving any criticism at all. And my argument is, government should be in the open — the people’s privacy ought to be protected. So I don’t like it.”

The protests, which have spread to other large cities, are part of what ACORN’s neo-communist founder Wade Rathke​ calls an “anti-banking jihad.” Not surprisingly, the remnants of the ACORN network are deeply involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement. New York ACORN’s new front group, New York Communities for Change (NYCC), led by veteran ACORN enforcer Jon Kest, is one of the major protest groups leading the effort to turn America into one big socialist armpit.Kest explained why NYCC is involved by using what has become the standard Marxist boilerplate about the financial collapse. “When the big banks tanked our economy they took away millions of people’s shot at achieving the American Dream,” he blogged. “It’s about time all these people come together and hold Wall Street accountable for what they’ve done to our futures and the future of this country.” Of course Kest didn’t bother to mention the role that ACORN played in creating the mortgage bubble by strong-arming Fannie Mae, pushing the financial affirmative action scheme known as the Community Reinvestment Act, and blackmailing banks that didn’t want to lend money to people who wouldn’t be able to pay it back.

SEIU board member Stephen Lerner has vowed to do his part to drive a stake through the heart of capitalism and drag the populace into economic misery. Lerner says he wants to “bring down the stock market” through a campaign of disruption. Last year George Goehl, executive director of Chicago-based National People’s Action, said that “the banking crisis” was “the next big thing,” and “the way to build a big economic justice movement in this country.”

Soros said he sympathizes with the rabble. “Actually I can understand [the protesters’] sentiment, frankly,” said the preeminent funder of the American activist Left in remarks to reporters.

But anyone who has followed Soros’s life wouldn’t dare to describe him as a working class hero.

Remember that this corrupt investment banker fired his butler for complaining after his cook used Château Lafite in a stew. The butler won a wrongful dismissal lawsuit against Soros. Soros was also convicted of insider trading. A French court fined him millions of dollars.

Soros’s hedge fund invested almost $1 billion in shares of Petrobras, the Brazilian oil concern, coincidentally just before the Export-Import Bank of the United States​ announced it was lending $2 billion to the company.

Soros closed a hedge fund to outside investors rather than submit to the new Dodd-Frank financial regulations – regulations he helped to enact by giving money to groups that lobbied for them. Soros shed a few crocodile tears for small business owners whose credit lines got squeezed after the 2008 financial collapse. “An awful lot of them actually were put out of business,” he said.

Remember also that Soros deliberately collapses national economies for fun and profit, openly expresses admiration for Communist China, and has said European-style socialism “is exactly what we need now.” He wants the American economy to sink into the abyss. “I’m having a very good crisis,” Soros said in 2009.

Even though Soros is the archetype of the Wall Street insider, leftists can’t bring themselves to criticize him, preferring to demonize the invented billionaire bogeymen of the Right.

Plenty of other rich liberals have been holding court near Wall Street in recent days.

Hip hop and credit card mogul Russell Simmons​ (net worth: $340 million), alleged comedian Roseanne Barr​ (net worth: $80 million), actress Susan Sarandon​ (net worth: $50 million), and celluloid propagandist Michael Moore (net worth: $50 million) have all dropped by to cheer on the protesters in their quest to redistribute wealth while radically transforming the nation.

Simmons stood beside Frances Fox Piven as the Bolshevik academic unwittingly created an impromptu parody of the “we’re all individuals” crowd scene in Monty Python​’s Life of Brian. “Wall Street is the center of the neo-liberal cancer that has spread across the world,” Piven said, pausing every few seconds to allow the mob to repeat her words.

After Piven finished, Simmons stood up and did the same routine like an automaton from a creepy cult. As the mob repeated his words, Simmons condemned the “class warfare being waged on the poor and the middle class” and claimed:
The fact is our problem, at least our number one problem, is the corporations and the other special interest groups that are more important to our politicians than the people. The lobbyists and the money gotta get the f*** out of Washington.
The next big exercise in Marxist mobocracy is scheduled for later this week in the nation’s capital.

The October 2011 Coalition plans to take over Freedom Plaza near the White House, beginning today “if any U.S. troops, contractors, or mercenaries remain in Afghanistan.” Protesters will “resist the corporate machine” by occupying the area “to demand that America’s resources be invested in human needs and environmental protection instead of war and exploitation.” The group’s stated goal is to make the plaza one block away from the White House “our Tahrir Square, Cairo.”

Plenty more disruptive demonstrations are scheduled.

Next week will be busy, SEIU’s Lerner said during a panel discussion Monday at the Take Back the American Dream conference in Washington, D.C. sponsored by the left-wing Campaign for America’s Future.

About 10,000 demonstrators are expected to hit the streets of Chicago while protesters march on Wells Fargo in Minneapolis, he said.

Activists in New York are planning to campaign to extend that state’s tax on millionaires. “We may go visit some of them,” said Lerner, whose union goons have terrorized the families of many corporate executives in their homes.

Goehl’s National People’s Action group is planning a “Make Wall Street Pay” event on November 3. That’s two days before Guy Fawkes Day, the annual commemoration of the Gunpowder Plot​ in which English dissidents plotted to vaporize Parliament.

Fancy that.



Protester Tells The Blaze How ‘The Jews Control Wall Street’ & Why Obama‘s a ’Jewish Puppet’




On Wednesday afternoon, The Blaze posted a video of a man telling the crowd that “the Jews control Wall St.” and spouting anti-Semitic hate.
So a GBTV cameraman and I decided to go down to the center of the protests later that day to see if we could find the man behind the comments and ask him a few questions. We found him. And he was more than happy to explain himself.

Who is he? Well, the only name he would give me is “Jesus.” He told me he’s homeless and going blind. And when I asked him about his former anti-Semitic remarks, he was sure to go in-depth on his views, as well as hold up his sign with Atlas-like determination.

He’s convinced that Jews have a “firm grip” on the media and the country’s finances. He even tried to selectively quote scripture to back up his case. That said, he claims he’s not against all Jews, just the ones who are “robbing” America or aren’t speaking out about their “bretheren” who are. Considering his comments, I asked if he would be in favor of a tax on just rich Jews. His response? “That sounds good, but all billionaires.”

Here’s the first part, where he also accused President Obama of being a “Jewish puppet:”



If you think his answers are a bunch of confusion wrapped in a conundrum, you’re not alone. And it’s about to get even more perplexing. See, after hearing his obvious anti-Jewish remarks, I asked him why he decided to single out the Jews. He responded by saying he “loves” Jews but he’s “tired of them swindling us:”


So is this a common sentiment among protesters? As you just heard, not according to “Jesus,” who said he’s trying to change that by educating people. Another protester, Paul, agreed that it the idea wasn’t rampant amongst the rompers.

While I was interviewing “Jesus,” Paul — donning shaggy hair and a scruffy beard, which seemed to be the uniform of the protesters — said that they had all decided to denounce the man’s “anti-Semitic” remarks, even gathering around to sing something such as “we love Jews” (he couldn’t remember the exact wording). Also of note: Paul admitted that despite being a regular at the park, he goes home every night to sleep, choosing not to lay on the tarps and cardboard some of the others have chosen as their beds. He also vowed to “win” the fight:






According to the site Lubavitch.com, there is a tiny element of anti-Semitism among the protesters. In fact, one participant has taken it upon himself to combat it:
Daniel Sieradski, a new media activist and participant in the protests, says he is reaching out to Jewish participants at the protest.
Sieradski has also found a small, fringe element that has “chosen to co-opt the protests as an opportunity” to spread hatred and anti-Semitic rhetoric, among participants, and hopes to dispel negative Jewish stereotypes and to “fight those using Jew-hatred,” by his presence there.


By the way, we did try to find “Lotion Man” — the other protester seen on a video making anti-Semitic remarks — but he “slipped” by us.

Oh, and feel free to take “Jesus’s“ advice and Google ”Wall Street Jews.” If you’re a regular reader of The Blaze, the results might seem familiar.


__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 10-06-2011 at 08:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1007  
Old 10-07-2011, 01:24 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Thumbs down IT'S STARTING: Feds to design health insurance for the masses

IT'S STARTING:
Feds to design health insurance for the masses
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal government is taking on a crucial new role in the nation's health care, designing a basic benefits package for millions of privately insured Americans. A framework for the Obama administration was released Thursday.

The report by independent experts from the Institute of Medicine lays out guidelines for deciding what to include in the new "essential benefits package," how to keep it affordable for small businesses and taxpayers, and also scientifically up to date.

About 68 million Americans, many of them currently insured, ultimately would be affected by the new benefits package. That's bigger than the number of seniors enrolled in Medicare.

The advisers recommended that the package be built on mid-tier health plans currently offered by small employers, expanded to include certain services such as mental health, and squeezed into a real-world budget.
They did not spell out a list of services to cover, but they did recommend that the government require evidence of cost effectiveness.

"In this day and age, when we are talking about fiscal responsibility, it's a report that recognized that we have to take account of what we can afford while trying to make sure that people have adequate coverage," said panel member Elizabeth McGlynn, director of Kaiser Permanente's center for effectiveness and safety research.

Until now, designing benefits has been the job of insurers, employers and state officials. But the new health care law requires insurance companies to provide at least the federally approved package if they want to sell to small businesses, families and individuals through new state markets set to open in 2014.

Most existing workplace plans won't be required to adopt the federal model, but employers and consumer advocates alike predict it will become the nation's benchmark for health insurance over time.

With the nation divided over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law, and Republicans condemning it as a government takeover, the administration reacted cautiously to the recommendations.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement that officials would hold "listening sessions" around the country before any final decisions are made, which could take months. The IOM panel recommended an extensive effort to engage the public.

"Before we put forward a proposal, it is critical that we hear from the American people," Sebelius said. The law extends coverage to about 30 million uninsured people.

Actually, work on the benefits package is already well under way within the HHS department. On the outside, a huge lobbying campaign to shape the final package is about to take off.

Employer groups - particularly those representing low-wage industries - want to keep benefits fairly basic. Since the government is going to be subsidizing coverage for millions of people, a generous plan will drive up costs for taxpayers, they argue. But consumer and patient advocacy groups that helped pass the overhaul law want to make sure their priorities are included.

The health care law requires that essential benefits include outpatient, hospital, emergency, maternal, newborn and children's care, prescription drugs, mental health and substance abuse treatment, rehabilitation, labs, prevention and wellness. But Congress gave the administration lots of leeway to determine the specifics.

In its 300-page report, the Institute of Medicine panel stressed that the package has to be affordable if Obama's overhaul is going to stand the test of time.

The panel used the analogy of a shopper at the supermarket. One option is to fill up your cart with all the groceries you want, and find out the cost at the register.

"The other option is to walk into the store with a firm idea of what you can spend and to fill the cart carefully, with only enough food to fit within your budget," the advisers said. "The committee recommends that (the administration) take the latter approach."

The first option compares to what the government now does with Medicare and Medicaid - it pays all the bills. But the advisers said Obama's plan should be on a budget.

The panel proposed a tough financial test. Few small employer plans currently offer comprehensive mental health coverage, for example. As such services are added, the total cost of the package should stay within a realistic budget target to be set by the administration. That would help keep premiums affordable.

"Without a budget, you could decide to live in a 10,000 square-foot house overlooking the ocean and drive a Jaguar," McGlynn said.
The panel's rough estimate put annual premiums for individual coverage under the plan at $5,500 to $7,000 in 2014, comparable to what employers pay now.

Interest groups will be poring over the recommendations.
"Moving forward, this is truly a lynchpin issue," said Neil Trautwein, vice president for benefits policy at the National Retail Federation. "I think there will be a tug-of-war on this proposal."

The Institute of Medicine is an independent organization advising the government on technical issues.
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1008  
Old 10-07-2011, 01:28 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Reid's ‘nuclear option’ changes rules, ends repeat filibusters

Reid's ‘nuclear option’ changes rules, ends repeat filibusters

By Alexander Bolton - 10/06/11
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/1...re-filibusters


In a shocking development Thursday evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) triggered a rarely used procedural option informally called the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules.

Reid and 50 members of his caucus voted to change Senate rules unilaterally to prevent Republicans from forcing votes on uncomfortable amendments after the chamber has voted to move to final passage of a bill.

Reid’s coup passed by a vote of 51-48, leaving Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fuming.

The surprise move stunned Republicans, who did not expect Reid to bring heavy artillery to what had been a humdrum knife fight over amendments to China currency legislation.

The Democratic leader had become fed up with Republican demands for votes on motions to suspend the rules after the Senate had voted to limit debate earlier in the day.

McConnell had threatened such a motion to force a vote on the original version of President Obama’s jobs package, which many Democrats don’t like because it would limit tax deductions for families earning over $250,000. The jobs package would have been considered as an amendment.

McConnell wanted to embarrass the president by demonstrating how few Democrats are willing to support his jobs plan as first drafted. (Senate Democrats have since rewritten the jobs package to pay for its stimulus provisions with a 5.6 surtax on income over $1 million.)

Reid’s move strips the minority of the power of forcing politically-charged procedural votes after the Senate has voted to cut off a potential filibuster and move to a final vote, which the Senate did on the China measure Tuesday morning, 62-38.

Reid said motions to suspend the rules after the Senate votes to end debate — motions which do not need unanimous consent — are tantamount to a renewed filibuster after a cloture vote.

“The Republican Senators have filed nine motions to suspend the rules to consider further amendments but the same logic that allows for nine such motions could lead to the consideration of 99 such amendments,” Reid argued before springing his move.

Reid said Republicans could force an “endless vote-a-rama” after the Senate has voted to move to final passage.

He said this contradicts the rule the Senate adopted 32 years ago.
“This potential for filibuster by amendment is exactly the circumstance that the Senate sought to end by its 1979 amendments,” Reid said.
Reid appealed a ruling from the chair that McConnell did not need unanimous consent to force a vote on his motion.




The chair, which was occupied by Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), ruled according to the advice of the Senate parliamentarian that Republicans had the right to force a vote on suspending the rules and proceeding to President Obama’s controversial jobs bill.

A Senate GOP source disputed Reid’s argument, however. This source argued that the debate time after the Senate has voted to cut off a potential filibuster is limited to 30 hours.

The GOP source said that Republicans might be able to force votes on 30 amendments during that time but argued it would be impossible to force 99 votes, as Reid suggested.

Republicans had considered using Reid’s maneuver, dubbed the “nuclear option,” in 2005 to change Senate rules to prohibit the filibuster of judicial nominees. Democrats decried the plan under consideration by then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) as a bomb that would decimate Senate traditions.

That crisis was resolved by a bipartisan agreement forged by 14 rank-and-file senators known as the Gang of 14.

McConnell, visibly angry and shaken, said Reid’s action Thursday evening threatened the powers of the minority that distinguish the upper chamber from the House of Representatives.

“We are fundamentally turning the Senate into the House,” he cried on the Senate floor. “The minority’s out of business.”

One Democratic source noted that former Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (Miss.) used Reid’s nuclear tactic on May 17, 2000, when he overturned a ruling from the chair to ban non-germane sense-of-the-Senate amendments from being offered to appropriations bills.

Reid defended his action as necessary because filibusters and other dilatory actions have tied the Senate up in knots. Many junior members of his caucus, such as Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), have become extremely frustrated by the length of time it takes to even complete the chambers routine business.

Reid said he was willing to allow votes on germane amendments to the China bill but would not let Republicans force a political show vote to embarrass the president, which halted floor action throughout the day.

“Senator McConnell wanted to offer an amendment on the president’s jobs bill,” Reid said. “That in effect tied us down because he wasn’t willing to let us move to any other amendments. I was wiling to move to other amendments.”

A Democratic aide said Reid did not strip Republicans of a crucial prerogative of the minority.

“Motions to suspend the rules after cloture are not a tactic that is central to minority rights in the Senate. A motion to suspend the rules has not succeeded since 1941, according to the Senate Historian’s office. This is simply a delay tactic the minority has used to derail even bills with broad, bipartisan support,” the aide wrote in a memo briefing reporters.

Reid said he resisted pressure from junior Democrats to “massively change” the Senate rules in the 112th Congress, when Democrats had a larger majority in hopes that Republicans could be persuaded to ease their use of obstructionist tactics.

But Reid admitted that he did not take the action lightly and may regret it in the future.

“Am I 100-percent sure that I’m right?" he asked. "No, but I feel pretty comfortable with what we’ve done. There has to be some end to the dilatory tactics.”

Senate Republicans said Reid is right to worry.

“Just wait until they get into the minority!” one GOP staffer growled.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/1...re-filibusters
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1009  
Old 10-07-2011, 01:50 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Obama Responds to Wall St. Protests

Obama Responds to Wall St. Protests


October 6, 2011
by Jonathon M. Seidl
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/firs...om-occupy-d-c/


On Thursday, President Obama issued his first comments on the growing unrest taking place in New York City regarding the Wall St. protesters. He refused to condemn any of their actions (despite multiple altercations with police) and said they are just expressing the frustrations of other Americans.

“Obviously, I’ve heard of it. I’ve seen it on television,” he said. “I think it expresses the frustrations that the American people feel. That we had the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression. Huge collateral damage all throughout the country, all across Main Street. And yet, you’re still seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on abusive practices that got us in this problem in the first place.”

See his response below:



Obama’s comments come on the heels of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke also refusing to condemn the protests, even sympathizing with them. While testifying on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, Bernanke said he “cant blame” the protesters who have, at times, tangled with police:
I would just say very generally, I think people are quite unhappy with the state of the economy and what’s happening. They blame, with some justification, the problems in the financial sector for getting us into this mess, and they’re dissatisfied with the policy response here in Washington. And at some level, I can’t blame them. Certainly, 9 percent unemployment and very slow growth is not a good situation. [Emphasis added]









‘First We Ought to Kill Them and Eat Them’: Sights and Sounds from Occupy D.C.


October 6, 2011
by Madeleine Morgenstern



Washington, D.C.’s answer to the ongoing Occupy Wall Street protests kicked into high gear Thursday with a large rally and “occupation” just blocks from the White House, culminating in a demonstration with a “We want jobs!” chant in front of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Several hundred people gathered first in Freedom Plaza for a combination protest-concert, railing against corporate greed and the increasing gap separating the “top 1 percent” from the “99 percent.”

It was actually part of a four-day “October 2011” movement timed to commemorate the 10-year mark since U.S. actions in Afghanistan began. With the “Occupy” protests picking up steam around the country, organizers were happy to embrace that fervor, including with their “Human Needs Not Corporate Greed” mantra.

Of course, as has been the case since the Days of Rage movement began in September, not everyone was quite on the same page with the protest’s exact goals. Even the October 2011 group itself wasn’t too clear on what their demands were, right up to the day of the protest. From their website:
October2011.org is working through its steering committee, endorsing organizations and the thousands of members of our online community to develop the demands we stand for. We have made a lot of progress but continue to work on these issues and will continue to do so during the occupation of Freedom Plaza beginning on October 6.





The group did list seven general issues on its site where “super majorities of the American public agree with our political goals but the U.S. government is going in the opposite direction”:
  • Tax the rich and corporations
  • End the wars, bring the troops home, cut military spending
  • Protect the social safety net, strengthen Social Security and improved Medicare for all
  • End corporate welfare for oil companies and other big business interests
  • Transition to a clean energy economy, reverse environmental degradation
  • Protect worker rights including collective bargaining, create jobs and raise wages
Brad Blanton of Luray, Va. had one of the more extreme messages of the protest, saying it was time to literally start eating the wealthy in order to fix economic inequality.


Brad Blanton of Luray, Va. advocated cannibalism and wore an expletive-laden T-shirt. Madeleine Morgenstern/The Blaze

“They‘re devouring us and now it’s time we start devouring them back,” Blanton said. “I’m advocating cannibalism.”

But actual cannibalism? Apparently so.

“We ought to cut ‘em up and have a little ritual where we call it communion,” Blanton said. “We’re all cannibals, all human beings are cannibals. What we need to do is start eating from the top instead of the bottom.”

And again, just so there was no mistake:
“First we ought to kill them and eat them. I think cannibalism is the answer. Second to that, just regulate the hell out of them, that’d be okay,” Blanton said.


Carrie Stone of Clarksburg, W.V. and her partner Elisia Ross walked 200 miles to get to the rally. Madeleine Morgenstern/The Blaze

Carrie Stone of Clarksburg, W.V. carried a sign that said she walked 200 miles to be in D.C. for the rally, which she said took her nine days.
“I decided I was through talking the talk and I was ready to walk the walk,” said Stone, who identified herself as an uninsured cancer survivor, grandmother of two, lesbian and environmentalist who’s building a house out of recycled materials. “I figured I’m the poster child for progressive issues.”

Stone said she was there to let “the wealthiest 1 percent” know that the government should represent the people, not just the corporations.
“I’m really happy to know that the whole world knows about it and we are now part of a global movement of occupying public squares,” Stone said. “We are upset about inequity, economic inequality where [only] so many people are doing so well, corporations, CEOs are making money while the rest of us are making less money.”


Beritu Haile-Selassie said she is at a major disadvantage to finding a job because she is "jet black, a senior, disabled, unemployed and a dumb foreigner." Madeleine Morgenstern/The Blaze


Madeleine Morgenstern/The Blaze


Before the group set off for the Chamber of Commerce, a number of activists took to the stage to pump up the crowd, singing songs and delivering spoken word performances. One such act called themselves “The Raging Grannies”:










Performance artist and activist Ron Kipling Williams delivered a spoken word performance of his poem, “America Kills.”

“America drinks oil and excretes fascism!” Williams said. “America washes itself with bullets and dries itself with genocide.”





After several hours, the group set off for the Chamber of Commerce in a march on “corporate America.” They chanted “We want jobs!” and unfurled a large sign in front of the entrance that said “Chamber of Corporate Horrors.” When they finished, some had left a symbolic stack of job applications and resumes in their wake, the Washington Post reported.

Heather Lewis-Lechner said she came across the country from Tacoma, Wash. to attend the rally, and said afterward she hopes it’s the start of a push for people to inform themselves about “how things work” with regard to economic inequality.
Lewis-Lechner, who works as an attorney in the Washington State Senate, said it’s time for a progressive tax structure where the wealthy and corporations pay “their fair share just like everybody else.”
“It’s not socialism, it‘s not liberalism and it shouldn’t be a dirty word,” she said. “It should just be generosity and compassion for our fellow human beings.”



Pelosi on Occupy Wall Street Protesters:"God bless them"


__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 10-07-2011 at 01:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1010  
Old 10-07-2011, 02:26 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Justice Department Accuses GOP of Playing 'Gotcha' With Fast and Furious Memos

Justice Department Accuses GOP of Playing 'Gotcha' With Fast and Furious Memos



October 06, 2011
FoxNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...furious-memos/



AP2011

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder speaks during the Secretary-General's Symposium on International Counter-Terrorism Conference during the 66th session of the General Assembly at United Nations headquarters on Monday, Sept. 19, 2011.

The Justice Department accused Republicans of playing a "political game of gotcha," after lawmakers investigating Operation Fast and Furious said Attorney General Eric Holder received at least five memos on the gunrunning probe starting in July 2010 in spite of testimony claiming he learned of the program this year.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., released a series of heavily redacted memos apparently sent to Holder from Michael Walther, the director of the National Drug Intelligence Center. They appear to describe an operation involving the straw purchase of hundreds of firearms that went to Mexican drug cartels.

Related Video


White House Stands Behind Eric Holder
Will Attorney General be subject to investigation over Fast and Furious testimony?

Related Video

Did Eric Holder Mislead Congress?
Special Counsel to probe Holder on 'Fast and Furious'

But as President Obama voiced "complete confidence" in Holder, the Justice Department put out a scathing statement Thursday afternoon suggesting the memos do not contradict Holder's claims that he was in the dark on the program last year.

"Here they go again. Chairman Issa and Senator Grassley can re-package and re-release the same documents every other day and it won't change the facts: the attorney general's testimony to both the House and Senate committees has been consistent and truthful," the department said.

The department said the "brief" passages were "buried in a few written reports" and did not detail the full extent of the operation.

"Instead of peddling selectively-edited transcripts and distorting questions and answers in some distracting political game of gotcha, these congressional leaders should be focusing their attention on the underlying public safety problem we confront as a nation -- that too many guns are being illegally trafficked to Mexico," the statement said.

The release of the documents comes as House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, requests Obama instruct the Department of Justice to appoint a special counsel.

In a statement Thursday, Issa claimed Holder "has failed to give Congress and the American people an honest account of what he and other."

"With the fairly detailed information that the attorney general read, it seems the logical question for the attorney general after reading in the memo would be 'why haven't we stopped them?'" Grassley said.

Through Fast and Furious, hundreds of firearms were allowed to walk across the U.S.-Mexico border, some later turning up at bloody crime scenes. The focus has turned lately to what Holder knew and when he knew it.

He said under oath in May: "I'm not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks."

But documents that started to surface earlier in the week suggested Justice officials at least tried to inform Holder. The latest memos show he was notified of the program repeatedly, though it's not clear to what degree Holder paid attention to the memos.

Issa spokesman Frederick Hill said "some" at the Justice Department are treating Holder as "above the law."

"His answer was untruthful and hid what he and other top Justice Department officials knew about gun walking and Operation Fast and Furious," he said in a statement.

Obama on Thursday voiced confidence in Holder and his handling of the Justice Department.

"He has been very aggressive in going after gunrunning and cash transactions that have been going to these transnational drug cartels," Obama told reporters at a White House press conference.

"He's indicated that he was not aware of what was happening in Fast and Furious and certainly I was not, and I think both he and I would have been very unhappy if somebody had suggested that guns were allowed to pass through that could have been prevented by the United States of America."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...furious-memos/
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1011  
Old 10-07-2011, 02:31 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Energy Department Official in Charge of Solyndra Loan Program to Step Down

Energy Department Official in Charge of Solyndra Loan Program to Step Down


October 06, 2011
| FoxNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...rupt-solyndra/



House Energy and Commerce Committee
Jonathan Silver, outgoing head of the Energy Department's loan program office, testifies on Capitol Hill Sept. 14.


The director of the controversial loan program that cleared the way for a $535 million taxpayer guarantee to bankrupt solar firm Solyndra is stepping down, the Energy Department confirmed Thursday.

Jonathan Silver, head of the Loan Programs Office, plans to join the organization Third Way as a "distinguished visiting fellow." The career change comes in the middle of heavy scrutiny from Congress over the department's handling of the Solyndra agreement. Documents that have emerged over the past month show officials were warned about potential problems with the company as it sought government help.

Related Stories
The Treasury Bank Behind Solyndra -- And Mortgage BailoutsTop U.S. Energy Official Leaves After SolyndraGOP Lawmakers Expand Investigation Into White House Role in Solyndra Controversy

But President Obama on Thursday defended the Energy Department's vetting. And Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement that Silver's departure was expected.

Chu said Silver told him in July that he planned to return to the private sector soon after Sept. 30, when the loan program expired.

"Since he joined the Department in November 2009, Jonathan assembled and managed a truly outstanding team that has transformed the program into the world leader in financing innovative clean energy projects. Under his leadership, the loan program has demonstrated considerable success, with a broad portfolio of investments that will help American companies compete in the global clean energy market," Chu said. "Because of my absolute confidence in Jonathan and the outstanding work he has done, I would welcome his continued service at the Department, but I completely understand the decision he has made."

Silver joined the department in November 2009, two months after the Solyndra loan guarantee was finalized. Solyndra, which later went bankrupt and is now under multiple investigations, ended up being lent $528 million in taxpayer money.

But defending the program, Obama said Thursday that lending by nature is inherently risky. At a wide ranging news conference, Obama said his administration knew that some companies participating in the loan guarantee program started under the Bush administration would fail.

"There were going to be some companies that did not work out; Solyndra was one of them," he said. "But the process by which the decision was made was on the merits, it was straightforward."

Obama argued that the U.S. must continue to guarantee loans for clean energy companies to compete with Chinese subsidies that compel companies to move offshore.

"We're going to have to keep pushing had to make sure that manufacturing is located here, new businesses are located here and new technologies are developed here," he said. "And there are going to be times where it doesn't work out, but I'm not going to cave to the competition when they are heavily subsidizing all these industries."

Republican lawmakers investigating Solyndra said they would continue their probe.

"Mr. Silver's resignation does not solve the problem," said Reps. Fred Upton, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Cliff Stearns, chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

"We are in the midst of the Solyndra investigation and just days removed from Mr. Silver's mad rush to finalize the last $4.7 billion in loans before the statutory deadline," they said.

The two Republicans accused Obama of changing his tune about the loan guarantee program when he said Thursday for every success story, there may be a failure. On Monday, the president said it was to be expected that one company like Solyndra could fail.

"Does the Obama adminsitration now expect half of these companies will fail?" they said. "American taxpayers are already on the hook for the half billion dollar Solyndra bust -- what other shoes does this administration expect to drop?"

Solyndra declared bankruptcy last month and laid off its 1,100 workers in a move that embarrassed the White House after Obama had touted the company as a model for success. The FBI and the GOP-led House Energy and Commerce Committee launched investigations into the company. Despite the firm's failure, Obama said Thursday the loan guarantee program overall has been successful and has created jobs.

Obama's comments came as the House panel expanded its investigation to include a request for all emails between the White House and the company since January 2009, when Obama took office.

Several documents already released show administration officials had been concerned about the company’s finances. The committee this week also released more emails that showed the Energy Department was considering giving Solyndra a second $469 million loan in the summer of 2010 despite the company's deteriorating financial situation.

Asked about the warnings his administration received, Obama said projects in the loan guarantee program that have succeeded also faced doubts in the marketplace.

"So I mean there's always going to be a debate about whether this particular approach to this particular technology is going to be successful or not," he said. "And all I can say is that the Department of Energy made these decisions based on their best judgment about what would make sense."

Asked to respond to reports that the $38 billion loan guarantee program that promised to save or create 65,000 jobs only produced 3,500, Obama said that historically businesses that rely on new technologies are "going to take awhile before they get takeoff."

"Keep in mind that clean energy companies are competing against traditional energy companies," he said, adding that traditional energy is still cheaper, but running out and polluting the environment.

"And we know that demand is going to keep on increasing, so that if we don't prepare now, if we don't invest now, if we don't get on top of technologies now, we're going to be facing 20 years from now, China and India having a billion new drivers on the road, the trend lines in terms of oil prices, coal, et. cetera, going up, the impact on the planet increasing. And we're not just going to be able to start when all heck is breaking loose and say, 'Boy, we better find some new energy sources.'"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...rupt-solyndra/
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1012  
Old 10-07-2011, 04:52 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Thumbs down Frances Fox Piven: Be Ready For Violent Street Battles & Breaking Down Capitalism

Frances Fox Piven & Fellow Professors Indoctrinating College Students at CUNY To Get Involved and Be Ready For Violent Street Battles & Breaking Down Capitalism



__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1013  
Old 10-07-2011, 04:58 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Exposing How ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Was Organized From Day One by SEIU/ACORN Front

Video Exposing How ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Was Organized From Day One by SEIU/ACORN Front – The Working Family Party, and How They All Tie to the Obama Administration, DNC, Democratic Socialists of America, Tides and George Soros










Breakdown of the Connections Between The Working Family Party, SEIU, ACORN, The New Party, The DNC, Democratic Socialists of America, Tides, George Soros and The Obama Administration:
  • The Working Families Party was established in the 90s by key members of the the socialist organizations The New Party, ACORN, SEIU, and a coalition of other labor unions and community organizations.
  • Patrick Gaspard, the current executive director of the DNC, former director of Obama’s Office of Political Affairs, was an organizer for the New Party, the executive vice president of the SEIU Local 1199, political director for Bertha Lewis (the former president of ACORN) and a co-chair of the Working Families Party.
  • The New Party is a socialist political coalition co-founded in 1992 by academic and political activist Joel Rogers.
  • The first strategic meetings to plan the New Party were held in Joel Rogers’ Madison, Wisconsin home; Wade Rathke, ACORN and SEIU founder and Gerry Hudson from Democratic Socialists of America and SEIU were in attendance at those meetings.
  • The New Party’s influential Chicago chapter began to formed in January 1995. Its members consisted mainly of individuals from ACORN, SEIU and the Democratic Socialists of America. Obama attended a New Party function and received their endorsement in 1995.
  • In 1994, a New Party newspaper listed more than 100 activists “who are building the NP;” some names among the list of 100 were Noam Chomsky, Frances Fox Piven, Wade Rathke, Cornel West, Jon Barton of SEIU, Maude Hurd of ACORN and Margaret Shelleda of SEIU.
  • Gerry Hudson, SEIU Executive Vice President and original New Party member, serves on the board of the Apollo Alliance organized by Joel Rogers’ group COWS Center on Wisconsin Strategy. The Alliance is a project of the Tides Center. Harry Reid credited the Apollo Alliance with helping to write the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
  • George Soros’ Open Society Institute is a major source of money behind the Apollo Alliance and the Tides Foundation.
Of course, SEIU laid out the plans for Occupy Wall Street Months ago, as brought to you by the Blaze in this exclusive video:


__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 10-07-2011 at 05:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1014  
Old 10-07-2011, 05:47 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Fast and Furious in a Rotten Nutshell

Fast and Furious in a Rotten Nutshell
Developments are coming in at a rate to do justice to the scandal's name.
by Ronald Kolb




The latest in a series of revelations in the ongoing saga of the Fast and Furious scandal -- where more than 2,000 rifles were knowingly and willfully allowed to be transported untracked from the United States into Mexico -- is truly stunning.

A series of damning memos from 2010 was recently obtained by CBS News, and they indicate that Attorney General Eric Holder -- as well as several senior Justice Department officials -- were aware of the deadly program.

In one of Mr. Holder's weekly briefings in July of last year from Michael Walther, the director of the National Drug Intelligence Center, Mr. Walther had written Holder that the Phoenix-based operation was "responsible for the purchase of 1,500 firearms that were then supplied to Mexican drug trafficking cartels."

That October, Jason Weinstein, the deputy assistant attorney general of the Criminal Division, sent a colleague a memo concerning an upcoming press conference that his boss, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer (who is a longtime friend and associate of Holder), would be attending.

"It's a tricky case, given the number of guns that have walked," wrote Weinstein.

Then, in October, Breuer himself reported to Holder that "Operation Fast and Furious" would soon be ready for a "takedown."

Fox News then obtained four more weekly briefings in July and August 2010 sent from Mr. Walther to Holder discussing Fast and Furious.

The problem for Mr. Holder is that just this past May, he told Congress while under oath that he had "probably heard about Fast and Furious over the last few weeks."

And only recently, Holder stated that no one in the upper levels of his department was involved. Since the release of the damaging memos, Justice Department spokespeople have given several spurious reasons to explain Holder's statements: that he was confused during his testimony, that he thought he was being asked about another investigation, that he doesn't see every memo that passes his desk. And after calls from Congress for a special counsel, a Justice spokesman attempted to fend off that plan by saying that once Holder had learned of the operation's "questionable tactics" earlier this year, he then "promptly asked the inspector general to investigate the matter."

Cynthia A. Schnedar is the acting inspector general, and just this past month, in yet another stunning revelation, it was discovered that she had released secret audio tapes of candid conversations from last March between Hope McAllister, an ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) agent in the Phoenix office, and Andre Howard, owner of a Phoenix-area gun shop, who had been authorized by the ATF to sell weapons to known Mexican cartel members in the botched sting operation.

On one of the tapes, they discuss a third Fast and Furious rifle that was found at the scene of the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in a remote area of southern Arizona last December. It had been widely reported that only two rifles were found at the scene, but recent reports tell of a cover-up. The third rifle would have led to an FBI informant.

As for the tapes, it was discovered by congressional investigators that Schnedar had inexplicably given a copy to the U.S. attorney's office in Phoenix before she had even reviewed them. The tapes then ended up being shared with the ATF office there. Both those agencies are among the many entities under investigation in the ever-expanding scandal.

So just who, one may wonder, is Acting Inspector General Cynthia Schnedar?

Until last January, she was deputy inspector general at the Justice Department, having served in that post since June of 2010. When longtime Inspector General Glenn Fine retired from his post in January of this year, Schnedar, as had been expected, was named as acting inspector general on January 29.

But, as luck would have it, two days earlier, Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley went public in a letter to Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich with his concerns about the killing of Brian Terry, which was immediately followed by another letter to Acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson on the 31st.

On February 1, the first press reports emerged on what would become a growing scandal.

On March 10, Attorney General Eric Holder made his first of many comments about the internal investigation, telling Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison that he had "asked the Inspector General to try to get to the bottom of it."

"An investigation, an inquiry, is now underway," Holder added.

But should Cynthia Schnedar be the person to conduct the investigation?

It turns out that Ms. Schnedar has long and close ties to Mr. Holder. According to her biography on the Justice Department website, she became assistant U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. in 1994. Eric Holder had become the U.S. attorney in Washington the previous year, so he in effect was Schnedar's boss from 1994 until 1997, when he left to become President Clinton's deputy attorney general. Holder would become a key player in the scandalous pardons of fugitive billionaire Marc Rich and members of the Puerto Rican nationalist terrorist group known as FALN.

But during Ms. Schnedar's tenure before Holder had departed, it happened that they had ended up working a number of cases together. According to the LexisNexis website, there were at least fourteen of them, usually at the appellate level. For Holder, it was more than just "in name only"; in some of those cases, they apparently co-filed legal briefs.

In one case, they had represented the ATF. In another, they represented both the ATF and DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration), an agency that has now also been linked to Fast and Furious.

Whenever either Eric Holder or President Obama is pressed on Fast and Furious, both refer to the Justice Department's internal investigation that happens to be headed by Ms. Schnedar.

After Holder's comment to Senator Hutchinson in March, he was later questioned by California Representative Darrell Issa at the now-infamous hearing of May 3, when he declared that he had only recently learned of Fast and Furious. He then added defensively that "there's an investigation underway." At that same hearing, when Utah Representative Jason Chaffetz began focusing on the death of Agent Terry, Holder said, "I asked the inspector general to look into that, and I'm waiting -- awaiting that report." Chaffetz then focused on ways to find out who may have known about or authorized the disastrous program. Holder said that that is "part of what the inspector general will be looking at -- who exactly was involved, what the level of knowledge was, who should be held accountable, if in fact there were mistakes that were made."

On May 4, Holder twice told Senator Grassley that the matter had been "referred to the inspector general for inspection."

Then, at a press conference on September 7, Holder proclaimed his innocence and attacked the congressional investigation. "The notion that somehow or other this reaches into the upper levels of the Justice Department is something that, at this point, is not supported by the facts." Holder added that "it's kind of something that certain members of Congress would like to see."

Holder then noted that he "took very seriously the allegations that were raised and asked the inspector general to conduct an investigation."

President Obama has also noted the internal investigation. In his first known public comments about the scandal on March 22, he told Jorge Ramos of Univision that neither he nor Holder had authorized the operation. Obama then stated, "[S]o what he [Holder]'s done is he's assigned an I.G., an inspector general, to investigate what exactly happened[.]"

At that point, Ramos interrupted and asked, "So who authorized it?" Obama answered that, "[w]ell, we don't have all the facts. That's why the I.G. is in business. To collect the facts."

At a press conference on June 29, Obama was asked by Chilean journalist Antonieta Cadiz about Fast and Furious. "The investigation is still pending. I'm not going to comment on a current investigation...we got to find out how that happened. As soon as the investigation is completed, I think appropriate actions will be taken."

At another press conference on October 6, and just days after the damaging new memos concerning Holder were released, Obama told Jake Tapper of ABC News that he had "complete confidence" in Holder, and that "he [Holder]'s assigned an inspector general to look into exactly how this happened...and I've got complete confidence in the process to figure out who, in fact, was responsible for that decision and how it got made."

And revelations continue to emerge about Fast and Furious. Three members of the White House national security staff, including Kevin O'Reilly, knew about the operation, but it's unclear just how much they knew. Recently released e-mails between ATF Agent William Newell and O'Reilly, however, show a deeper White House knowledge than previously thought.

Newell had e-mailed O'Reilly an arrow chart showing the flow of the "ultimate destination of firearms" which led from Arizona and extended throughout Mexico. Intriguingly, O'Reilly responded, "[D]id last year's Texas effort produce a similar graphic?" This follows reports from earlier this year of weapons being run through Houston ATF.

Twelve high-ranking current and former members of the Justice Department, including Holder's confidant Lanny Breuer, have also been asked for information by the House Oversight Committee.

In March 2010 (and seven months before the recently discovered memo was sent to Holder), Breuer was asked to attend a video conference at ATF headquarters in Washington which focused on Fast and Furious. He sent Justice Department attorney Joseph Cooley instead, and at that meeting Cooley stated that running guns into Mexico was an "acceptable practice."

Just five days later, Breuer authorized wiretaps for the operation, and then later traveled to Mexico to discuss the operation with ATF personnel. Mr. Cooley has refused to comment for this article; Mr. Breuer's office also had no comment.

Last summer, three key members of the Phoenix ATF were reassigned, but they still remain on the payroll. This was also the fate of Acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson. In June, numerous reports suggested that Melson would be served up as "the fall guy" by the Justice Department. However, on July 4, and without Holder's permission, he met with congressional investigators.

On July 21, Holder sent a letter to Congressman Issa and Senator Grassley demanding copies of Melson's testimony -- not only for himself, but strangely (and inappropriately) for Ms. Schnedar, who is supposedly independent of Holder.

In September, it was reported that ATF Agent John Dodson (who had serious qualms about the operation) had been ordered to purchase guns -- using taxpayer funds -- and sell weapons directly to suspected cartel members in an effort to "dirty him up."

And days after the incriminating memos involving Mr. Holder were released, B. Todd Jones, the new acting ATF director and friend of Holder since the 1990s, "reassigned" 11 more ATF personnel, adding that people need to "calm down" about the barrage of revelations.

Meanwhile, the horrors keep on growing. Two thousand grenade parts were allowed to cross the border. They could be used to construct at least 500 hand grenades.

In the fall of 2010, Mario Gonzalez, the brother of then-Chihuahua state prosecutor Patricia Gonzalez, was abducted and then eventually killed. A Fast and Furious weapon was allegedly used. Mexico's Attorney General Marisela Morales has still received no response from the Obama administration or any other U.S. official concerning the deadly operation.

In February of this year, U.S. Immigration Agent Jaime Zapata was killed south of the Texas border, and it's suspected that a Fast and Furious weapon was used. And the Los Angeles Times has reported that Fast and Furious weapons were linked to crimes in Mexico where 150 people have either been killed or injured.

The number of known violent crimes in the U.S. connected to the operation keeps increasing. By early September, the count had reached 21, including the killing of Brian Terry.

And in a separate (but strangely similar) program out of Tampa ATF dubbed "Operation Castaway," guns were run to violent gangs in Honduras. This led to a number of violent crimes in Puerto Rico and a homicide in Colombia.

As for Acting Inspector General Cynthia Schnedar, Congressman Issa told Greta Van Susteren of Fox News that Schnedar's action of releasing the tapes had betrayed the investigation. (He also noted that cooperation from the Justice Department was virtually nonexistent.)

In a recently released letter to Schnedar, Issa and Senator Grassley noted that the investigator's actions had "undermined and obstructed" their investigation (the Oversight Committee had also obtained copies of the tapes), and they demanded answers concerning her behavior.

After the first tape was made public by CBS News as a result of Schnedar's actions, her office released a highly dubious explanation: that the U.S. attorney's office in Phoenix needed them for the pending prosecution of drug traffickers.

There are several questions about Ms. Schnedar that beg to be answered.

First, as she well knew, the U.S. attorney's office in Phoenix was also a target of the investigation. Both the U.S. attorney and the assistant U.S. attorney have since left because of the scandal.

Second, should Ms. Schnedar have immediately recused herself from the Fast and Furious investigation because of her long and deep ties to Mr. Holder?

Third, when Ms. Schnedar began her employment as assistant U.S. attorney in Washington in 1994, was it Mr. Holder (then the U.S. attorney) who hired her?

Lastly, Federal Election Commission records show that Schnedar donated to the Democratic National Committee in 2005. Does she now think that was proper?

On a related note: I recently contacted Ms. Schnedar to ask those very questions. She angrily told me to call her office. No answers have been forthcoming from either source, including her spokesman, Jay Lerner.

And Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder are apparently leaving nothing to chance. On July 29, Obama nominated Michael Horowitz (who had previously worked at the Justice Department) to become the full-time inspector general. It turns out that in 2009, when Lanny Breuer was facing confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Horowitz had sent them a personal recommendation on Breuer's behalf.

Finally, the Fast and Furious scandal has now become a large-scale criminal investigation. It has enveloped several agencies, including the Justice Department; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Drug Enforcement Administration; the U.S. attorney's office in Arizona; and now even the White House.

The fact that Eric Holder will likely never appoint a special counsel makes it even more imperative that the office of the Justice Department inspector general should be above reproach.

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1015  
Old 10-07-2011, 06:30 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Van Jones’ Tea Party Envy

Van Jones’ Tea Party Envy
Radical power brokers moving fast to manufacture a movement
by Jacob Laksin






Of all that the Tea Party has accomplished, perhaps the movement’s most unlikely achievement to date is the admiration it has inspired on the activist Left. Disillusioned with President Obama and the rapid dissipation of a long-term left-wing dominance that Obama’s victory was supposed to usher in, left-wing activists and commentators have come to look upon the Tea Party as a model to revive their faded political fortunes.

Speaking for many on the Left, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen recently acknowledged, “I suffer from Tea Party envy.” Similarly, the disgruntled twenty-somethings taking part in the Occupy Wall Street campaign have styled their protests as a left-wing and anti-capitalist version of the Tea Party. The latest left-wing admirer of the Tea Party is none other than Van Jones​, the disgraced former Obama administration official who was ousted from his post as green jobs czar following revelations of his radical past, which included signing a 9/11 “Truther” petition. Time off from professional politics has afforded Van Jones an opportunity to reflect, and like many on the Left he has concluded that in order to regain their relevance, progressives must take a page from the Tea Party’s playbook.Van Jones made his appreciation of the Tea Party’s success clear on Monday, when he was the keynote speaker at the Take Back the American Dream Conference in Washington D.C. The conference, featuring a number of prominent left-wing groups, was intended as a first step in the left’s attempt to build a cohesive national movement as a progressive counterpart to the Tea Party.

That is clearly how Van Jones sees it. In his remarks, he chastised the Left for its lack of organization and urged activists to imitate the Tea Party’s strategy. The Tea Party “talks individualism,” Van Jones observed, “but they act collectively.” If progressives wanted the Tea Party’s influence, they would have to stop looking to Obama for leadership and create their own national movement. As his own contribution to movement building, Van Jones announced the creation of his new group, which is called Rebuild the American Dream. According to Jones, Rebuild the American Dream will be a “support center” for the Left as it works to build its own movement. Van Jones also praised the protestors of the Occupy Wall Street campaign, which he hailed as a forerunner of the movement that is supposedly emerging on the Left.

At a time when the leading grassroots movement in the country is the Tea Party, Van Jones’s emphasis on structure and cohesion has obvious appeal on the Left. In this account, the problem is not with the left’s political agenda but with its organization. All progressives need to do to rival the Tea Party’s influence is to coordinate their efforts more effectively and accept that, campaign rhetoric notwithstanding, Obama will not be their savior.

There is a small measure of truth in this. Much of the Tea Party’s success has come from its independence, its adamant refusal to be co-opted by establishment politicians. It is true, too, that effective organization has turned the Tea Party into a potent political force, one capable of swaying elections. What Van Jones​ and others on the Left miss, however, is that these are as much the products as the causes of the Tea Party’s success, which hinges on a far more critical point: a political platform with genuine and widespread appeal.

No comparably energizing agenda can be found on the Left. To the extent that progressives have a cause, it is a reactionary one. While the Tea Party has pushed for meaningful and popular reform – an end to fiscal recklessness decades in the making, for instance – the Left stands mostly for keeping things the same. Hence its main objectives of protecting entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, raising taxes on corporations and the rich, and helping the re-election of an unpopular president who has already implemented much of their agenda. Dressing up this platform in the inspirational language of the American dream does not disguise the fact that is utterly conventional, a continuation of left-wing politics as usual. It is surely no coincidence that beyond some platitudes about aiding the beleaguered middle class, Van Jones’s group, Rebuilding the American Dream, offers no new or compelling ideas to bring the country out of its current economic malaise.The staleness of this agenda is notable because Van Jones is said to represent the best and brightest of the Left’s new leadership. If true, that would argue against a left-wing rival to the Tea Party emerging any time soon. So far from inspiring, Van Jones is a profit of doom who in his book The Green Collar Economy counseled Americans to accept that “the very notion of economic growth” is “something human society will someday be forced to abandon.”

Indeed, for all his appeals to the American dream, Van Jones is remarkably tone deaf about what that dream entails. Where the Tea Party calls for less government and freer markets to revitalize entrepreneurship and revive job growth, Van Jones and the Left’s would-be movement leaders channel their energies into condemning capitalism and corporate America. Referring to the Occupy Wall Street protestors, Jones tellingly applauded them for going to the “scene of the crime.”

Whatever Americans’ frustrations with Wall Street, it’s difficult to imagine the country rallying around the cause of class warfare and anti-capitalism. Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but is not a substitute for substance. For Van Jones and others on the Left who covet the Tea Party’s clout, that’s a lesson that has yet to be learned.

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1016  
Old 10-07-2011, 06:49 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow US Meets with the Muslim Brotherhood





US government officials have had a meeting with members of the Egyptian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood​, according to several recent reports in the media.

The website Bikyamasr reports that high ranking US diplomats — including the First Secretary of the US embassy in Cairo and a member of the National Security Council — attended a meeting at the Freedom and Justice party headquarters in Cairo with the Secretary General of the FJP. The FJP is the political party formed by the Muslim Brotherhood in the aftermath of President Hosni Mubarak’s removal from power.

The Brotherhood is preparing for parliamentary elections to be held in late November and is widely expected to emerge as the largest bloc, although far short of a majority. And in a major development, the liberal Wafd party has parted company with the Islamists, supposedly because they want to run more candidates than they could if they allied themselves with the Brotherhood. However, it is possible the Wafd party realized they would be the junior partner in any alliance with the MB and decided they would be better off without them.

Why would high ranking officials of the US government sit down with an organization that created a terrorist group like Hamas? Was it simply a matter of real politik – a realization that since the MB was going to come out on top in the coming elections anyway that it was better to have contact with them than give them the diplomatic cold shoulder?

That could be one reason. But there may be another, simpler reason; the administration of President Barack Obama doesn’t believe that the Muslim Brotherhood is a threat to anyone and that their disavowal of terrorism can be trusted.

Recall the testimony of the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper last February when, appearing before House Intelligence Committee he startled onlookers and Members of Congress by saying the the MB was “largely secular” and that they had pursued “social ends,” and “a betterment of the political order in Egypt.”“In other countries, there are also chapters or franchises of the Muslim Brotherhood, but there is no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally,” he told the committee.

Flash forward to a mass rally in Tahrir Square held at the end of July where tens of thousands of Salafists demonstrated, including masses of Brotherhood members, chanting Islamist slogans calling for the implementation of Sharia law, and warning that the constitution that will be written must be based on Koranic law.

Even in the clarification Clapper’s media office released a few hours after those shocking statements, he made it clear that he didn’t think there was much to worry about when it came to the Muslim Brotherhood. “To clarify Director Clapper’s point – in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood makes efforts to work through a political system that has been, under Mubarak’s rule, one that is largely secular in its orientation,” the statement said. Mubarak’s regime literally arrested MB members on sight. How that translates into working “through a political system” Clapper didn’t elaborate on.

What could have possessed the DNI — a man with the most sophisticated intelligence analyses at his fingertips — to make such a ridiculous statement? It is apparent that the administration has made a decision to treat the Brotherhood as a political party rather than an Islamist organization hell bent on the destruction of Israel, and the establishment of a Sharia-compliant Egyptian government.

In an interview with Egypt’s Al-Hayat TV last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made it plain exactly how the administration will be dealing with the Islamists in Egypt:
We will be willing to and open to working with a government that has representatives who are committed to non-violence, who are committed to human rights, who are committed to the democracy that I think was hoped for in Tahrir Square.
Since the MB and their Islamist allies will almost certainly come out on top in the elections next month, it seems clear that Clinton believes that the Muslim Brotherhood is “committed to non-violence,” and “democracy.”

This also appeared to be the attitude of our diplomats who met with the FJP. They included Prem G. Kumar, the National Security Council Director for Israeli and Palestinian Affairs and Amy Destefano, the First Secretary of the US Embassy in Cairo. Their host was Dr. Mohamed Saad Katatni, the Secretary General of the FJP. Katatni apparently lectured our diplomats on the new state of affairs in Egypt, reportedly telling them,“If America wants to build balanced relations with the countries of the region after the Arab Spring, it should re-read the new scenario in accordance to the will of the peoples of the region.”

No doubt this sentiment went over well with the diplomats as Kumar told Katatni that the US “is seeking dialogue with all the political forces in Egypt, especially after the changes post-revolution.”

Barry Rubin suggests that rather than dialoguing with the Brotherhood, the US should be working to forge alliances between the more secular, liberal, and moderate parties. The CIA​ ran such a covert program after World War II​ saving Italy and France from a Communist takeover. There’s no reason to believe it wouldn’t work again, given the stakes involved and the united belief of non-Islamic parties that religion should play a minor or non-existent role in the new Egyptian government and constitution.

Despite their exalted position as the best organized political entity, the Freedom and Justice Party has its own problems that could very well shrink its numbers in the election. The defection of the Wafd party from their alliance is a significant blow considering that while they may not be as large as FJP, their name recognition is equally as strong. The party also suffered significant defections among the youth, and some of its more radical members who didn’t like the MB dealing with the military government.

But the JFP has correctly analyzed the situation and has made common cause with the generals running Egypt. A recent agreement between the military and many of the larger parties would put off the presidential election until 2013 while allowing a committee of both the upper and lower houses of parliament to draft a new constitution. The agreement guarantees a power sharing arrangement where the Brotherhood would be in virtual charge of the legislative branch while the military maintained executive authority.

However, this alliance is not likely to lead to stability or peace. The young demonstrators who acted as shock troops for the revolution have been totally frozen out of the political process and deal making. This has angered them, as they have lost faith in the transition process. Might they take to the streets once again to force change more to their liking?

Egypt’s military fears them more than they do the Muslim Brotherhood​ because the youth represent real, substantive change that would unseat the generals from their privileged role in society.The Brotherhood can threaten street action but their concerns are more likely to cross the generals on issues such as peace with Israel and American aid. Neither the generals or the FJP care as much about issues like economic liberalization, the break up of state monopolies, or equal access to media for all.

Because of that, they may pay for their dismissal of the young revolutionaries with more destabilizing protests that will hinder any economic recovery and further plunge Egypt into disarray and despair.

On Thursday, Egyptians marked the beginning of the 1973 Yom Kippur war. They don’t call it “Yom Kippur,” but rather the “6th of October.” As Wendell Steavenson in the New Yorker points out, the date marks “the only time in four Arab-Israeli wars that the Egyptians had the better of the Israelis.” Despite warnings from several quarters, the Israelis were woefully unprepared for the attack on the eve of one of their most sacred holidays, and the gains made by the Egyptians — taking back the Sinai captured during the 1967 War​ — allowed the Egyptian leaders and people to fool themselves into believing they actually won the war. (The Israelis pushed the Egyptians back in less than a week and advanced within about 50 miles of Cairo before being stopped by Nixon.)

The Israelis returned the Sinai to Egypt as a result of the Camp David accords in exchange for a “cold peace” that is fraying at the edges as a result of the revolution. Muslim Brotherhood leaders have made it clear that they hate the peace treaty and several of their leaders have said that they want to scrap it.

And yet, several high ranking members of the Obama administration sat down with these anti-Semites and made it clear that they would deal with them as if they were a legitimate political party on the cusp of taking power. Sweet words about “democracy” and “human rights” and accepting the fait accompli of an organization taking power that birthed al-Qaeda and Hamas to this day reveal an administration either fooling itself or glutted with wishful thinking.

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1017  
Old 10-07-2011, 07:09 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow This Is What a Mob Looks Like

This Is What a Mob Looks Like
Why the Wall Street chaos is nothing like the American Revolution
by Ann Coulter






I am not the first to note the vast differences between the Wall Street protesters and the tea partiers. To name three: The tea partiers have jobs, showers and a point.

No one knows what the Wall Street protesters want — as is typical of mobs. They say they want Obama re-elected, but claim to hate “Wall Street.” You know, the same Wall Street that gave its largest campaign donation in history to Obama, who, in turn, bailed out the banks and made Goldman Sachs the fourth branch of government.

This would be like opposing fattening, processed foods, but cheering Michael Moore — which the protesters also did this week.

But to me, the most striking difference between the tea partiers and the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd — besides the smell of patchouli — is how liberal protesters must claim their every gathering is historic and heroic.

They chant: “The world is watching!” “This is how democracy looks!” “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for!”

At the risk of acknowledging that I am, in fact, “watching,” this is most definitely not how democracy looks.Sally Kohn, a self-identified “community organizer,” praised the Wall Street loiterers on CNN’s website, comparing the protest to the Boston Tea Party​, which she claimed, “helped spark the American Revolution,” adding, “and yes, that protest ultimately turned very violent.”

First of all, the Boston Tea Party was nothing like tattooed, body–pierced, sunken-chested 19-year-olds getting in fights with the police for fun. Paul Revere’s nighttime raid was intended exclusively to protest a new British tea tax. (The Wall Street protesters would be more likely to fight for a new tax than against one.)

Revere made sure to replace a broken lock on one of the ships and severely punished a participant who stole some of the tea for his private use. Samuel Adams​ defended the raid by saying that all other methods of recourse — say, voting — were unavailable.

Our revolution — the only revolution that led to greater freedom since at least 1688 — was not the act of a mob.

As specific and limited as it was, however, even the Boston Tea Party was too mob-like to spark anything other than retaliatory British measures. Indeed, it set back the cause of American independence by dispiriting both American and British supporters, such as Edmund Burke​.

George Washington​ disapproved of the destruction of the tea.

Benjamin Franklin​ demanded that the India Tea Co. be reimbursed for it. Considered an embarrassment by many of our founding fathers, the Boston Tea Party was not celebrated for another 50 years.

It would be three long years after the Boston Tea Party when our founding fathers engaged in their truly revolutionary act: The signing of the Declaration of Independence​.

In that document, our Christian forebears set forth in blindingly clear terms their complaints with British rule, their earlier attempts at resolution, and an appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world for independence from the crown.

The rebel armies defending that declaration were not a disorganized mob, chanting slogans for the press and defacing public property.

Even the Minutemen, whose first scuffle with the British began the war, were a real army with ranks, subordination, coordination, drills and supplies. There is not a single mention in the historical record of Minutemen playing hacky-sack, burning candles assembled in “peace and love,” or sitting in drum circles.

A British lieutenant-general who fought the Minutemen observed, “Whoever looks upon them as an irregular mob will find himself very much mistaken.”

By contrast, the directionless losers protesting “Wall Street” — Obama’s largest donor group — pose for the cameras while uttering random liberal cliches lacking any reason or coherence.

But since everything liberals do must be heroic, the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd insists on comparing themselves to this nation’s heroes.

One told Fox News’ Bill Schulz: “I was born to be here, right now, the founding fathers have been passing down the torch to this generation to make our country great again.”

The Canadian environmental group behind Occupy Wall Street, Adbusters, has compared the Wall Street “revolutionaries” to America’s founding fathers. (Incidentally, those who opposed the American Revolution fled after the war to … Canada.)

The — again – Canadians exulted, “You sense they’re drafting a new Declaration of Independence.”I suppose you only “sense” it because they’re doing nothing of the sort. They say they want Mao as the president — as one told Schulz — and the abolition of “capitalism.”

The modern tea partiers never went around narcissistically comparing themselves to Gen. George Washington​. And yet they are the ones who have engaged in the kind of political activity Washington fought for.

The Tea Party name is meant in fun, inspired by an amusing rant from CNBC’s Rick Santelli in February 2009, when he called for another Tea Party in response to Obama’s plan to bail-out irresponsible mortgagers.

The tea partiers didn’t arrogantly claim to be drafting a new Declaration of Independence. They’re perfectly happy with the original.

Tea partiers didn’t block traffic, sleep on sidewalks, wear ski masks, fight with the police or urinate in public. They read the Constitution, made serious policy arguments, and petitioned the government against Obama’s unconstitutional big government policies, especially the stimulus bill and Obamacare.

Then they picked up their own trash and quietly went home. Apparently, a lot of them had to be at work in the morning.

In the two years following the movement’s inception, the Tea Party played a major role in turning Teddy Kennedy’s seat over to a Republican, making the sainted Chris Christie governor of New Jersey, and winning a gargantuan, historic Republican landslide in the 2010 elections. They are probably going to succeed in throwing out a president in next year’s election.

That’s what democracy looks like.

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1018  
Old 10-07-2011, 08:09 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Organizer admits to paying ‘Occupy DC’ protesters [VIDEO]

Organizer admits to paying ‘Occupy DC’ protesters [VIDEO]




A liberal organizer told the Daily Caller on Thursday afternoon that he paid some Hispanics to attend “Occupy DC” protests happening in the nation’s capital.

TheDC attended the protest event, an expansion of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement that began in New York City. Some aspects of the protest, it turned out, are more Astroturf than grassroots.

One group of about ten Hispanic protesters marched behind a Caucasian individual from the DC Tenants Advocacy Coalition, a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting rent control in Washington, D.C.

Asked why they were there, some Hispanic protesters holding up English protest signs could not articulate what their signs said.

Interviewed in Spanish, the protesters told conflicting stories about how their group was organized. Some said it was organized at their church, and that they were there as volunteers. Others, however, referred to the man from the DC Tenants Advocacy Coalition — the only Caucasian in the group — as their “boss.”

TheDC asked that organizer whether he was paying the group to attend the protest, and he conceded that some protesters “aren’t” volunteers.

“Some of them are volunteers. Some of them aren’t,” he explained. “I can’t identify them. I’m not going to get into an identification game.”



__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1019  
Old 10-10-2011, 01:27 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Radical power brokers moving fast to manufacture a movement

Former Obama White House environmental adviser Van Jones.

Van Jones’ Tea Party Envy
Radical power brokers moving fast to manufacture a movement
by Jacob Laksin




Of all that the Tea Party has accomplished, perhaps the movement’s most unlikely achievement to date is the admiration it has inspired on the activist Left. Disillusioned with President Obama and the rapid dissipation of a long-term left-wing dominance that Obama’s victory was supposed to usher in, left-wing activists and commentators have come to look upon the Tea Party as a model to revive their faded political fortunes.

Speaking for many on the Left, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen recently acknowledged, “I suffer from Tea Party envy.” Similarly, the disgruntled twenty-somethings taking part in the Occupy Wall Street campaign have styled their protests as a left-wing and anti-capitalist version of the Tea Party. The latest left-wing admirer of the Tea Party is none other than Van Jones​, the disgraced former Obama administration official who was ousted from his post as green jobs czar following revelations of his radical past, which included signing a 9/11 “Truther” petition. Time off from professional politics has afforded Van Jones an opportunity to reflect, and like many on the Left he has concluded that in order to regain their relevance, progressives must take a page from the Tea Party’s playbook.Van Jones made his appreciation of the Tea Party’s success clear on Monday, when he was the keynote speaker at the Take Back the American Dream Conference in Washington D.C. The conference, featuring a number of prominent left-wing groups, was intended as a first step in the left’s attempt to build a cohesive national movement as a progressive counterpart to the Tea Party.

That is clearly how Van Jones sees it. In his remarks, he chastised the Left for its lack of organization and urged activists to imitate the Tea Party’s strategy. The Tea Party “talks individualism,” Van Jones observed, “but they act collectively.” If progressives wanted the Tea Party’s influence, they would have to stop looking to Obama for leadership and create their own national movement. As his own contribution to movement building, Van Jones announced the creation of his new group, which is called Rebuild the American Dream. According to Jones, Rebuild the American Dream will be a “support center” for the Left as it works to build its own movement. Van Jones also praised the protestors of the Occupy Wall Street campaign, which he hailed as a forerunner of the movement that is supposedly emerging on the Left.

At a time when the leading grassroots movement in the country is the Tea Party, Van Jones’s emphasis on structure and cohesion has obvious appeal on the Left. In this account, the problem is not with the left’s political agenda but with its organization. All progressives need to do to rival the Tea Party’s influence is to coordinate their efforts more effectively and accept that, campaign rhetoric notwithstanding, Obama will not be their savior.

There is a small measure of truth in this. Much of the Tea Party’s success has come from its independence, its adamant refusal to be co-opted by establishment politicians. It is true, too, that effective organization has turned the Tea Party into a potent political force, one capable of swaying elections. What Van Jones​ and others on the Left miss, however, is that these are as much the products as the causes of the Tea Party’s success, which hinges on a far more critical point: a political platform with genuine and widespread appeal.

No comparably energizing agenda can be found on the Left. To the extent that progressives have a cause, it is a reactionary one. While the Tea Party has pushed for meaningful and popular reform – an end to fiscal recklessness decades in the making, for instance – the Left stands mostly for keeping things the same. Hence its main objectives of protecting entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, raising taxes on corporations and the rich, and helping the re-election of an unpopular president who has already implemented much of their agenda. Dressing up this platform in the inspirational language of the American dream does not disguise the fact that is utterly conventional, a continuation of left-wing politics as usual. It is surely no coincidence that beyond some platitudes about aiding the beleaguered middle class, Van Jones’s group, Rebuilding the American Dream, offers no new or compelling ideas to bring the country out of its current economic malaise.The staleness of this agenda is notable because Van Jones is said to represent the best and brightest of the Left’s new leadership. If true, that would argue against a left-wing rival to the Tea Party emerging any time soon. So far from inspiring, Van Jones is a prophet of doom who in his book The Green Collar Economy counseled Americans to accept that “the very notion of economic growth” is “something human society will someday be forced to abandon.” Indeed, for all his appeals to the American dream, Van Jones is remarkably tone deaf about what that dream entails. Where the Tea Party calls for less government and freer markets to revitalize entrepreneurship and revive job growth, Van Jones and the Left’s would-be movement leaders channel their energies into condemning capitalism and corporate America. Referring to the Occupy Wall Street protestors, Jones tellingly applauded them for going to the “scene of the crime.”

Whatever Americans’ frustrations with Wall Street, it’s difficult to imagine the country rallying around the cause of class warfare and anti-capitalism. Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but is not a substitute for substance. For Van Jones and others on the Left who covet the Tea Party’s clout, that’s a lesson that has yet to be learned.

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #1020  
Old 10-10-2011, 06:40 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Obama disconnects rhetoric, reality

Obama disconnects rhetoric, reality


By ERICA WERNER
The Associated Press
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world...s-1197664.html


WASHINGTON — In President Barack Obama's sales pitch for his jobs bill, there are two versions of reality: The one in his speeches and the one actually unfolding in Washington.

FILE - In this Sept. 8, 2011, file photo President Barack Obama speaks to a joint session of Congress at the Capitol in Washington, as Vice President Joe Biden and House Speaker John Boehner listen. In Obama’s sales pitch for his jobs bill, there are two versions of reality: The one in his speeches and the one actually unfolding in Washington. When Obama accuses Republicans of standing in the way of his nearly $450 billion plan, he ignores the fact that his own party has struggled to unite behind the proposal. And when the president says Republicans haven’t explained what they oppose in the plan, he skips over the fact that Republicans who control the House actually have done that in detail.

FILE - In this Sept. 14, 2011, file photo, President Barack Obama holds up the American Jobs Act as he speaks at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, N.C. In Obama’s sales pitch for his jobs bill, there are two versions of reality: The one in his speeches and the one actually unfolding in Washington. When Obama accuses Republicans of standing in the way of his nearly $450 billion plan, he ignores the fact that his own party has struggled to unite behind the proposal.

FILE - In this Oct. 4, 2011, file photo, President Barack Obama speaks at Eastfield College in Mesquite, Texas. When Obama accuses Republicans of standing in the way of his nearly $450 billion plan, he ignores the fact that his own party has struggled to unite behind the proposal. And when the president says Republicans haven’t explained what they oppose in the plan, he skips over the fact that Republicans who control the House actually have done that in detail.

When Obama accuses Republicans of standing in the way of his nearly $450 billion plan, he ignores the fact that his own party has struggled to unite behind the proposal.

When the president says Republicans haven't explained what they oppose in the plan, he skips over the fact that Republicans who control the House actually have done that in detail.

And when he calls on Congress to "pass this bill now," he slides past the point that Democrats control the Senate and were never prepared to move immediately, given other priorities. Senators are expected to vote Tuesday on opening debate on the bill, a month after the president unveiled it with a call for its immediate passage.

To be sure, Obama is not the only one engaging in rhetorical excesses. But he is the president, and as such, his constant remarks on the bill draw the most attention and scrutiny.

The disconnect between what Obama says about his jobs bill and what stands as the political reality flow from his broader aim: to rally the public behind his cause and get Congress to act, or, if not, to pin blame on Republicans.

He is waging a campaign, one in which nuance and context and competing responses don't always fit in if they don't help make the case.

For example, when Obama says his jobs plan is made up of ideas that have historically had bipartisan support, he stops the point there. Not mentioned is that Republicans have never embraced the tax increases that he is proposing to cover the cost of his plan.

Likewise, from city to city, Obama is demanding that Congress act (he means Republicans) while it has been clear for weeks that the GOP will not support all of his bill, to say the least. Individual elements of it may well pass, such as Obama's proposal to extend and expand a payroll tax cut. But Republicans strongly oppose the president's proposed new spending and his plan to raise taxes on millionaires to pay for the package.

The fight over the legislative proposal has become something much bigger: a critical test of the president's powers of persuading the public heading into the 2012 presidential campaign, and of Republicans' ability to deny him a win and reap victory for themselves.

"He knows it's not going to pass. He's betting that voters won't pick up on it, or even if they do they will blame Congress and he can run against the 'do-nothing Congress,'" said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a senior fellow at the University of Southern California's School of Policy, Planning and Development.

John Sides, political science professor at George Washington University, said Obama's approach on the jobs bill is "more about campaigning than governing."

"He's mostly just going around talking about this and drawing contrasts with what the Republicans want and what he wants and not really trying to work these legislative levers he might be able to use to get this passed," Sides said. "That just suggests to me that he is ready to use a failed jobs bill as a campaign message against the Republicans."

The president's opponents aren't exactly laying it all out, either.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., tried to force a vote on the bill last week, innocently claiming that the president was entitled to one. McConnell knew full well that the result would be failure for the legislation and an embarrassment for Obama.

House Speaker John Boehner, meanwhile, claimed that Obama has "given up on the country and decided to campaign full-time" instead of seeking common ground with the GOP. But Boehner neglected to mention that Obama's past attempts at compromise with Republicans often yielded scant results, as Obama himself pointed out.

The approach for Obama, who is seeking a second term in a dismal economy, is far different than the one he took when running for president. He criticized the GOP then, but talked about ending blue-state and red-state America, replacing it with one America, fixing the broken political system, and fundamentally changing Washington.

That ended up being change he could not bring about, and now analysts say Obama may have little choice but to campaign more narrowly by attacking opponents rather than trying to bring people together.

Obama's attempts at compromise with the GOP on the debt ceiling and budget won him little in the way of policy, instead engendering frustration from Democrats who saw him as caving to Republican demands.

The new, combative Obama isn't looking for compromise. He's looking for a win. And if he can't get the legislative victory he says he wants, he has made clear that he's more than willing to take a political win.

It is, he acknowledges, a result his campaign for his jobs bill is designed to achieve.

Talking up the bill in an appearance last month with African-American news websites, Obama said: "I need people to be out there promoting this and pushing this and making sure that everybody understands the details of what this would mean, so that one of two things happen: Either Congress gets it done, or if Congress doesn't get it done, people know exactly what's holding it up."

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world...s-1197664.html
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 10-10-2011 at 06:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
Israel Forum
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Israel Military Forum