" THE SYNTHESIS " 10-23-2011 SUPER SUNDAY EDITION: OBAMA-GADDAFI CORRUPTION TIED TO CAIR DONATIONS FROM 2008, 39,000 COMING HOME FROM IRAQ, NEW FOCUS IS AFRICA: YEAH BUDDY, LET’S TALK ABOUT RACISM... CRACK HAS CONSEQUENCES, OCCUPY WHATEVER STREET FIZZLES AND DOESN’T SURVIVE THE COLD WEATHER OR RATIONAL THINKING TEST, AND THIS IS THE HOMECOMING WE GIVE OUR TROOPS??!!
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10GklnNKudQ4TT6kXfcUCFK8OKpjSmHKqKGruLQvvy3E/edit?pli=1&hl=en_USGADDAFI, OBAMA’S BIGGEST DONOR AND CONTRIBUTOR, VIA C.A.I.R. DONE IN, THANKS TO NATO ISSUED FRENCH FIGHTER JET..... WOW, WE OWE THE FRENCH BIG TIME !!!!!!
Aja Brooks
Like · · Unfollow Post · Share · Edit · May 24
Odindu Odunze Ph D Say what you may, this is racist.
16 hours ago · Like ·
1 person
Dixie Chickin is a Southern Expression equivalent to pulling my leg, how is that racist? Would you want me as a Cherokee mixed blood as President of your Nation, or leader of your tribe?? OH and after wasting $10 trillion in misappropriation?? No that is not racist, just because you say it is. That means that you know Obama is a n-gger, so that would make you racist. A n-gger doesn't have to be black to be a n-gger, so you are the only one making this about race here, I am only making this about what he has done, and he defrauded the 2008 election too: see Raila Odigna and politely exit my page....
Mark Saint-John Shared!!
8 hours ago · Unlike ·
1 person
Hey Barbara and Mark: people are trolling the internet, this post has been up since 5/24, and it is the liberal trolls coming out at night. Pictures are set to public and I post publicly but keep my profile private to moderate crap spewingon my wall. It's not that I don't want input, I just cut the convo off when it gets ridiculous, and I don't hook my phone up to my Facebook to get constantly notified either. Healthy boundaries! lol
Aja Brooks
LET US PRAY: LORD WE NEED A PRESIDENT....
Like · · @2011teaparty on Twitter · 22 hours ago via Twitter
Mention Rick Perry in a few tweets and the real Africa Africans post on your anti-Obama posts that what you say is racist, and the gay and bisexual people go to your other page and rip on Rick Perry and Obamoney, and talk about how they like Herman Cain, don't rule him out. Okay people, you're not trying to win a debate with me, nor will you dissuade me about my opinions on Obama. Obama wasted $10 trillion, it is time we hold him accountable, HE IS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE REST EXCEPT HE IS WORSE IN HIS WAYS, AND HE GETS NO FREE PASS BECAUSE HE IS BLACK !!!!!!
Aja Brooks
@BarackObama DARK SHADOW OF TYRANNY IS STILL UPON US BECAUSE OF YOU; WE OWE FRENCH BIG TIME FOR GADDAFI'S DEATH-NOT YOU #ClintonAssKissing
Like · · Share · 6 hours ago
2011teaparty Tea Party Chief :
@cutiepi2u @ruthsias @StopRickPerry2 Rick Perry is unstoppable on job creation, "Fed Up" is awesome/checking into the flat tax proposal.
25 seconds ago Favorite Reply Delete
GhostReagan Ronald Reagan
by 2011teaparty
"We should measure welfare's success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added." -Ronald Reagan #teaparty #fb
24 minutes ago
BillyHallowell Billy Hallowell
by 2011teaparty
Yo mama's no better than Obama. #bestyomamajokeever
8 minutes ago
2011teaparty Tea Party Chief
@BillyHallowell no pre-packaged meals for me: a Pauper's lunch, tomato soup and grilled cheese, I control the grease that way. #thanks
2 minutes ago
2011teaparty Tea Party Chief
@TheSleazyJay then vote for Ron Paul, Obama's corruption to Gaddafi and CAIR was just severed by one well-placed NATO driven French jet.
3 minutes ago
2011teaparty Tea Party Chief
@dennygirltwo Newt is so full of sh-t.... I don't believe Newt will do what he says he'll do, but I believe Perry when he says he will!
4 minutes ago
cutiepi2u CA CONSERVATIVE
by 2011teaparty
“@sippigrrrl: Lol! RT @ObamaBash Nominating Mitt is like having Peewee babysit your kids. You're sure everything will b alright? @CFHeather
14 minutes ago
Heritage Heritage Foundation
by 2011teaparty
Solyndra to Auction Assets, But Taxpayers Won’t See a Dime herit.ag/ipJ
18 minutes ago
EverydayHealth Everyday Health
by 2011teaparty
Crisp fall air, gorgeous foliage, need any more reasons to join our end-of-October walking challenge? Sign up here: ow.ly/75cyQ
18 minutes ago
2011teaparty Tea Party Chief
@newsbusters and we have not had a tingling leg since Chris Matthews endorsed Obama, and Romney is a whitewashed Obama, parading as a Repub
7 minutes ago
newsbusters NewsBusters
by 2011teaparty
Chris Matthews: Republicans 'Don't Have a Thrill Up Their Leg' for Mitt Romney ow.ly/1fhfqj
20 minutes ago
2011teaparty Tea Party Chief
@StateDept @DavidGregory no one should underestimate Obama's corruption, ties to CAIR, and what benefits that agenda with Iraq. #truth
8 minutes ago
2011teaparty Tea Party Chief
@USATODAY HA Biden's foot-in-mouth when Liberal Dems would trust Paul's platform of No War and legalization still couldn't help Dem ticket
9 minutes ago
2011teaparty Tea Party Chief
@
@2011teaparty @Talkmaster wow what are you going to do now? Your iphone Asst. can't talk to you, you smashed her accidentally...... #OOPSIE
11 minutes ago
2011teaparty Tea Party Chief
@StateDept @DavidGregory OBAMA LEFT PRESS CONFERENCE SULKING: GADDAFI WOULD HAVE BEEN HIS BIGGEST DONOR THROUGH CAIR! TRUTH - LOOK AT DONORS
31 minutes ago
2011teaparty Tea Party Chief
@SenatorSanders YOU PASSED FINANCIAL REFORM, SO GODD@MMIT, ENFORCE THE LAWS YOU PASS SENATOR SANDERS !!!!!!!
31 minutes ago
2011teaparty Tea Party Chief
@SenatorSanders OBAMA LEFT PRESS CONFERENCE SULKING BECAUSE GADDAFI WOULD HAVE BEEN HIS BIGGEST DONOR THROUGH CAIR! TRUTH - LOOK AT DONORS
32 minutes ago
2011teaparty Tea Party Chief
@mya177 @theblaze OBAMA LEFT PRESS CONFERENCE SULKING BECAUSE GADDAFI WOULD HAVE BEEN HIS BIGGEST DONOR THROUGH CAIR! TRUTH - LOOK AT DONORS
32 minutes ago
mya177 Lisa
by 2011teaparty
Estimates of Gadhafi’s $200 Billion Wealth Would Have Made Him the Richest Person in the World theblaze.com/stories/gadhaf… via @theblaze
1 hour ago
2011teaparty Tea Party Chief
@gailtalk @DanRiehl Dems NOT happy; Obama is a media-induced Bush hangover, media created him, Dems will vote Paul-no one happy with Obama
33 minutes ago
cutiepi2u CA CONSERVATIVE
by 2011teaparty
“@gailtalk: RT @DanRiehl Looks like Obama's great victory in Libya will usher in an Islamist theocracy. Imagine that.”. WHODATHUNK? #noobama
34 minutes ago
2011teaparty Tea Party Chief
@VoteSmartToday Dems are NOT happy; Obama is a media-induced Bush hangover, media created him, Dems will vote Paul-no one happy with Obama
34 minutes ago
poorconservativ Poor Conservative
by 2011teaparty
Conservatives In The House Revolt Over Spending Bill bit.ly/rty6re
1 hour ago
2011teaparty Tea Party Chief
@VoteSmartToday liberal Democrat voters see Obama's spending as a problem, they believe no wars and legalization to be the solution in Paul
39 minutes ago
2011teaparty Tea Party Chief
@VoteSmartToday Obama's liberal black voters who are unemployed and gay/bisexual voters disenchanted will leave Obama and vote Ron Paul.
40 minutes ago
2011teaparty Tea Party Chief
@VoteSmartToday Perry & Paul have the best books: clearly both lay out what they would do as President, Paul sucking up disenchanted voters
40 minutes ago
VoteSmartToday Richard D. Cushing
by 2011teaparty
#GOP hypocrisy and lack of principle have undermined the public's understanding of sound #economics. #tcot #ocra Stop the madness!
1 hour ago
3 hours ago · Like
WHEN OBAMA SULKED OFF FROM THE PRESS CONFERENCE FROM ANNOUNCING GADDAFI’S DEATH,
HE WAS MAD BECAUSE HE LOST ONE OF HIS BIGGEST DONORS, AND PUT CLINTON UP TO GOING TO LIBYA AND OFFERING $100 MILLION IN FOREIGN AID JUST PRIOR TO GADDAFI’S DEATH, PROBABLY AS A RANSOM TO SPARE GADDAFI’S LIFE, CONSIDERING OBAMA’S EXPLOSIVE TIES TO CAIR DONORS FOR THE 2008 ELECTION, AND THIS COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE F.B.I.:
HOMELAND INSECURITY
IRS tightens grip in CAIR probe
Lawmaker also refers complaint to FBI over foreign funding
Posted: September 25, 2011
7:14 pm Eastern
© 2011 WND
The IRS has forwarded a congressional complaint lodged against the Council on American-Islamic Relations to its investigations unit for further review, WND has learned. The FBI also has been alerted to evidence the prominent Muslim group has solicited funds from state sponsors of terrorism.
The 8-page complaint originally was submitted by U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf, the co-chairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, after the IRS stripped Washington-based CAIR of its nonprofit status for failure to file annual tax reports as required by federal law.
Wolf citeda 2009 letterin which CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad solicited funds from Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi. Referring to the brutal tyrant as "Your Excellency," Awad asked for donations toward a $15 million fundraising drive. He thanked Gadhafi for his "generous support."
According to a diplomatic cable, CAIR Chairman Larry Shaw, a black convert to Islam, followed up by praising Gadhafi's "leadership."
"We have felt for years pride and glory in your leadership," Shaw, a longtime North Carolina state senator, told the terrorist leader in 2009. "We want to assure you that Muslims in America are your brothers and supporters. They share with you your interests and aspirations."
(Story continues below)
Wolf noted that Gadhafi's "deplorable" human-rights record was well known to CAIR, long before he slaughtered his own people during the recent civil unrest. He also has a long history of supporting international terrorist attacks, including the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Gadhafi personally ordered the attack, which killed 270.
CAIR's Awad also personally solicited funds from Sudanese President Omar Hassan Bashir, an internationally indicted war criminal, Wolf said in his June 24 letter to the IRS director.
"I request that the IRS investigate whether Awad and CAIR may have violated U.S. law in soliciting or accepting money from foreign governments or agents during the period that CAIR failed to file" its tax records, he said.
CAIR is not registered as a foreign agent.
CAIR repeatedly failed to file its annual disclosure report, IRS Form 990. CAIR blames a clerical error for the delinquency, and claims to have completed the forms. However, several news organizations, including Politico.com, have asked CAIR for the 2007-2010 documents, and CAIR has not been able to produce them.
"Compliance with this law is the only assurance the public has that an organization claiming tax-exempt status is not abusing this privilege," Wolf wrote. "Given CAIR's status as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror-financing case, this failure to comply with federal disclosure laws is all the more troubling."
In a July 14 letter obtained by WND,IRS official Lois G. Lerner, director of exempt organizations, wrote that information raising questions about the legality of a tax-exempt organization's activities is automatically forwarded to the IRS' Dallas office "to determine if it warrants an examination or other action."
Wolf, in turn, sent the IRS letter and several pages of evidence to FBI Director Robert Mueller for criminal investigation. The FBI in 2007 cut off all formal ties to CAIR after evidence emerged from the Holy Land trial that the group was fronting for Hamas, a federally designated terrorist group.
At a recent appearance in Florida, GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said he would pursue an aggressive criminal investigation of CAIR if elected to the White House. "Absolutely," Gingrich stated, when asked about it by a concerned citizen.
Critics say CAIR should, at a minimum, be subjected to disclosure requirements under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The law requires foreign agents to report funding from foreign governments and all lobbying activities on their behalf.
According to the bestseller, "Muslim Mafia,"which cites sensitive embassy cables and bank wire transfers, CAIR has solicited millions of dollars in funds from the Saudi Arabian and UAE governments, while publicly denying it takes foreign cash.
The book uncovered evidence of direct payments of more than $100,000 into CAIR's Citbank account from members of the Saudi royal family. It also noted the Saudi-based Islamic Development Bank in 2007 opened an account for "CAIR Trust," involving a $1 million grant for a religious endowment to be used "for the construction of a multi-purpose Waqf complex for CAIR in the U.S."
In addition, the book learned that redacted pre-2007 tax statements filed by CAIR reveal that Saudi businessman Adnan Bogary has contributed a whopping $600,000 a year to the group's coffers.
CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad, a leader of the radical Muslim Brotherhood in America, once bragged: "We can have as many organizations as we want" in America, no questions asked. The only thing the Brothers have to worry about, he advised, is covering up "orders" from abroad, as well as the "financial connections," so that the organizations appear independent.
"If you cover those bases, you will find that you, as an American organization, can do whatever you want," the FBI recorded Ahmad saying during a secret Hamas meeting in Philadelphia, according to"Muslim Mafia". Hamas is a subsidiary of the Muslim Brotherhood.
All told, CAIR has received more than $6.6 million in cash and loans, and more than $54 million in pledges from foreign principals based in Saudi Arabia, Iran, the UAE, Kuwait and other countries hostile to U.S. interests. At one point after 9/11, according to the book"Infiltration," CAIR's national headquarters were deeded over to the ruler of Dubai, a known sponsor of Hamas suicide bombers and their families. Dubai was the transit point for many of the hijackers as they entered the U.S. Funds for the 9/11 plot, moreover, were transferred through the city.
Yet CAIR has failed to report these payments, while using such funds to target U.S. politicians, organizations and businesses for foreign-influence operations – potentially in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, contends Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney.
"The evidence showing that CAIR should register as a foreign agent is conclusive," said Gaffney, a former Reagan Pentagon official. "Hundreds of Americans, including elected officials, community groups, corporations and private citizens, have been – and continue to be – targeted by CAIR."
He says CAIR has a subversive agenda to support jihad and to Islamize America.
"CAIR attempts to silence anyone opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood's insinuation of Shariah – the totalitarian doctrine of authoritative Islamic law – into the United States, with a relentless program of accusations of bias, racism and 'Islamophobia,'" Gaffney said.
He notes that CAIR has met and coordinated with foreign principals on at least 30 occasions. And he says CAIR has engaged in at least 50 political-influence operations on behalf of foreign principals in the U.S.
According to "Muslim Mafia," CAIR has a stated strategy of placing staffers and operatives in key congressional committees dealing with homeland security to try to undermine efforts to crack down on Islamic terrorism. In one year alone, the book says, CAIR officials made more than 70 trips to the U.S. Capitol to lobby against the Patriot Act, for one example.
CAIR is acting as a foreign agent, Gaffney asserts. Yet since its founding in 1994, it has failed to properly identify itself as such to the Justice Department and to the American public. Justice enforces the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA.
Gaffney urges American citizens to oppose CAIR's political influence operations funded by hostile foreign governments by writing the Justice Department and requesting an investigation of CAIR under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
The FARA Registration Unit of the Counter-Espionage Section is located in the National Security Division of the Justice Department at 1400 New York Ave., N.W., Suite 100, Washington D.C. 20005.
HOMELAND INSECURITY
Investigators warn terror support comes from inside U.S.
Former radical turned Christian: Infiltration definitely going on
Posted: September 02, 2011
10:15 pm Eastern
By Michael Carl
© 2011 WND
 *Hezbollah flag |
Mosques in the United States that follow the Shiite Islam of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini are lending more than moral support to radical Islam; they are sending financial support, according to reports from investigators.
After all, it was the 2007 Holy Land Foundation trial that was called the largest terrorism financing prosecution in American history that set all sorts of precedents, including the naming of such prominent Muslim advocates as the Council on American-Islamic Relations as unindicted co-conspirators.
Dozens of convictions resulted after the government alleged the charity, the largest Islamic charity in the U.S. at the time, was raising money for Hamas.
Allegations that mosques now are raising funds for Hezbollah come from Sam Bazzi, director of the Islamic Counterterrorism Institute and others.
He reports he's been in mosques and has seen how the fundraising works.
(Story continues below)
"They are contributing to Hezbollah indirectly because every Shi'a Muslim has to pay a 20 percent yearly tax on their savings. This goes basically to the clerics as a donation," he said.
"Hezbollah supporters in the U. S. mosques send money to their bank accounts in Lebanon. When they go to Lebanon for vacation in the summer, they go to the clerics in the mosques in Lebanon and pay the Khums (offering) to the mosque in Lebanon. When they do that, they're giving it to Hezbollah," he said.
Hezbollah, founded in Iran, has a stated goal of destroying the state of Israel.It has attacked American, French and Israeli forces, has kidnapped and held hostages, killed 241 in an attack on U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon and reportedly exercises virtual control in Lebanon.
A coming book called "Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance"details what Americans should know about Islam's influence.
Northeast Intelligence Network affiliated terrorism researcher and investigative journalist Lee Kaplan also has gone undercover at two allegedly Hezbollah-supporting mosques in the San Francisco Bay Area, and he has come away with reports of fundraising.
Kaplan, whose intelligence gathering accuracy has been recognized by the Israeli government, says the Shia Association Bay Area mosque in San Jose, Calif., and the Masjid al-Islam mosque in Washington, D.C., are major players in the fundraising and indoctrination process.
The Washington mosque and a newly opened mosque in Oakland, Calif., are led by former Black Panther Abdul Alim Musa, a Shiite-supporting cleric who boasts of building a network that reaches across the U.S.
The San Jose mosque, led by Musa confederate Nabi Raza Mir, frequently shares its platform with Canadian-born imam Asad Jafri.
Kaplan says the indoctrination is usually subtle and the recruiting rhetoric is veiled.
"Neither imam will ever openly recruit for Hezbollah because the FBI could arrest and prosecute them," he said.
Kaplan notes in an article on the San Jose mosque that Mir makes indoctrination a major part of building the support network. Kaplan writes that Mir heavily pushes the philosophy of the Khomeinist regime.
"Brochures urge mosque attendees to never cooperate with the FBI. In fact, the entire mosque gives constant tributes to the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the man who led the Iranian revolution that took U. S. embassy personnel hostage in 1979," Kaplan writes.
Bazzi agrees.
"They are heavily involved in indoctrination. Basically Hezbollah has become the role model. They were able to establish using propaganda and marketing basically that Hezbollah was successful in defeating Israel," he said.
"What they do is they bring these Lebanese guys and go to the various homes and informally indoctrinate American youth who are of Afghan origin, Indian origin, Pakistani origin and Iraqi origin. I witnessed that myself," the researcher said.
The mosques did not return WND requests for comment.
The researcher says that Asaf Jafri is a major part of the indoctrination and radicalization effort . The researcher says the Canadian-born and U. S. educated imam is well known in the Bay Area and is a frequent visitor.
"I've been to the home meetings. I know the mosque in San Jose and I know Mir," Bazzi said. "Jafri comes and leads tours to the area mosques. He lectures at the mosques and he lectures in people's homes.
"He openly supports Hezbollah. He talks about the greatness of Hezbollah and the badness of the United States. He tells these things to the young people," the researcher explained.
"He is dangerous and is a great indoctrinator and he's very persuasive," Bazzi said. "He has the kids willing to go out and commit acts of sabotage."
The researcher also says that the fundraising and indoctrination has allowed Hezbollah to have a wider reach into the U.S.
Former PLO operative and anti-terrorism lecturer Walid Shoebat says the full extent of the network has yet to be revealed, but it is operating on several fronts
"There's a lot of credit card fraud and things like that, of raising funds for operatives. There were in Mexico badges from officers on the border that were in the possession of Hezbollah operatives trying to enter the country," Shoebat explained.
"I was sitting next to a Border Patrol officer on the border yesterday and he told me he captured several. Of course the FBI took the case immediately. But they were of Afghan origin, which tells me there is Shi'a infiltration into the country," he said.
"So there's definitely a Hezbollah infiltration into this country to raise support for the operation in Lebanon, so there's no question about it," said Shoebat.
The infiltration of Hezbollah is the subject of a report by Fox Newsand another report done by San Diego's Channel 10.
Kaplan believes that the network is only going to grow if the plans announced by imam Abdul Alim Musa at the opening of the Institute for Counter Zionist American Psychological Warfare in Oakland, Calif. are any indication.
Kaplan went undercover to the opening ceremony. He says Musa's stated goal is the destruction of the United States, and his future projects are designed to make it happen.
"To promote the 'revolution' in the U.S., Musa announced his projects in the making, including a College of Islamic Movement Studies offering classes in Arabic, practical Quran and Hadith Studies, Islamic character studies, historical studies of various Islamic movements and 'strategic management under conditions of repression,'" Kaplan explained.
Kaplan points out that the comment about studying "various Islamic movements" is likely "a euphemism for studying groups like Hezbollah and Hamas."
Kaplan adds that there's more. He says Musa is concerned about the physical and strategic state of his followers.
"There's also a fitness program that includes boxing and a Department of Strategic and Islamic Studies which will focus on analysis of world events affecting Muslims and strategic planning for a better world," Kaplan said.
"Musa was clear that the 'better world' is one that promotes the goals of the current regime in Iran," he said.
According to Musa, who Kaplan notes is a follower of Iranian Shiite Islam and the Ayatollah Khomeini, the U. S. demise can't come soon enough.
"He started his lecture on July 24th by declaring, 'The demise of the United States as the global superpower could come far more quickly than anyone could have imagined," Kaplan said. "Musa went on to say, 'A realistic assessment of domestic and global trends suggests that within 10 or 15 years from now, we could witness the full collapse of the American century.'"
Kaplan said Musa "went on to praise this scenario saying, 'Although future historians may identify the Bush administration, the invasion of Afghanistan (2001), and the invasion of Iraq (2003) as the start of America’s downfall, we believe that the real starting point of America’s decline was born out of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979.'"
Shoebat affirms Kaplan's research.
Shoebat also says that the U.S. has reason to be concerned about Hezbollah's activities in the continental U. S. but adds that most of America's attention has been directed to Hamas and CAIR.
Shoebat points out that while the groups hate one another, they cooperate.
"It's the Islamic Society of North America. This is a web and they all collaborate with each other. This is why when I say Islam I get ridiculed because it's really the Islam organizations working together," Shoebat stated.
"You see Hamas carrying the flag for Hezbollah. You see Hezbollah carrying the flag for Hamas. What is that? Collaboration," he said.
Listen to Shoebat:
Shoebat raises the question of who is sending the groups the money. He says the strongest collaboration is in fundraising.
"There is a collaboration between Shi'a and Sunnis in fundraising. There always has been and there always will be. They hate each other yet they cooperate with each other," Shoebat added.
Islam researcher and co-author of "Muslim Mafia" David Gaubatz affirms Kaplan's research, and he also verifies the cooperation between Shiite and Sunni operations.
"He is right on target with the recruiting part. I can say that based on what Shia Muslims have directly told me is that jihad is permissible against their enemies and it is every Muslim's responsibility to support them financially and spiritually. In addition I have seen Shia material directly making these same commands," Gaubatz stated.
Gaubatz adds that Musa is not limited to Iranian radicalism.
"He has made connections with a wide array of Muslim leaders during the decade, both Sunni and Shia, and stressed that unity was a primary objective for the Islamic movements success," Gaubatz explained.
"Regardless of Sunni or Shia, the ultimate goal of Islam is for an Islamic Nation (caliphate) under strict Shariah law. This imam is trying to unite the Sunni and Shia as one. Both Sunni and Shia share the same ideology as Israel being their enemy and anyone who supports them is also an enemy of Islam," he said.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The CAIR legal attack on WND's author is far from over. WND needs your help in supporting the defense of "Muslim Mafia" co-author P. David Gaubatz, as well as his investigator son Chris, against CAIR's lawsuit. The book's revelations have led to formal congressional demands for three different federal investigations of CAIR. In the meantime, however, someone has to defend these two courageous investigators who have, at great personal risk, revealed so much about this dangerous group. Although WND has procured the best First Amendment attorneys in the country for their defense, we can't do it without your help. Please donate to WND's Legal Defense Fundnow.
Read more:Investigators warn terror support comes from inside U.S.http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=337365#ixzz1bdnetN7u
Gadhafi’s military: Trained and armed by Uncle Sam
Millions of dollars in American arms sales have been approved for Libya in recent years
BY JUSTIN ELLIOTT
Libyan leader Col. Moammar Gadhafi reviews the French Republican Guard upon his arrival at the Elysee Palace for a meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in Paris, Monday, Dec. 10, 2007. Gadhafi takes a giant stride toward international respectability Monday, making a visit to France likely to conclude with deals worth millions, but drawing protests, including from a government minister. (AP Photo/Christophe Ena) (Credit: Christophe Ena)
TOPICS:LIBYA, WAR ROOMThe United States has trained the Libyan military in recent years and American manufacturers have sold the Gadhafi regime military equipment, putting the U.S. in the strange situation of bombing a foreign force that it helped build up.
The extent and nature of all the training is not clear, but State Department figures show that the sale of millions of dollars worth of aircraft parts to Libya was approved in recent years — ironic, in hindsight, given the current focus on Gadhafi’s air force. The cooperation highlights how quickly America’s Libya policy has shifted as well as the sheer reach of U.S. military training programs. In fiscal 2009, the U.S. spent at least $536 million on training military personnel from 159 countries.
The backdrop for the cooperation between the American and Libyan militaries was improving relations between the two countries generally, following the announcement in 2003 by President Bush that Moammar Gadhafi had agreed to give up “weapons of mass destruction” programs. When John McCain visited Tripoli in the summer of 2009, Gadhafi’s son Muatassim pressed a receptive McCain on getting military supplies. McCain, according to a diplomatic cable describing the meeting, spoke of the cooperation between the two militaries:
Continue Reading
Justin Elliott is a Salon reporter. Reach him by email at jelliott@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @ElliottJustin More Justin Elliott
MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD HAMAS-LINKED CAIR'S ANTI-AMERICAN PRAYERS
AT #OCCUPY WALL STREET
The only one missing at Hamas-linked CAIR Friday prayers at occupation Wall Street was Sheik Qaradawi.
Pamela Hall was at the CAIR Friday prayer -- takbir, indeed. Check out the scene at the CAIR propaganda hatefest encouraging Muslims to hate NYPD and FBI. They trade in hate and jihad.
The tool on the right is politician John Liu.
More Muslim Brotherhood CAIR subversion
I got about 25 minutes of prayers and taqiyya from the long-winded Imam Ayub Abdul Baki of the Islamic Cultural Center of NY . I edited his sermon and prayers down to approx 13 minutes. His rewriting of American history is bizarre. This is the Imam’sbrochure they handed out. Video here
Hamas-tied CAIR Calls on the Ummah to Jummah @#OWS
Occupy Wall Street: "Blame the Jews" "Hitler's Bankers, Wall Street"
Muslims Call for Mass Friday Prayer at Wall Street Protests
Hall has more pictures and video here.
MODERATE MALAYSIA: MUSLIMS HOLD ANTI-CHRISTIAN RALLY
The peaceniks are at it again.And so is the media. Check out how they describe devout Muslims: "Right-wing Malaysian activists."
Malaysian Muslims hold anti-conversion rally Straits Times
SHAH ALAM, Malaysia (AFP) - Right-wing Malaysian activists on Saturday staged a rally against Christians who 'challenge the sovereignty of Islam', amid fears of growing Islamisation in the multicultural nation.
The gathering of about 2,000 people in Selangor state follows allegations of Christian proselytisation in the Muslim-majority country after religious police raided a Methodist church event in August fearing Muslims were being converted.
Newspapers linked to the ruling coalition have also alleged that Christian groups are secretly trying to convert poor Muslims by using welfare such as housing, food and cash.
'Apostasy violates the wishes of Allah, there is no bigger sin,' Yusri Mohamad, the event's chief organiser, told the crowd in Shah Alam, the state capital.
Posted by Pamela Geller on Sunday, October 23, 2011 at 01:18 AM in Global Jihad 2011 | Permalink |
Saturday, October 22, 2011
IRANIAN STUDENTS PROTEST IN SOLIDARITY WITH OCCUPY WALL STREET LEFTISTS: “DOWN WITH THE UNITED STATES,” “DEATH TO ISRAEL,” “DOWN WITH CAPITALISM”
This was entirely predictable. The Muslim Brotherhood is Egypt, jihadists in Libya and the Muslim Brotherhood in America have joined the Nazi party and the uber-left destroyers in a sinister cabal to bring down America.
Iranian students demonstrate in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street Leftists: “Down with the United States,” “Death to Israel,” “Down with Capitalism" Jihadwatch
"The people of the United States have become fed up with moral corruption of the country’s officials, they added." That is certainly true.
Leftist/Islamic Supremacist Alliance Update: "Tehran students hold demo in solidarity with Occupy Wall St," from the Tehran Times, October 22:
TEHRAN –A number of students from universities across Tehran held a demonstration outside the Swiss Embassy on Saturday to express their solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Iran and the United States do not have diplomatic relations, and the Swiss Embassy in Tehran hosts the U.S. Interests Section in Iran.
The demonstrators chanted slogans in support of the protesters and denounced the crackdown on the protests.
The students also set the flags of the United States and the Zionist regime on fire and chanted “Down with the United States,” “Death to Israel,” “Down with Capitalism,” and other slogans.
A number of students also delivered speeches at the event, in which they said that true democracy could only be established under the banner of religion.
They also said that the Occupy Wall Street movement has been inspired by the tide of popular uprisings rolling across the Middle East and North Africa region.
The people of the United States have become fed up with moral corruption of the country’s officials, they added.
Analysts say demonstrations in Western countries which followed the Occupy Wall Street movement mark the start of a new uprising against the greed of the capitalism.
Ramin Shamsaii, a student who was present at the demonstration, said liberal democracy is intended to “deceive” people. Shamsaii said “real democracy is only realized under the umbrella of religious democracy.”
He added so long as religious democracy is not established “the world will remain in darkness.”...
"Religious democracy" = Sharia = Islamic supremacism.
Occupy Boston Protesters Arrested For Dealing Heroin – With 6 Year-Old in Tent
Posted by Jim Hoft on Sunday, October 23, 2011, 1:07 PM
A demonstrator wrapped in a blanket sits at the edge of the Occupy Boston tent village in Boston early Tuesday Oct. 11, 2011. Police arrested people sleeping in an expansion of the campsite on an adjacent parcel of the Rose Kennedy Greenway in Boston. (Josh Reynolds /AP)
Yup. They’re just like the tea party.
Police arrested two Obama-endorsed Occupy Boston protesters and charged them with distribution of a class heroin and possession with intent to distribute a class A drug within 1,000 feet of a school zone. They were dealing out of their tent.
Verum Serum reported this from the Boston Herald:
Two Occupy Boston members have been arrested on drug charges, Boston police said yesterday.Bostonians Isaac Bell, 34, and Charlene Dumont, 31, were both charged with distribution of a class A drug (heroin) and possession with intent to distribute a class A drug within 1,000 feet of a school zone, police say.
The 6-year-old child who was living with them in a tent is now staying with family members, police said.The arrests were made Friday after police said they received “multiple reports of drug activity in and around” Occupy Boston’s Rose Kennedy Greenway encampment.Also this weekend, protest-minded vandals made their mark on 21 downtown buildings, police said.At the Bank of America building at 100 Federal St., vandals spray-painted “Occupy,” “Bad for America” and “Yer building is crowding our skyline,” while the international anarchist symbol was painted on buildings at 100 Summer St., 101 Arch St. and 65 Franklin St.
October 23, 2011 Protesters Occupy GE CEO Jeff Immelt's Connecticut Front Lawn
By Clare O'Connor, Forbes Staff
Occupy Wall Street protesters took a field trip from Zuccotti Park on Saturday morning, all the way to the wealthy suburban enclave of New Canaan, Conn., where they took their anger at income and tax disparity to GE CEO Jeff Immelt’s front lawn.
“In the land of the free they tax me but not G.E.!” read the invitation to protesters to take an hour bus ride to Immelt’s family home. “General Electric made billions last year; they paid no taxes, outsourced thousands of jobs, and got over $3 billion in tax refunds! Join us on a free bus trip to G.E’s CEO’s front lawn to see how our friends in the 1% live.”
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/jeffrey-immelt/2011/10/23/protesters-occupy-ge-ceo-jeff-immelts-connecticut-front-lawn#ixzz1bdmdyhX8
Sunday, October 23, 2011
U.S. WARNS OF IMMINENT THREAT OF JIHADIST ATTACK IN KENYA
A year after Obama spent $24 million to assist in changing the Kenya constitution to a sharia compliant, non-Muslims are facing increased brutal and bloody jihad from the ghazis. Obama campaigned as far back as 2006 and $upported pro-Islamic Raila Odinga in Kenya, and the sharia compliant constitution was the poisonous fruit of that dangerous liaison. Obama praised Kenya for approving the controversial new constitution that partially implemented Sharia law within Kenya’s borders.
It will be interesting to see how Obama handles the Islamic war against his native homeland after helping to establish sharia courts in Kenya.
U.S. warns of imminent threat of jihadist attack in Kenya Jihadwatch
The jihadists from Somalia's Al-Shabaab have threatened Kenya: "your skyscrapers will be destroyed, your tourism will disappear." In other words, they are threatening to turn the place into Somalia. "U.S. embassy warns of imminent threat in Kenya," by Yara Bayoumy for Reuters, October 22:
NAIROBI (Reuters) - The U.S. embassy in Kenya warned of a threat to American citizens in the country after Nairobi launched a cross-border operation against Islamist militants in Somalia.
The embassy in a note to U.S. citizens living in or visiting Kenya said on Saturday that reprisal attacks could be directed at "prominent Kenyan facilities and areas where foreigners are known to congregate, such as malls andnight clubs."
The statement said the embassy had taken measures to limit official U.S. government travel to Kenya.
Kenya launched its boldest incursion yet into its anarchic neighbor six days ago after a wave of kidnappings against foreigners that Nairobi has blamed on the al Qaeda-linked al Shabaab militants.
The rebels have denied responsibility for the kidnappings and said Nairobi was using them as a pretext for an attack.
The rebels have warned Nairobi to withdraw from its southern strongholds or risk bringing the "flames of war" into Kenya.
Posted by Pamela Geller on Sunday, October 23, 2011 at 02:19 PM in Kenya's killing fields | Permalink
GROUND ZERO MOSQUETEER GAMAL, RAT SLUMLORD
Rats. Surprising? No. But true to form.
Mosque developer can't take care of vermin-infested apartment building NY Post
The developer who wants to build a $100 million mosque and community center near Ground Zero can’t take care of a rat-ridden apartment building with just 14 units.
Sharif El-Gamal, the main developer behind the mosque, has nearly 400 open violations that he has refused to fix despite a court order. His company owes the city $61,633 in fines, fees and taxes for the property at 1835 Amsterdam Ave.
El-Gamal, a principal in the company that owns the Washington Heights building, is due in court Thursday. If he doesn’t showup, he risks being sent to jail.
He already failed to appear at a Sept. 28 hearing.
Tenant Madeline Javier has been locked in a legal battle with El-Gamal and his partners to try to fix the problems in her $647-a-month apartment.
She claims in legal papers that her bathroom ceiling collapsed, blocking the tub, toilet and sink, and that dust and vermin worsened her and her children’s asthma. She said the conditions forced her to flee to live in her mother’s home for two years.
“It’s really bad,” Javier said. “They always promise they’re going to fix, and they don’t do nothing.”
More than 150 complaints about the building, including rats, roaches and lack of heat, were logged with the city from July 2010 to May 2011.
The building’s staircase “was obstructed with construction debris, and the fire escapes were also obstructed,” according to legal papers.
There are 366 housing-code violations that the owner hasn’t addressed, according to the city Department of Housing Preservation and Development.
Read more.
AllenWestRepublic
Federal authorities to shut off all TV and radio communications simultaneously 11/9/11 at 2PM ET
If you have ever wondered about the government’s ability to control the civilian airwaves, you will have your answer on November 9th.On that day, federal authorities are going to shut off all television and radio communications simultaneously at 2:00PM EST to complete the first ever test of the nationalEmergency Alert System (EAS).This isn’t a wild conspiracy theory. The upcoming test is posted on the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureauwebsite.Only the President has the authority to activate EAS at the national level, and he has delegated that authority to the Director of FEMA. The test will be conducted jointly by theDepartment of Homeland Security (DHS) through FEMA, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Weather Service(NWS).In essence, the authority to seize control of all television and civilian communication has been asserted by the executive branch and handed to a government agency.
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Report: President's buddy gave grants to fraud suspect
Chicago woman accused of making off with $500,000
Posted: September 24, 2011
10:30 pm Eastern
© 2011 WND
*
Sen. Barack Obama
The Washington-based Judicial Watch, the government watchdog that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, is noting that most media reports about an alleged fraud case in Chicago – and in fact even the government news releases about it – have neglected to mention that "a close friend, adviser and donor of President Obama" is "embroiled in the scandal."
The case, according to the U.S. attorney's office in the central district of Illinois, involves Margaret A. Davis, a Chicago woman who formerly served as program director for the Chicago Chapter of the National Black Nurses Association.
She is suspected of defrauding various state grant programs of approximately $500,000, and the 59-year-old is accused in a 16-count indictment with 14 counts of mail fraud and two counts of money laundering.
"It's the taboo portion of the story that's been ignored by the mainstream media and conveniently omitted in government press releases announcing the June federal indictment a month after it was filed," Judicial Watch said.
"What the feds haven't revealed is that the state agency that gave Davis all the money, the Illinois Department of Public Health, was run by one of Obama's closest pals, Dr. Eric Whitaker, when the cash was disbursed. We know this only because Chicago's conservative-leaning newspaper has been digging around. This week it published a lengthy article connecting the dots between Whitaker and the corruption scheme," Judicial Watch said.
That report,from the Sun Times, said under Whitaker, the Illinois Department of Public Health awarded Davis a "no-bid contract and seven AIDS- and cancer-related grants that became part of her $500,000 cash-siphoning scheme, prosecutors say."
"Whitaker – who's now a top executive at the University of Chicago Medical Center – has not been accused of any wrongdoing. He says he couldn't have known about the problems the Davis indictment describes and that he and his staff acted quickly when they became aware of problems with other contractors," the report said.
It said federal authorities have demanded information from the health department about a wide range of outreach programs that Whitaker supervised.
He had been hired for the post by then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2003 on Obama's recommendation.
"During Whitaker's four-year tenure, the agency spent millions of taxpayer dollars on highly questionable publicity campaigns to educate African-Americans and other minorities about common disease in the communities, mainly AIDS," Judicial Watch said.
The watchdog organization said Whitaker had referred to the indicted nurse as 'the ultimate advocate for health care and human services.'"
Judicial Watch added, "He seems to have little worries as he enjoys his lucrative, private-sector job. In 2007 Whitaker resigned to join Michelle Obama at the University of Chicago Medical Center where he makes more than $670,000 a year as executive vice president for strategic affiliations and associate dean for community-based research."
The newspaper said Whitaker and several others were named in a subpoena seeking their state-government emails earlier. But none of those was charged.
The Sun-Times said during the 2008 campaign, "Whitaker frequently traveled with Obama, and he remains part of the president's inner circle. He vacationed with the president in Martha's Vineyard late last month and attended three White House parties earlier this year."
Read more:Report: President's buddy gave grants to fraud suspecthttp://www.wnd.com/?pageId=348169#ixzz1bdEP6IDf
Solyndra to Auction Assets, But Taxpayers Won’t See a Dime
Lachlan Markay
October 21, 2011 at 2:14 pm
As part of its bankruptcy proceedings, defunct solar company Solyndra will auction off thousands of items from its California production facility on Nov. 2 and 3. But taxpayers won’t see a dime of the proceeds, due to the Energy Department’s decision to subordinate taxpayers to Solyndra’s private financiers in repayment of their investments.
As I explained in a Friday column in the Washington Examiner, DOE has developed an unprecedented interpretation of the law to allow Solyndra’s private investors to recoup $75 million of their investment before taxpayers are repaid.
Heritage Global Partners, which is conducting the auction, told Scribe that the money raised “will not be anywhere near” $75 million, meaning the proceeds will go entirely towards repaying Solyndra’s private investors (though later asset sales may exceed that threshold).
DOE’s legal position is without precedent in the history of its loan guarantee program, as I explain in the Examiner:
Two Treasury Department officials who testified before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee last week said they had never before seen taxpayers subordinated to private investors in the repayment of a government loan.
Until Solyndra, that is. In February 2011, the Energy Department helped refinance the struggling solar company’s loan in a way that gave private lenders priority in repayment of their loans.
Under the restructuring agreement, the first $75 million of private investment would be repaid before taxpayers saw a dime. Reps. Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., who chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee and its investigative subcommittee, respectively, said the restructuring agreement “violated the plain letter of the law.”
The upcoming asset sale includes thousands of pieces of office equipment, computers, power tools, assembly line machinery, and even solar panels. But because the expected returns from the auction do not exceed $75 million, the government won’t recoup any of the taxpayer money used (unsuccessfully) to prop up the company.
*****UPDATE: Contacted about these revelations, Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), who chairs the House Energy and Commerce investigative subcommittee, called the news “a sobering reminder that taxpayers are on the hook for a half billion dollars because of DOE’s misdeeds.”
Posted in Energy and Environment, Scribe
Print This Post
SOLYNDRA IS ANOTHER ISSUE WHERE THE WHITE HOUSE IS REFUSING TO RELEASE ALL DOCUMENTS THAT WOULD VERIFY TO TAXPAYERS, OR AT THIS POINT, CONFIRM THAT THIS COMPANY WAS USED FRAUDULENTLY AS A DONOR FUNNEL FOR OBAMA’S CAMPAIGN FINANCE MACHINE. INITIAL BANKRUPTCY CLAIM WAS $535 MILLION IN TAXPAYER DOLLARS. AFTER A MISPRINT OF $535 BILLION IN MY OWN THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS IN THE LAST NEWSLETTER, THE WHITE HOUSE REFUSED TO RELEASE THE DOCUMENTS, SO WE NOW KNOW 2 THINGS:
1) OBAMA WAS USING SOLYNDRA FOR FRAUD, AND SOLYNDRA WILL DONATE OR HAS DONATED THIS MONEY TO HIS CAMPAIGN, PROBABLY THE ONLY WAY DEMOCRATS OUTFUNDRAISED RECENTLY, AND
2) THE FRAUD IS MORE THAN $535 MILLION, AND THAT IS SERIOUS FRAUD OF TAXPAYERS, IN ADDITION TO FRAUD CHARGES OF THE 2008 ELECTION FOR LYING UNDER OATH ABOUT BEING A CITIZEN AND MISREPRESENTING HIS CAMPAIGN AND MOTIVES FOR BEING PRESIDENT.
DON’T BE SURPRISED TO SEE THESE FLOATING AROUND TOWN....
*The Corner
ABOUT | ARCHIVE | E-MAIL | LOG IN | EMAIL FRIEND
Subscribe to National Review and get 75% off the newsstand price!
Obama’s Solyndra Veto Threat
By Andrew Stiles 
So far this year, President Obama has threatened to veto legislation to restrict public funding for abortions, any meaningful attempt at entitlement reform and, most recently, repeal of the CLASS Act, a program his own administration admits is functionally inoperable.
Just yesterday, he issued yet another veto warning, threatening to reject any appropriations bill “that undermines critical domestic priorities or national security through funding levels or language restrictions, contains earmarks, or fails to make the tough choices to cut where needed while maintaining what we need to spur long-term job creation and win the future.”
In a letter from OMB director Jack Lew to congressional appropriators, the administration cites “critical domestic priorities” necessary to “win the future” such as full funding for the implementation of Obamacare, which presumably includes the CLASS Act, full funding for the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory regime and, last but not least, full funding for the Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs.
That’s right, the same “green” energy initiative that brought us Solyndra, and for which the administration has requested no less than $1.95 billion this year.
Republicans will presumably put the president’s words to the test. As well they should.
E-MAIL AUTHOR | ARCHIVE
Share191
Conservatives Revolt in House to Help Defeat Stopgap Spending Bill
by Audrey Hudson
09/21/2011
House conservatives unexpectedly bolted from the Republican leadership on Wednesday and helped Democrats vote down a $1.43 trillion stopgap spending measure to keep the federal government operating when the 2011 fiscal year ends next week. The measure was defeated 195 yeas to 230 nays, and as the fifteen-minute vote stretched to a half hour, 48 Republicans ultimately voted no.
Although no one in the Republican Party spoke out against the bill during the two hours of debate on the House floor, some said afterward it allowed the temporary spending through Nov. 18 at too high a rate.
Conservatives are still smarting from the debt-ceiling deal and insist that the lower spending levels they approved in Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R.-Wis.) budget be adhered to.
“It's business as usual, with another missed deadline and another missed opportunity to finally put an end to the out-of-control spending that has put our nation's economic health in crisis,” said Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R.-Kan.). “This level of spending is far from meeting the goal we set for ourselves before coming to Washington last November.”
The defeat will have House Republican leaders scrambling to find a compromise within their own party before recess begins next week to observe Rosh Hashanah, though some conceded privately they knew they didn’t have enough votes to pass the measure.
At least three conservative Republicans, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming and Tom Graves of Georgia, sent a letter to House leaders telling them beforehand to stick to the Ryan numbers.
“The House simply cannot push the level of discretionary spending for the coming year upwards as its first action after the extended debt ceiling debate,” the letter said.
“Given the current state of the U.S. economy, taxpayers' continued focus on cutting deficits and reducing the national debt, and the global attention to spending issues, it would be difficult to conceive of a less opportune time to send such a clear message that Washington continues to be tone deaf when it comes to federal spending,” the letter said.
While Republicans said the measure allowed too much spending, Democrats opposed the bill because they wanted billions more in spending for disaster relief.
The so-called Continuing resolution (CR) was necessary because none of the 12 appropriation measures have passed Congress or been signed into law by President Obama.
“This is not a departure from our path of restoring fiscal sanity,” said Rep. Rob Woodall (R.-Ga.). “We're committed to continuing on that path, but unfortunately, the actions of the other body leave us no choice but to consider this Continuing Resolution today.”
Rep. Louise Slaughter, (D.-N.Y.) said, “Not a single appropriation bill has been enacted … despite the Republicans' pledge to America.”
“Throughout this failed process, they have blamed everyone but themselves,” Slaughter said. “They’ve worked to fulfill their campaign pledges to Grover Norquist and the far Right.”
The Republican-controlled House has passed all 12 spending bills out of committee, and half of those have passed the House and been sent to the Senate. However, only one bill has passed the Democrat-controlled Senate.
“I’m not going to point the finger of blame at anyone, I’m keeping my hands at my side,” said Rep. David Drier (R.-Calif.) chairman of the House Rules Committee.
“But we inherited a hell of a mess,” Drier said.
“With all due respect, our friends on the other side of the aisle didn’t write a budget this year, and that took up a lot of time,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R.-Okla.).
The CR would keep government operating at its current level until Nov. 18, to give Congress more time to pass all of the appropriation measures. The CR includes an additional $3.6 billion for the Federal Emergency management Agency (FEMA) and other emergency spending that Republicans have offset by more than $1 billion by cutting guaranteed loans to build new green automobiles.
Democrats objected because they want $6.9 billion in emergency spending without any offsets, and without their support in the Senate to pass the measure before Congress adjourns this week to observe Rosh Hashanah, the government faces a shutdown.
“We’re having 100-year floods, every year,” said Rep. Edward Markey (D.-Mass). “The planet is warming, the weather is worsening. What is the response of Republicans? They have to find the money, they say, for disaster relief. What does the Tea Party want? They want to cut the clean-car factory fund.”
The emergency funding is intended to pay for disaster relief from recent hurricanes and the East Coast earthquake, as well as flood control projects for the Army Corps of Engineers.
“Using offsets to pay for disaster relief is the rule here, it is not the exception,” said Rep. Hal Rogers (R.-Ky.) chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
Even in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Rogers said, Congress offset that emergency spending.
If the $3 billion is not enough to fund disaster spending until mid November, Rogers said, the Obama administration can come back to Congress then with documentation to show more is needed.
“It’s simply a ruse to spend more money in other areas without being responsible,” Cole said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) said that when the measure comes to the Senate for a vote this week, he would insert the additional spending. By changing the legislation, Reid would trigger additional congressional procedures, which puts the entire legislation on a precarious time line of passing before the fiscal year ends Sept. 30.
“We're not going to cave on this,” Reid said.
Rep. Eliot Engel, a New York Democrat whose district includes the Bronx and Rockland and Westchester Counties, said his area was “devastated by Irene,” and that demanding spending cuts “in times of disaster” is “ridiculous logic.”
“Try telling my constituents who are struggling in the aftermath of the hurricane, ‘Sorry, we have to find offsets,’ ” Engel said. Rep. Steve Womack (R.-Ark.) said Democrats are using Republicans as a “political prop designed to make us look hard-hearted.”
“Nothing could be further from the truth,” Womack said.
Audrey Hudson, an award-winning investigative journalist, is a Congressional Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS. A native of Kentucky, Mrs. Hudson has worked inside the Beltway for nearly two decades -- on Capitol Hill as a Senate and House spokeswoman, and most recently at The Washington Times covering Congress, Homeland Security, and the Supreme Court. Follow Audrey on Twitter and Facebook.
How the Obama administration bungled the Iraq withdrawal negotiations
Posted By Josh Rogin 
Friday, October 21, 2011 - 3:26 PM 
Share
The Obama administration is claiming it always intended to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year, in line with the president's announcement today, but in fact the White House tried hard to negotiate a deal for thousands of troops to remain -- and failed.
"I can report that as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over," President Barack Obama said today, after speaking with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. "The last American soldier will cross the border out of Iraq with their held -- heads held high, proud of their success, and knowing that the American people stand united in our support for our troops. That is how America's military efforts in Iraq will end."
Deputy National Security Advisors Denis McDonough and Tony Blinken said in a White House briefing that this was always the plan.
"What we were looking for was an Iraq that was secure, stable, and self reliant, and that's what we got here, so there's no question that was a success," said McDonough, who traveled to Iraq last week.
But what about the extensive negotiations the administration has been engaged in for months, regarding U.S. offers to leave thousands of uniformed soldiers in Iraq past the deadline? It has been well reported that those negotiations, led by U.S. Ambassador James Jeffrey, Army Gen.Lloyd Austin, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and White House official Brett McGurk, had been stalled over the U.S. demand that the remaining troops receive immunity from Iraqi courts.
"What the president preferred was for the best relationship for the United States and Iraq going forward. That's exactly what we have now," McDonough said, barely acknowledging the administration's intensive negotiations.
"We talked about immunities, there's no question about that.... But the bottom line is that the decision you heard the president talk about today is reflective of his view and the prime minister's view of the kind of relationship we want to have going forward. That relationship is a normal relationship," he said.
Of course, the U.S.-Iraqi relationship is anything but normal. Following nine years of war, the death of over 4,000 Americans and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and the disbursement of at least hundreds of billions of dollars of American taxpayer' money, the United States now stands to have significantly less influence in Iraq than if the administration had been able to come to terms with Iraq over a troop extension, according to experts and officials.
"Iraq is not a normal country, the security environment is not normal, the embassy is not a normal embassy," said Marisa Cochrane Sullivan, managing director at the Institute for the Study of War, who traveled to Iraq this summer and has been sounding the alarm about what she saw as the mishandling of the negotiations ever since.
For more evidence that the administration actually wanted to extend the troop presence in Iraq, despite today's words by Obama and McDonough, one only has to look at the statements of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
In July, Panetta urged Iraqi leaders to, "Dammit, make a decision" about the U.S. troop extension. In August, he told reporters that, "My view is that they finally did say, ‘Yes.'" On Oct. 17, he was still pushing for the extension and said, "At the present time I'm not discouraged because we're still in negotiations with the Iraqis."
Sullivan was one of 40 conservative foreign policy professionals who wrote to Obama in September to warn that even a residual force of 4,000 troops would "leave the country more vulnerable to internal and external threats, thus imperiling the hard-fought gains in security and governance made in recent years at significant cost to the United States."
She said that the administration's negotiating strategy was flawed for a number of reasons: it failed to take into account Iraqi politics, failed to reach out to a broad enough group of Iraqi political leaders, and sent contradictory messages on the troop extension throughout the process.
"From the beginning, the talks unfolded in a way where they largely driven by domestic political concerns, both in Washington and Baghdad. Both sides let politics drive the process, rather than security concerns," said Sullivan.
As recently as August, Maliki's office was discussing allowing 8,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops to remain until next year, Iraqi Ambassador Samir Sumaida'ie said in an interview with The Cable. He told us that there was widespread support in Iraq for such an extension, but the Obama administration was demanding that immunity for U.S. troops be endorsed by the Iraqi Council of Representatives, which was never really possible.
Administration sources and Hill staffers also tell The Cable that the demand that the troop immunity go through the Council of Representatives was a decision made by the State Department lawyers and there were other options available to the administration, such as putting the remaining troops on the embassy's diplomatic rolls, which would automatically give them immunity.
"An obvious fix for troop immunity is to put them all on the diplomatic list; that's done by notification to the Iraqi foreign ministry," said one former senior Hill staffer. "If State says that this requires a treaty or a specific agreement by the Iraqi parliament as opposed to a statement by the Iraqi foreign ministry, it has its head up its ass."
The main Iraqi opposition party Iraqiya, led by former U.S. ally and former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, decided to tie that vote to two non-related issues. It said they would not vote for the troop extension unless Maliki agreed give them control of a high-level policy council and let them choose the minister of defense from their ranks. Maliki wasn't about to do either.
"It was clear from the beginning that Maliki wasn't going to make a move without the support of the other parties behind him," Sullivan explained, adding that the Obama administration focused on Maliki and neglected other actors, such as Allawi. "There was a misunderstanding of how negotiations were unfolding in Iraq. The negotiations got started in earnest far too late."
"The actions don't match the words here," said Sullivan. "It's in the administration's interest to make this look not like they failed to reach an agreement and that they fulfilled a campaign promise. But it was very clear that Panetta and [former Defense Secretary Robert] Gates wanted an agreement."
So what's the consequence of the failed negotiations? One consequence could be a security vacuum in Iraq that will be filled by Iran.
"It's particularly troubling because having some sort of presence there would have really facilitated our policy vis-a-vis the Iranians and what's going on in Syria. The Iranian influence is going up in Iraq," said Andrew Tabler, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "It makes it harder for us to play our cards, and that's a real setback. We've spent a lot of blood and treasure in Iraq. And these days, stability in that region is not what it used to be."
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) echoed those sentiments in a statement today and expressed skepticism that Iraq is as "safe, stable, and self reliant" as the White House claims.
"Multiple experts have testified before my committee that the Iraqis still lack important capacities in their ability to maintain their internal stability and territorial integrity," McKeon said. "These shortcomings could reverse the decade of hard work and sacrifice both countries have endured to build a free Iraq."
Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry (D-MA), in his own Friday statement, backed up the administration's argument that the lack of a troop extension was in the best interest of the United States and Iraq.
"The United States is fulfilling our agreement with an Iraqi government that wants to shape its own future," he said. "The President is also following through on his commitment to end both the conflict in Iraq and our military presence... These moves appropriately reflect the changes on the ground. American troops in Iraq will be coming home, having served with honor and enormous skill."
AFP/Getty Images
EXPLORE:ARAB WORLD,DIPLOMACY,IRAN,IRAQ,OBAMA ADMINISTRATION,STATE DEPARTMENT,U.S. CONGRESS,U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
McCain says U.S. should consider military action in Syria
By Meghashyam Mali - 10/23/11 12:34 PM ET
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) Sunday called on the United States to consider military action in Syria, where president Bashir al-Assad’s regime has used violence against anti-government protesters seeking democratic reforms.“Now that military operations in Libya are ending, there will be renewed focus on what practical military options might be considered to protect civilian lives in Syria,” said McCain, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Jordan.“The Assad regime has spilled too much blood to stay in power. Its days are numbered, but it will use those days to murder more of its own people,” he said. “In this way, there is no moral distinction whatsoever between the case of Syria and that of Libya. The question is, what can be done about it?”“The Assad regime should not assume that it can get away with mass murder,” he added. “Qaddafi made that mistake, and it cost him everything."
In Libya, the U.S. joined a NATO-backed air campaign to oust leader Moammar Gadhafi from power. That operation ended Thursday with Gadhafi’s capture and death at the hands of forces allied with the new Libyan transitional government.President Obama in the face of strong congressional opposition defended the operation on humanitarian grounds saying that Western intervention was needed to prevent Gadhafi from targeting and killing Libyan civilians.McCain, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, often disagreed with the president’s strategy in Libya, but was nonetheless a strong supporter of U.S. involvement in NATO’s campaign against Gadhafi.Speaking Sunday, McCain said that in Syria, there were “growing calls among the opposition for some kind of foreign military intervention.”McCain's statements represent a shift for the senator. In April, he had downplayed comparisons between the then ongoing-Libyan NATO campaign and the possibility of action in Syria."I don't see a scenario right now or anytime in the near future where the injection of U.S. or NATO military action would in any way beneficially help the situation, I'm sorry to say," McCain had said regarding Syria.
HOLMES: Iran does not fear President Obama
ANALYSIS/OPINION:What is the Obama administration’s response to the Iranian plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador in Washington? To “work closely with our international partners to increase Iran’s isolation,” according to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and unite “world opinion” against Iran, according to Vice President Joseph R. Biden.There’s only one problem: Iran’s leaders don’t fear Barack Obama or the kind of “isolation” his administration promises.President Obama thought that softening criticism of Iran and backing off support for Iranians’ democratic aspirations would make the regime more cooperative. Instead, the regime used this policy to ease international pressure over Iran’s nuclear program and ratchet up repression at home. It responded to Mr. Obama’s belated and muted criticism of its crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in 2009 by rounding up, torturing and killing dissidents, and by accelerating uranium enrichment for nuclear weapons.The administration tried sanctions, but the current crop poses no immediate threat to the regime. The Iranian people, sectors of the economy and even some government factions bridle at them, but not enough to force AyatollahAli Khamenei, the “supreme leader,” to change policies. And though the U.S. bans trade and investment in Iran, others trade with it to varying extents and buy its oil that bankrolls the regime.Tehran no doubt thinks Mr. Obama can't get heftier sanctions approved. It expects Russia and China to block any attempt at the U.N. Security Council. It doesn’t expect countries to ban its oil in this tight market. Without international unity, proposed sanctions to strangle its international financial transactions and destroy its currency won’t work. That unity, promised by Mr. Obama’s friendlier outreach to Iran, never materialized.Iran’s leaders don’t expect military force either. Washington already indicated reluctance to exercise that option, despite recent claims it is still “on the table.”Most of the “hard power” pressure on Iran is believed to have come from the Israelis. The Stuxnet cyber-attack is mainly responsible for the Iranian nuclear program’s difficulties, but all it did was slow its advancement. The amount of enriched uranium the Iranians have today is greater than before the attack. Sanctions may have restricted imports of specialized steel for centrifuges, but they have not stopped progress in the overall program. If U.S. intelligence supported the Stuxnet attack, it was likely the result of work done in George W. Bush’s presidency.What the Obama administration never understood is that Iran’s leaders never wanted his brand of engagement. The last thing they want is to open up to the West and allow Americans in to bolster democratic opposition. Iran’s leaders fear their own people more than Barack Obama, who in the past made it clear that he was reaching out to the mullahs, not the Iranian people.Now that none of these policies has worked, the administration is flipping to a position of overt hostility. It is caught between what it doesn’t want to do (threaten force against Iran) and what it can’t do (arrange true international diplomatic isolation). About the only way to get the regime’s full attention - short of attack - is to immediately cut off the money flow and bring the Iranian people back to the streets.Unfortunately, the administration’s policies make this difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. Undercutting friends like Egypt’s former President Hosni Mubarak has reduced the willingness of other Middle Eastern allies to support U.S. initiatives of any kind. Its “reset” policy toward Russia has not gotten Moscow to cooperate on Iran, and China still resists tough sanctions. And its “engagement” policies toward the regime have diminished the Iranian people’s trust in America and their ability to organize and mount a resistance.It’s a far cry from the heady days when Mr. Obama spoke to the Iranian people about a “new day,” putting aside three decades of “strained” relations, and building “constructive ties.” There was no new day in Iran. Only more time for the regime to work on its nuclear program and repress its people.• Kim R. Holmes, a former assistant secretary of state, is a vice president at the Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org). Follow him on Twitter @kimsmithholmes.
Obama speaks at West Wilkes High School in Millers Creek, N.C., on Monday where his three-day bus tour promoting the American Jobs Act made a stop. (Associated Press)
By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times Thursday, October 20, 2011
FOLLOW US ON
FACEBOOK
FOLLOW @WASHTIMES
After halting President Obama’s entire $447 billion jobs-stimulus bill last week, the Senate blocked a $35 billion slice of the package in a late-night filibuster vote Thursday that highlighted the lingering questions among both parties over the White House ’s plans.
The 50-50 vote fell 10 short of the 60 votes needed to advance the bill, and saw two Democrats and one independent join with all 47 Republicans in sustaining a bipartisan filibuster.
“Four out of every five Americans who would pay higher taxes are small business owners. That doesn’t sound like a jobs bill to me,” said
Sen. Lamar Alexander, Tennessee Republican.
Minutes later the Senate also blocked Republicans’ counter-proposal, which would have repealed a requirement that would have withheld 3 percent of payments from all government contractors beginning in 2013 — something all sides say is burdensome, but which they can’t agree on how to pay for.
The bill came much closer to seeing action, falling just three votes shy of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. Ten Democrats joined with all Republicans in the chamber to try to advance the bill.
President Obama earlier in the evening had threatened to veto the Republicans’ bill, decrying the $30 billion in discretionary spending cuts he would be forced to make to fund the $11 billion bill.
“Cutting already-tight discretionary program levels even further, as this bill would do, would be a serious mistake,” the
White House said in a statement of policy. “The bill’s unspecified rescission of $30 billion in appropriated funds would cause serious disruption in a range of services supported by the federal government.”
Mr. Obama’s broad $447 billion bill to pay for infrastructure spending, expand last year’s payroll tax cut and transfer federal money to states to fund public teachers and first responders failed in a Senate filibuster last week after lawmakers balked at the surtax Democrats used to pay for it.
Democratic leaders and Mr. Obama had vowed to try to carve the bill up piece-by-piece and send them through Congress to force lawmakers to weigh individual elements such as teacher funding against increases taxes on the wealthy.
But Thursday’s vote showed there is no more appetite for the bill in pieces than there was for it in its entirety.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who crafted Democrats’ strategy, lost three members of his caucus on the teachers bill. Afterwards, though, he focused on the GOP, which voted unanimously against his plan.
“Unfortunately, protecting millionaires and defeating President Obama
are more important to my Republican colleagues than creating jobs and getting our economy back on track,” he said. “Democrats agree with the overwhelming majority of Americans that teachers and first responder jobs are worth defending, while lower taxes for millionaires and billionaires are not.”
© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2011
Income Inequality Explained by Demographics
From my post yesterday on the Enterprise Blog:
The Occupy Wall Street protest has returned national attention to the topic of income inequality; see recent commentary from bloggers Megan McArdle here and James Pethokoukis here andhere. Both highlight empirical evidence that challenges the narrative that income inequality has gotten worse over time.
Most of the discussion on income inequality focuses on the relative differences over time between low-income and high-income American households, but it’s also instructive to analyze the demographic differences among income groups at a given point in time to answer the question: How are high-income households different from low-income households? Recently released data from the Census Bureau (available here, here, and here) for American households by income quintiles in 2010 allows for such a comparison: see the chart above (click to enlarge).
Bottom Line: American households in the top income quintile have almost five times more family members working on average than the lowest quintile, and individuals in higher-income households are far more likely than lower-income households to be well-educated, married, and working full-time in their prime earning years. In contrast, individuals in low-income households are far more likely to be less-educated, working part-time, either very young or very old, and living in single-parent households.
Read more here.
John Bryson nomination to be commerce secretary confirmed by Senate
Bryson was confirmed nearly five months after his May 31 nomination. | AP PhotoClose
By DARREN GOODE | 10/20/11 7:58 PM EDT
The Senate on Thursday approved John Bryson’s nomination to be Commerce secretary despite some Republican misgivings over his environmental community ties and past support of climate change legislation.
Bryson was confirmed nearly five months following his May 31 nomination after Senate leaders late Wednesday agreed to have this nomination considered on the same 60-vote threshold needed for defeating filibusters.
Continue Reading
POLITICO 44
Latest on POLITICO
The vote was 74-26.
"As secretary of Commerce, John Bryson will be a key member of my economic team, working with the business community to promote job creation, foster growth, and help open up new markets around the world for American-made goods," President Barack Obama said in a statement Thursday evening. "At such a critical time for our economy, I nominated John because I believe his decades of experience both in the public and private sector have given him a clear understanding of what it takes to put America on a stronger economic footing and create jobs."
Bryson succeeds Gary Locke, who resigned to become the U.S. ambassador to China.
His supporters touted his diverse experience, which includes former chief of power conglomerate Edison International and president of the California Public Utilities Commission.
“I think he is an exceptional choice by the president … and he is going to be one of our best,” said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).
“Mr. Bryson’s business-minded leadership is needed now more than ever,” Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) added.
Bryson’s nomination was opposed by Republicans such as Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma and John Barrasso of Wyoming due to his co-founding of the Natural Resources Defense Council and support for cap-and-trade legislation.
Inhofe called the NRDC "one of the most radical, left-wing, extreme environmentalist groups."
“This nominee is actually the wrong person at the worst time,” Barrasso said before the vote. Barrasso said President Barack Obama needed to nominate someone whose mission “is to promote job creation, to promote economic growth, to promote sustainable development and improve standards of living for all Americans.
“Instead the president has nominated someone whose political advocacy is, in my opinion, detached from the financial hardships facing tens of millions of Americans today," Barrasso added.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66519.html#ixzz1bSAdr0FP
Earlier this summer, Barrasso distributed to Republican colleagues a one-pager with the heading "Mismatched: John Bryson & the Commerce Department,” in part citing his support of the cap-and-trade bill House Democrats passed in 2009.
Bryson's nomination had also initially attracted drama not of his own doing. Senate Republicans in March threatened to oppose any Commerce secretary nominee due to inaction on pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea that were subsequently approved this month.
Listen
But even some Republicans that also don’t see eye to eye philosophically with Bryson said he was qualified to serve and did not warrant taking the unusual move in blocking his confirmation.
“If I were president of the United States, I would probably not have nominated Mr. Bryson,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said. “But I think we all ought to appreciate the fact that elections do have consequences.”
While noting that Republicans would be nominating their own Cabinet officials if they take over the White House again, McCain — a former chairman of the Commerce Committee and 2008 Republican presidential candidate — said blocking a nominee should be a rare feat done only when that nominee is not fit to serve.
“Now that’s a big difference between whether you think that individual should serve or not,” McCain said. “Now he may not have made statements or done things that we particularly agree with. But I don’t think you can really question Mr. Bryson’s credentials and background … and that should be the criteria in my view.”
Rockefeller’s panel approved his nomination by voice vote earlier this month.
Commerce Committee ranking member Kay Bailey Hutchison noted that Bryson has the backing of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers as well as six former Commerce secretaries under multiple administrations in both parties.
The Senate was not initially expected to take up Bryson’s nomination until after returning from next week’s break. But amid a lapse of amendments being offered to a Senate spending package on the floor, Majority Leader Harry Reid decided to go ahead and bring it up. “Progress is being made, but not nearly enough,” Reid said regarding the spending package five Cabinet departments and several agencies.
This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 7:54 p.m. on October 20, 2011 Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66519_Page2.html#ixzz1bSAREf3U
Misjudging the Iranian Threat
Emil Maine
October 21, 2011 at 10:30 am
As the Obama Administration has discovered, containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions and support for terrorism and insurgencies requires more than Washington’s willingness to “extend [its] hand.” As Heritage’s Kim Holmes points out, Iran’s foiled plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador on U.S. soil illustrates that Iran’s leaders don’t fear Barack Obama or the “isolation” his Administration promises. The plot also highlights the disturbing consequences of Obama’s “good cop/confused cop” strategy on Iran. While the Obama Administration continues to maintain that all options remain on the table, Washington’s public downplay of the military option undermines its ability to threaten consequences.
What emboldened Iran to attempt such a brazen act on U.S. soil?
In a 2009 video address aimed at Iran’s people, President Obama said his Administration was committed to diplomacy that pursued “constructive ties” between the two countries. But Washington’s willingness to hold diplomatic talks was never really the problem. President George W. Bush’s Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, held the door open for such talks. Tehran’s rejection of diplomatic engagement has less to do with who is in the White House than with Tehran’s fears that opening up to America and the West will breathe life into the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people.
The Obama Administration has misjudged a dangerous adversary. The foiled plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in our nation’s capital demonstrates that the regime’s threats are real, and it is willing to take considerable risks in launching a high-profile terrorist attack for marginal gains. Containing Iran’s ambitions will be difficult, particularly since Obama’s strategy has not garnered sufficient international support to impose the “crippling sanctions” that the Administration promised, and Russia and China continue to delay and dilutesanction efforts in the U.N. Security Council.
Washington can neither credibly threaten the use of force nor forge meaningful international pressure. And that is perhaps what is most disquieting about Obama’s strategy on Iran.
Emil Maine is currently a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: http://www.heritage.org/about/departments/ylp.cfm
Posted in American Leadership
Print This Post
Analysis: Gaddafi's death a warning to Syrian, Yemeni leaders
By Dominic Evans
BEIRUT | Fri Oct 21, 2011 11:06am EDT
(Reuters) - The first fled to exile, the second is on trial and the third Arab ruler to be toppled in an Arab revolt died at the hands of rebels he once dismissed as rats.
The killing of Muammar Gaddafi sends a bleak message to Syrian and Yemeni presidents still resisting demands for change that the longer they hold out, the higher the price of failure.
Tunisia's leader Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak both stepped down within a few short weeks of mass protests breaking out against them.
But Syria's President Bashar al-Assad shows no sign of yielding to seven months of unrest, and protesters who called at first for political reform of his tightly controlled Arab country are now openly chanting for his execution.
Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who reneged three times on pledges to hand over power, has already survived an assassination attempt which forced him briefly into exile for medical treatment.
Gaddafi's killing "sends a message for the presidents and the entourage around them -- what fate awaits us even if we are prevailing now?" said Ibrahim Seif, resident scholar at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.
For months Gaddafi had the option of seeking safe haven in sympathetic African countries, Seif said, but chose to stand his ground against a rebel force which, backed by NATO jets, gradually turned the tide against his forces and eventually defeated and killed him.
Neither Assad nor Saleh yet faces the prospect of foreign military intervention, but the longer their standoffs with protesters continue, the smaller the prospect of any deal to end the unrest.
"Some people are now saying that Zine al-Abidine and Mubarak were wise men for leaving in that way," Seif said.
Even if the Yemeni and Syria leaders were determined to stay in power, their close supporters might have second thoughts, he added. "When they see total collapse they have to think twice about what they are doing."
WHAT NEXT?
Successive gains by Libyan rebels, from the capture of the capital Tripoli in August to Gaddafi's killing on Thursday, have been closely monitored elsewhere by protesters and presidents alike.
"Dictators share the same habits and traits -- every time one of their own falls, the others take notice," said Yemeni political analyst Abdulghani al-Iryani. "This will have a big political impact on President Saleh."
But the veteran Yemeni leader is unlikely to be pushed into a dramatic change of strategy.
"Saleh is now calibrating his response. It will be a game of combining military pressure with calls for negotiations," Iryani said. "If things seem to be going his way he will increase military pressure, but if they seem to worsen for him he will open more to reconciliation."
Hafedh al-Buqari, an analyst and president of the Yemen Polling Center, said Gaddafi's death would frighten Saleh but might drive him to be "more stubborn against international pressure" to stand aside.
"Saleh is looking for the fourth option -- the Yemeni option without fleeing or dying. He thinks he can cling to power," he said.
In some Arab countries, where rulers face calls for reform rather than regime change, the bloody end to Gaddafi's 42-year hold on power could still encourage attempts at compromise.
"In Jordan, Morocco and Bahrain, they still have room to maneuver... and I think what happened to Gaddafi will accelerate the process of them engaging with their community," Seif said.
But in Syria, as in Yemen, the news of Gaddafi's death could simply entrench both sides in confrontation, as leaders do all in their powers to avoid sharing his fate.
"It may give courage (to protesters) but it may also give the regime extra impetus to resist any opposition," said Nikolaos Van Dam, a Dutch scholar and former diplomat.
Pointing to the huge military advantage Assad's forces have over his opponents, despite the reported desertions of thousands of Sunni Muslim army conscripts, Van Dam said the impact of Gaddafi's death would be limited.
"The motivation may be stronger, but it doesn't mean success," he said.
Syrian television described the killing as an assassination and stressed the civilian deaths and bomb damage it said NATO had caused -- a repeated theme of state media seeking to show what Western powers might inflict on Syria.
"Most people in the West have thought only about toppling Gaddafi but they haven't thought about what happens afterwards," Van Dam said. "That is the point of the Syrian regime -- is it going to be better when the regime falls?"
(Additional reporting by Erika Solomon in Dubai; Editing by Myra MacDonald)
*
HOMELAND INSECURITY
Guess who's lobbying against tracking of al-Qaida in U.S.?
Probes of Islam terrorists show bias against Muslims, says 'civil rights group'
Posted: October 20, 2011 8:05 pm Eastern By Bob Unruh © 2011 WND
CAIR LOBBIES AGAINST INTEREST OF USA
An organization that monitors Islamic extremism around the world reports there have been 3,094 people killed in 66 Islamic terror attacks in the United States in recent years, but the activist Council on American Islamic Relations says it is unfair for the nation's Department of Homeland Security to single out Muslims for observation.
CAIR, which calls itself a civil liberties and advocacy organization and says its goal is to "empower American Muslims," is distressed with proposals in Congress that would authorize the federal department to appoint an official to coordinate efforts that would be aimed at deterring and preventing such attacks.
The organization is urging Muslims "and other people of conscience" to lobby members of Congress an oppose the plans that are outlined in Senate Bill 1546, which calls for the DHS secretary to "designate an official … to coordinate efforts to counter violent extremism in the United States, particularly the ideology that gives rise to Islamist terrorism as identified in the 9/11 Commission Report."
Get your autographed copy of Pamela Geller's "Stop the Islamization of America" directly from WND.
A related proposal, pending in the House, is H.B. 3116. It calls for DHS secretary "to designate an official of the department to coordinate efforts to counter homegrown violent Islamist extremism, including the violent ideology of al-Qaida and its affiliated groups, in the United States."
It is the Religion of Peace website that has compiled lists of Muslim attacks around the world. Its list for the United States alone features the 2010 attack in Illinois in which "a Muslim convert shots his family members to 'take them back to Allah.'"
It includes the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington, with a fatality toll in the thousands.
Also included is the 2008 incident in which "a devout Muslim strangles his 25-year-old daughter in an honor killing" and in 2009 when "a woman dies from injuries suffered when her father runs her down with a care for being too 'Westernized.'"
Also in 2006 in Maryland, "a 62-year-old Jewish moviegoer is shot to death by a Muslim gunman in an unprovoked terror attack," and the same year in Denver, "Saying it was 'Allah's choice,' a Muslim shoots four of his co-workers and a police officer."
In 2007 in Salt Lake City, "A Muslim immigrant goes on a shooting rampage at a mall, targeting people buying Valentine's Day cards at a gift shop and killing five."
The website notes that since the Islamic terror attacks on 9/11, there have been 17,881 deadly Islamic terror attacks around the world. For the week of Oct. 8-14, there were 29 jihad attacks with 145 fatalities and 534 critically injured globally. For the month of September, there were 144 attacks with 658 dead and 1,377 critically injured.
But, according to Robert McCaw, CAIR government affairs coordinator, "CAIR, along with the mainstream American Muslim community, utterly rejects violent extremists. Any action that harms innocent civilians is reprehensible, regardless of ideology that drives it. Focusing solely on American Muslims to combat domestic extremism is misguided." However, the legislation doesn't focus "solely" on American Muslims; both proposals target "violent extremism in the United States" and "homegrown violent Islamist extremism, including the violent ideology of al-Qaida."
And both are consistent with the department's purpose to deter and prevent violence from any source, according to the bills themselves.
But CAIR wants the Muslim factor to be ignored.
"The Department of Homeland Security's own statistics show there are a variety of domestic extremist groups threatening the nation and that each deserves serious consideration and consistent attention," McCaw said.
The group is urging Muslims and "people of conscience" to "call members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee about proposed legislation" that focuses on a group that factors largely in the violent extremism in the U.S. and around the world.
"CAIR believes that the legislation, sponsored by Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME), is too narrowly focused and does not go far enough to keep Americans safe from all types of violent extremism," the group said. In a release about the issue, the organization tells people what to say to members of Congress, including to U.S. senators: "I also ask you to ensure that if the Department of Homeland Security Reauthorization Act of 2011 comes to a vote in the Senate, that Section 213 is amended to remove all problematic language that targets ideology and singles out American Muslims for additional scrutiny."
*
CAIR also advises supporters to say: "As your constituent, I urge you to oppose any legislation that singles out the American Muslim community for unwarranted scrutiny. I also ask that you support measures that persue (sic) criminal action, not beliefs."
In a letter from DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to Collins, she noted that homegrown violent extremism is "not limited to a single ideology."
But she also wrote, "We know that foreign terrorist groups affiliated with al-Qaida, and individual terrorist thought leaders, are actively seeking to recruit or inspire Westerners to carry out attacks against Western and U.S. targets."
The activism of CAIR and like-minded groups has been getting more attention in recent days.
WND reported this week when the Hyatt Place Hotel in Sugar Land, Texas, abruptly canceled a tea party organization's meeting with author Pamela Geller, who wrote "Stop the Islamization of America."
Geller said the action, apparently in response to telephone calls to the hotel from Islamic activists, puts, "free speech, the cornerstone of our constitutional republic … in serious jeopardy."
"Under the Shariah, criticism of Islam is blasphemy (punishable by death in Muslims countries living under the Shariah). This is the death of free speech in the continuing Islamization of America, as I saw vividly Tuesday night when I was spoke in Houston, Texas. But free people and free speech ultimately prevailed, despite the best efforts of Islamic supremacists to crush them. The Hyatt's cancellation, and the reaction of freedom lovers to it, best illustrates why I wrote my book "Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance:" to show what Islamic supremacists are doing in America today, and how we must fight back."
She said, "I was scheduled to speak Tuesday evening for the Sugar Land Tea Party at the Hyatt Place Houston/Sugar Land. But Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) thugs intimidated the hotel where the event was scheduled to take place, Hyatt Place Houston/Sugar Land, into canceling the event altogether. Giving Tea Party organizers little time to find a new venue, the Hyatt Place in Sugar Land caved to Islamic pressure and agreed to enforce the blasphemy law under the Shariah."
WND also reported that a key individual behind the radical uprisings called "Occupy" protests is also a leading activist for Muslims in Orlando.
The opposition to Geller's address is hardly the first time revelations about CAIR and Shariah have generated a response. The authors of "Muslim Mafia" also have been taken to court by CAIR over the revelations it contains.
The CAIR legal attack on WND's author is far from over. WND needs your help in supporting the defense of "Muslim Mafia" co-author P. David Gaubatz, as well as his investigator son Chris, against CAIR's lawsuit. The book's revelations have led to formal congressional demands for three different federal investigations of CAIR. In the meantime, however, someone has to defend these two courageous investigators who have, at great personal risk, revealed so much about this dangerous group. Although WND has procured the best First Amendment attorneys in the country for their defense, we can't do it without your help. Please donate to WND's Legal Defense Fund now.
Read more: Guess who's lobbying against tracking of <i>al-Qaida</i> in U.S.?http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=358197#ixzz1bRf2o3G9
'Become a Muslim warrior'
by Daniel Pipes
Jerusalem Post
July 3, 2002
Translations of this item:
"Become a Muslim warrior during the crusades or during an ancient jihad." Thus read the instructions for seventh graders in Islam: A Simulation of Islamic History and Culture, 610-1100, a three-week curriculum produced by Interaction Publishers, Inc. In classrooms across the United States, students who follow its directions find themselves fighting mock battles of jihad against "Christian crusaders" and other assorted "infidels." Upon gaining victory, our mock-Muslim warriors "Praise Allah."
Is this a legal activity in American public schools? Interaction says it merely urges students to "respect Islamic culture" through identification with Islam. But the Thomas More Law Center, a public-interest law firm based in Michigan, disagrees and last week filed a federal lawsuit to prohibit one school district, in Byron, California, from further using the Interaction materials on Islam.
The Interaction unit contains many other controversial elements. It has students adopt a Muslim name ("Abdallah," "Karima," etc.). It has them wear Islamic clothing: For girls this means a long-sleeved dress and the head covered by a scarf. Students unwilling to wear Islamic clothes must sit mutely in the back of the class, seemingly punished for remaining Westerners.
Interaction calls for many Islamic activities: taking off shoes, washing hands, sitting on prayer rugs, and practicing Arabic calligraphy.
Students study the Koran, recite from it, design a title page for it, and write verses of it on a banner. They act out Islam's Five Pillars of Faith, including giving zakat (Islamic alms) and going on the pilgrimage to Mecca. They also build a replica of the "sacred Kaaba" in Mecca or another holy building.
It goes on. Seventh graders adopt the speech of pious believers, greeting each other with "assalam aleikoom, fellow Muslims" and using phrases such as "God willing" and "Allah has power over all things."
They pronounce the militant Islamic war-cry, Allahu akbar ("God is great.") They must even adopt Muslim mannerisms: "Try a typical Muslim gesture where the right hand moves solemnly... across the heart to express sincerity."
In the same pious spirit, the curriculum presents matters of Islamic faith as historical fact. The Kaaba, "originally built by Adam," it announces, "was later rebuilt by Abraham and his son Ismail." Really? That is Islamic belief, not verifiable history. In the year 610, Interaction goes on, "while Prophet Muhammad meditated in a cave ... the angel Gabriel visited him" and revealed to him God's Message" (yes, that's Message with a capital "M.") The curriculum sometimes lapses into referring to "we" Muslims and even prompts students to ask if they should "worship Prophet Muhammad, God, or both."
The Thomas More Law Center is absolutely correct: This simulation blatantly contradicts Supreme Court rulings which permit public schools to teach about religion on condition that they do not promote it. Interaction openly promotes the Islamic faith, contrary to what a public school should do. As Richard Thompson of the center notes, the Byron school district "crossed way over the constitutional line when it coerced impressionable 12-year-olds to engage in particular religious rituals and worship, simulated or not."
Islam: A Simulation serves as a recruitment tool for Islam, for children adopting a Muslim persona during several weeks amounts to an invitation to them to convert to Islam. (One can't but wonder did John Walker Lindh take this course?) The educational establishment permits this infraction due to an impulse to privilege non-Western cultures over Western ones. It never, for example, would permit Christianity to be promoted in like fashion ("Become a Christian warrior during the crusades," for example.)
Militant Islamic lobbying groups want Islam taught as the true religion, not as an academic subject. They take advantage of this indulgence, exerting pressure on school systems and on textbook writers. Not surprisingly, Interaction Publishers thanks two militant Islamic organizations by name (the Islamic Education and Information Center and the Council on Islamic Education) for their "many suggestions."
Americans and other Westerners face a choice: They can insist that Islam, like other religions, be taught in schools objectively. Or, as is increasingly the case, they can permit true believers to design instruction materials about Islam that serve as a mechanism for proselytizing. The answer will substantially affect the future course of militant Islam in the West.
Dec. 11, 2003 update: The Thomas More Law Center has failed in its court case; on this, see "Courts: Okay to Proselytize for Islam in California Schools."
Sep. 4, 2004 update: For a review of INTO ISLAM: An Introduction to the History of Islam, a derivative of the above curriculum manual, see William J. Bennetta, Another Manual, Another Fraud.
Dec. 27, 2006 update: It appears that students are on their own initiative taking up Muslim ways. WHSV-TV reports that at Spotswood High School in Penn Laird, Virginia, Casey Morris has begun a research project into Islam: he will wear traditional Muslim clothing and pray five times a day. In addition, Morris says, he will be going without pork for 30 days. "That's going to be rough but we'll make do."
Related Topics: Academia, Dhimmitude, Muslims in the United Statesreceive the latest by email: subscribe to daniel pipes' free mailing listThis text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.
Submit a comment on this item
#OccupyFannieMae: Government Policy Caused the Subprime Crisis
by Publius
From Investors Business Daily:
While not blameless, Wall Street is an easy scapegoat. And investment houses that made billions slicing and dicing mortgages into CDOs, derivatives, credit default swaps and other exotic paper are easy to demonize. But the problem wasn’t these financial instruments. Or even the obscene profits they generated. Mortgage-backed securities were nothing new, and we’ve always had speculation in the market.
The problem was the underlying assets: low-quality mortgages. We’ve never had so many junk home-loans poisoning the financial well before. And who poisoned the well? Washington and its affordable-housing policies.
It was Washington that declared prudent home-lending standards racist and gutted traditional underwriting rules in the name of diversity. It was government that created the risk on Main Street.
Yes, Wall Street spread it, with the help of Treasury-backed Fannie and Freddie. But who’s at greater fault for harming the village — the person who poisons the well or the one who distributes the water?
Read more here.
Tags: CDOs, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, lending, Main Street, mortgage, mortgage-backed securities, occupy, subprime, Wall Street
Posted Oct 21st 2011 at 11:17 am in Obama, Occupy Wall Street | Comments (3)
Great Game in the Horn of Africa
By Paul Mutter, October 19, 2011
Child soldier in Uganda; photo courtesy of Unicef
The United States announced this past week that it is deploying a 100-man mission to assist the Ugandan government in tracking down the remnants of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), a force whose bloody conflict with the Ugandan military has devastated northern Uganda and its environs since 1987.
But why now, in 2011, is the U.S. government making this commitment to combat the LRA?
The humanitarian impulse is certainly present among policymakers, if for no other reason than humanitarianism scores political points in Washington. Multiple human rights groups have been supportive of the announcement. The Ugandan government and people certainly desire an end to this conflict. As undemocratic as the Ugandan government of Yoweri Museveni has proven, the state the LRA would establish—if we take stock of their rule over parts of northern Uganda—would almost certainly be an even more nightmarish place. Joseph Kony, the founder of the LRA who masquerades as a champion of his Acholi ethnic group and as a Christian mystic, has ordered the killing, maiming, and rape of tens of thousands of people across northern Uganda and neighboring countries. This “army” relies heavily on child soldiers and "concubines," young girls abducted from churches and schools to serve as servants and sex slaves.
Make no mistake: the LRA is an abominable threat to the Ugandan people—and to the people of Sudan, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the Central African Republic, countries the LRA moves in and out of seeking safe havens.
But we must not be blinded by the darkness of the LRA so much that we fail to see the tarnish that mars the U.S. and Ugandan governments’ joint interests in East Africa.
Why did Washington not intervene at any other point over the course of the LRA's horrendous, decades-long campaign in Northern Uganda, where civilians not caught in the sadistic sights of the LRA often found themselves in the crossfirebetween the terrorist army and the Ugandan military? George W. Bush sent advisers in 2008-9 to assist the Ugandan military in what is said to have been a botched capture operation, but why did it take five U.S. presidents to get to this stage—a stage in which the LRA has been, according to most reports, drastically weakened? What took Washington so long to finally accept this mandate, which human rights activists have been urging for years?
The Obama administration is not likely embracing a “Responsibility to Protect.” The sad answer is that only now, in the post-9/11 world, is there sufficient U.S. interest to risk getting "mired" in Africa. The unstated target of this 100-man deployment is, in fact, al-Qaeda.
AFRICOM and the Horn of Africa
The 100-strong force being sent to Uganda (ostensibly as advisers) will be overseen by AFRICOM, the new strategic command for Africa created by George W. Bush in 2007. AFRICOM provides billions of dollars worth of equipment to U.S. allies in Africa, as well as controversial training and intelligence-sharing programs, and even Special Forces deployments.
For AFRICOM, security imperatives intersect with economic ones. At AFRICOM's urging, for example, the U.S. military has designed war games involving the "fall" of Nigeria, the no. 5 source of U.S. oil imports, to insurgent forces. The United States has had a strategic interest since the 1990s in demonstrating its commitment to the security of Uganda, which has fought al-Shabab in Somalia and until recently bordered Sudan. Sudan, an Islamist pariah state and also an LRA supporter, is still on the radar for U.S. and Ugandan policymakers (especially with South Sudan's formation), but Somalia is the "new" looming terror threat, a "failed state" fought over by Islamist groups like al-Shabab and infiltrated by others. The United States asserts that a strong al-Qaeda presence there today has ill designs for the countries of the Arabian Peninsula, Ethiopia, Kenya, and as we saw in 2010, Uganda.
The Ugandans did not pull out from Somalia following the 2010 Kampala bombings, though, and remain committed to maintaining a force there, something other U.S. allies in Africa have been reluctant to do. Those boots on the ground might go some way in firmly establishing a central Somalia government the United States and Uganda can live with. As Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institute has said:
To the extent the United States has any interest in Somalia being stabilized, it has an interest in seeing the Ugandan government able to keep its own country together, and able to keep it its own forces partially deployed to Somalia in order to help with that country where there have been al-Qaida related groups in the past.
The United States is waging a drone war in Somalia. Although it is not on the scale of the campaigns in Pakistan or Yemen, this may soon change. But with "Black Hawk Down" never far removed from Washington’s memory, sending troops into Somalia will be a hard decision for U.S. officials to make. Furthermore, the United States is, once again after its brief dalliance with "provincial reconstruction teams," no longer as interested in nation building as in effecting regime change and targeted assassinations. Uganda helps the latter along nicely in Somalia and may one day make the former possible there in concert with AFRICOM.
For now and for the foreseeable future, the Ugandan forces in Somalia are working in line with U.S. interests (as are the Kenyans, who this very Monday entered Somalia in force and are fighting against al-Shahab).
A War for Oil?
There are also economic considerations, though these may be secondary to security concerns. Uganda is indeed hoping to exploit newly discovered oil and gas reserves, and the government has undertaken a hurried developmentcampaign. But the United States is not well-placed at this time to pursue energy extraction opportunities there: the UK-registered Tullow Oil, joined by the French Total AS and the PRC's China National Offshore Oil Corporation, holds the best energy extraction hand in Uganda today. The U.S. government is, naturally, keeping an eye on the sector, and as The Economist notes, "several jealous Western governments and companies want to stall China’s advance into the Congo basin, with its vast reserves of minerals and timber."
Whatever potential Uganda holds—in and of itself and as a gateway to the DRC—China's much stronger economic position in Uganda and the UK's ties to its former colony do not leave the United States much economic leeway besidesforeign aid allocations at this point. But what is clear is that Washington’s commercial prospects in Uganda in the coming years will depend on the security situation.
Emboldening Museveni
Perhaps the most pressing issue for Ugandans, however, is the extent to which U.S. assistance might not only stir up a renewed conflict in the region but also embolden Yoweri Museveni—once hailed as an upstanding member of "a new generation of African leaders"—to further crack down on opposition politicians in Uganda, which until 2005 was an officially one-party state.
As Wikileaks disclosures show, the United States holds few illusions about theundemocratic and corrupt tendencies of Museveni and his party, the National Resistance Movement (NRM). "It appears Ugandan security services spend the majority their time tracking opposition leaders and critics of the NRM," reported a 2010 cable from the U.S. Embassy in Kampala.
Museveni's participation in the Second Congolese War, in which Ugandan military forces and their Congolese allies were accused of trafficking "blood diamonds" and committing human rights abuses, also damaged his international image. His questionable domestic record on both human rights and corruption issues has further soured foreign lenders and leaders toward him. The presidential electionheld in Uganda earlier this year delivered Museveni another stellar victory, though it was marred by accusations of intimidation on the part of the security apparatus and ruling party, accusations that the U.S. Embassy found credible inprevious elections.
Protests against Museveni's policies have frequently turned deadly thanks to the intervention of the state security apparatus, and just days after the U.S. deployment was announced, Ugandan security forces arrested 45 "Action 4 Change" activists, 15 of whom will be tried for treason. If convicted, they will be subject to a death sentence.
Action 4 Change is a coalition of opposition parties, community organizers, and rights groups who have undertaken a series of "walk to work" protests to demonstrate against food and fuel price increases. The Ugandan government asserts that Action 4 Change members are not nonviolent demonstrators but disgruntled electoral losers plotting the overthrow of the government. AndUganda Radio Network reports that a 500-man Coalition for Stable Uganda (CSU), led by an NRM member, has been formed "to counter activities of [the] Action for Change Coalition" because "there is no doubt in [the CSU's] minds that the opposition actions are well coordinated with backing from other forces bent [on] destabilizing Uganda, loot[ing] property, and caus[ing] deaths."
This landmark U.S. assistance to Uganda against the LRA, simply by putting boots on the grounds, surpasses any past offers of foreign or diplomatic aid from U.S. officials. But will Washington pressure Museveni to clean up corruption or scale back his crackdown on Action 4 Change? That's the sort of discussion that needs to be happening.
Liked this Post? Share it!
- inShare10
Paul Mutter is a graduate student at the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute at NYU and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.
recommended citation:
Paul Mutter, "Great Game in the Horn of Africa" (Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, October 19, 2011)
Obama’s raised more money for Democrats from Wall Street donors than all Republican candidates combined
POSTED AT 10:25 PM ON OCTOBER 20, 2011 BY ALLAHPUNDIT
PRINTER-FRIENDLY
The story’s a day old but it’s not to be missed. How much filthy “bankster” lucre are we talking about here? Put it this way: He’s raised more than twice as much for himself and the DNC as Romney has … from Bain Capital.
Remember, this is a guy whose campaign is asking artists to work for free while he’s busy posing for photos with tycoons and carrying off giant sweepstakes-sized donation checks. I almost admire him for having the stones to try to frame himself as Occupy Wall Street’s new best friend.
Obama’s key advantage over the GOP field is the ability to collect bigger checks because he raises money for both his own campaign committee and for the Democratic National Committee, which will aid in his reelection effort.As a result, Obama has brought in more money from employees of banks, hedge funds and other financial service companies than all of the GOP candidates combined, according to a Washington Post analysis of contribution data. The numbers show that Obama retains a persistent reservoir of support among Democratic financiers who have backed him since he was an underdog presidential candidate four years ago…Obama has raised a total of $15.6 million from employees in the industry, according to the Post analysis. Nearly $12 million of that went to the DNC, the analysis shows.Romney has raised less than half that much from the industry, while Texas Gov. Rick Perry brought in about $2 million. No other Republican candidate has raised more than $402,000 from the finance sector, which also includes insurance and real estate interests.In other words, O and the Dems have a structural advantage right now because he can raise money for the DNC whereas the RNC can’t get help from a candidate until Republicans choose a nominee. (If you exclude donations to the DNC, Romney actually leads Obama by more than $3 million.) The punchline is that, once the GOP nominee is unleashed and Wall Street money starts stampeding into the RNC, Democrats will segue effortlessly from months of quietly raking in as much finance cash as they can muster to months of demagoging the GOP as “the party of Wall Street” for having outraised them. Neat trick, that. They’ll end up being Occupy Wall Street’s best friend just in time for the general election after spending months stuffing their pockets to bursting with offerings from the banking world’s masters of the universe.
The NRCC rolled out an ad today tarring Democrat Steve Israel with the OWS crowd, but I think this clip of Paul Ryan via Think Progress shows a better way to handle them. No need for histrionic denunciations by leading Republicans; just remind those listening that corporate-government collusion isn’t exclusively a GOP problem, as our friends at Solyndra can tell you. Save the denunciations for the class-warrior-in-chief. Exit quotation: “What seems so ironic to me, or hypocritical, if you remember, it seems like yesterday that President Obama was saying things like, ‘we don’t have red states or blue states, we’re the United States of America, I want to be a uniter, not a divider, hope and aspiration.’ But what we’re getting is a commitment to division here.”
Share92
George Soros Funds Occupy Wall Street
by Matthew Vadum
10/21/2011
Comments
Radical anti-American billionaire George Soros is a major backer of a left-wing group that is funneling money to the Occupy Wall Street movement.
The nonprofit organization at the receiving end of Soros’ largesse, Alliance for Global Justice, is managing donations benefiting the communists, socialists, anarchists and hippies now occupying Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan. As of Oct. 19, OWS had taken in a grand total of $435,000 from all sources, including donations made by individuals online and in person, according to reports.
It should surprise no one that Soros (net worth: $22 billion), the ultimate Wall Street insider and preeminent funder of the activist Left today, embraces Occupy Wall Street.
As I note in my new book Subversion Inc., this Communist sympathizer co-founded the ultra-secretive Democracy Alliance, a billionaires’ club that wants to radically transform America. He has said that European-style socialism “is exactly what we need now” and favors American decline. Soros, a currency manipulator with an insider-trading conviction, praises Red China effusively, saying the totalitarian nation has “a better-functioning government than the United States.”
The Alliance for Global Justice has received grants from George Soros’ philanthropy, the Open Society Institute ($100,000 since 2004), and from the left-wing, money launderers of the Tides Foundation ($60,000 since 2004) that allows high-profile donors to give secretly to radical causes.
Much of the money received by the Tides network of philanthropies has come from Soros’ charity, according to philanthropy databases.
The Open Society Institute has given $24,599,553 to the Tides network of philanthropies since 1999. Of that total, $18,154,270 went to the Tides Foundation and the remaining $6,445,283 went to the Tides Center, which like the Alliance for Global Justice, serves as a fiscal sponsor for small or new activist groups.
A hotbed of anti-American activity, the Alliance takes money from the most extreme left-wing philanthropies operating in America today. The Alliance has accepted grants from the (pro-Fidel Castro) Arca Foundation ($185,000 since 2001), General Service Foundation ($165,000 since 2001), and Foundation for DeepaEcology ($30,000 since 2000), an anti-science environmentalist group that regards human beings as a cancer on the earth.
Alliance for Global Justice is a “fiscal sponsor,” which means that it serves as a financial clearinghouse for radical causes that haven’t filed papers to incorporate themselves as nonprofit organizations. Donors give money to the Alliance and are then able to deduct the donations from their income tax even though the cause they are funding isn’t recognized as tax-exempt by the IRS. Fiscal sponsors take a percentage of donations as management fees, and then pass on the rest to the cause favored by the donor.
Founded in 1998, the Alliance, which is headquartered in Washington, D.C., has a long history of anti-American activism. The Alliance and its resident, Katherine Hoyt, are longtime supporters of the Sandinista (Communist) movement in Nicaragua and the Zapatistas, a Marxist-Leninist guerrilla movement in Mexico.
When a credit card-processing glitch caused the Alliance’s website to reject $144,000 in donations for Occupy Wall Street, Hoyt claimed that an evil capitalist conspiracy was afoot. “I can’t help but believe that politics must be involved somewhere,” Hoyt said in a statement on the Alliance’s website.
It turns out the donations were rejected because of the Alliance’s own technological blundering, so Hoyt’s comment was scrubbed from the website. Alliance leader Chuck Kaufman blamed technology for the banking error.
“Our group normally processes a dozen donations a week, so all of a sudden Occupy Wall Street took off and it was 400 per day,” Kaufman said. “We just didn’t understand the banking architecture.”
Other causes supported by the Alliance include the antiwar group World Can’t Wait (a spinoff of the Revolutionary Communist Party), and Courage to Resist, which encourages U.S. soldiers to desert and supports accused traitor Bradley Manning of WikiLeaks infamy. Its leaders also have an abiding hatred of Israel. The Alliance has funded anti-Israel groups including Israeli Anarchists Against the War and Bil’in Center for Joint Struggle.
The Alliance for Global Justice’s antipathy toward things that Americans revere makes it a perfect business partner for George Soros.
Matthew Vadum is Senior Editor at Capital Research Center, a Washington, D.C. think tank, and author of Subversion Inc.: How Obama's ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off Taxpayers, (WND Books, 2011).
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.Trackbacks/Pings
- Sunrise Stories 10.21.11 | TYLERCRALLE.COM
- » Blog Archive » The Romney Rule: Declaration of Class War
Comments
OWS hardest hit.
By Jake Tapper
(JAKE TAPPER ATTEMPTS TO REDEEM HIMSELF AFTER READING FROM THE TELEPROMPTER, SAYING THAT OBAMA’S FUNDRAISING HAS BEEN A SUCCESS... IN OBAMA’S WORST POLLING NUMBERS --- EVER !!)
Oct 21, 2011 10:57am
President Obama Has Written Personal Checks to Letter-Writers In Need, Author Says
In February 2009, ABC News was first to report on the 10 letters from constituents that the president is given each day.Culled from the thousands the White House Correspondence Office receives each day from Americans who have taken the time to sit down and write to their president,” the letters “help him focus on the real problems people are facing,” said then-senior adviser David Axelrod.Some of these, maybe two or three each day, the President responds to in his own hand.Then-White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told us that before two different economic speeches, the President “pulled letters he has gotten and distributed them to staff, to understand what people were going through.”The White House is now cooperating with a book about those letters, written by the Washington Post’s Eli Saslow, who says that sometimes the president has written a check to help his correspondents. “A few times during his presidency, Obama admitted, he had written a personal check or made a phone call on the writer’s behalf, believing that it was his only way to ensure a fast result,” Saslow wrote in the Post.“It’s not something I should advertise, but it has happened,” the president told Saslow. “Some of these letters you read and you say, ‘Gosh, I really want to help this person, and I may not have the tools to help them right now. And then you start thinking about the fact that for every one person that wrote describing their story, there might be another hundred thousand going through the same thing. So there are times when I’m reading the letters and I feel pained that I can’t do more, faster, to make a difference in their lives.”-Jake TapperSHOWS: Nightline This Week Top Line World News
Government Manipulation of Media
Geoff Metcalf
Monday, Sept. 4, 2006
I'm not talking about confusion and inefficiency, which to a certain extent are products of all wars, but about muddle-headed thinking, cover-your-ass orders, lies and outright foolishness on the very highest levels.
– Cdr. James Meacham, 1968The fact that the Pentagon is overtly moving toward monitoring media is no real surprise. That they will spend $20 million for a public relations contract is kinda odd. Government has gotten good results with far less cost.
Peter Lance is a best-selling author. His third 9/11 investigative work, "Triple Cross," is due out in October. Lance recently had his work ‘spun' and manipulated by National Geographic and feds attempting to rewrite history [ http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060829/cm_huffpost/028270 ]
The venerable National Geographic wanted to do a documentary on Lance's book. However, ‘something' happened mid-production. The author was dealt out and his work edited with a cleaver. They then replaced Lance with Jack Cloonan, one of the very feds that Lance's research had found grossly negligent ... very ‘fox guarding hen house' stuff.
Viewers of the ‘documentary' "never saw any of this evidence critical of the feds because Nat Geo Channel allowed the story of FBI failures in the Ali Mohamed case to be told from the Bureau's point of view." Huh?!?
According to Lance, "It was like doing 'Schindler's List' from Hitler's perspective."
Story Continues Below
Several years ago the temporary outplacement of U.S. Army psyops personnel was confirmed. [ http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17437 ] "The assignment durations have been short-term up to one full year, depending on the mission." When asked "What were the missions?" responses varied from "No comment," "need to know," to smiles and, in one case, an obscene recommendation.
Meanwhile in a recent government solicitation, companies are being asked to demonstrate how they will "provide continuous monitoring and near-real time reporting of Iraqi, pan-Arabic, international, and U.S. media."
This latest efforts comes in the wake of a White House effort to get more offensive against critics of Iraq policy. It isn't a stretch to suggest that similar efforts against critics of ‘other' policies could occur.
Control of the news media isn't exactly a new concept. From Tokyo Rose to Pravda, the dissemination of news, information and propaganda has been a robust concern. The Catholic Church, Islam, Communist regimes, and American administrations (not to mention our infamous ‘yellow journalism' phases) have all attempted to control what was reported and how ... perception becomes reality, and the first draft of history is written in the news.
A few years ago I wrote "To Kill or Feed a Mockingbird," in which I addressed "two mutually exclusive and under-reported stories." One was the obvious penchant for political operatives to leak classified information. The other was a generational control of information dissemination by powerful ‘controllers'.
The left-leaning mainstream media cabal ‘enabled' the Clinton administration big time with spin, cover, and obfuscation. It may have been "more ubiquitous, and at times even clumsy, but it was not unique." And it was successful.
Operation Mockingbird was a program reportedly hatched by State Department official Frank Wisner. Wisner selected Philip Graham, then publisher of the Washington Post, to manage the program. According to Deborah Davis, author of "Katharine the Great," "By the early 1950s, Wisner 'owned' respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles, plus stringers, four to six hundred in all, according to a former CIA analyst."
Investigators digging into Mockingbird were flabbergasted to discover FOIA documents in which agents boast (in CIA office memos) of pride in having placed "important assets" inside every major news publication in the country.
This may sound like the stuff of Ludlum novels and conspiracy wackos, but not until 1982 did the ‘Company' finally concede that reporters on the CIA payroll have been case officers to field agents.
The entire Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson fiasco (please read Christopher Hitchens, http://www.slate.com/id/2148555) reveals the sausage-making aspect of political spin.
Peter Lance had years of work editorially bastardized by National Geographic and a small gang of CYA federal officials. The rest of the story will come out when his book is published in October. Those who read the book, "Triple Cross," or read the reportage of the book, will discover a far different story from the whitewashed, sanitized, government-approved version that National Geographic aired.
The late Reed Irvine (a dear and missed friend) routinely took on America's biggest and most influential journalists and media companies to account for their errors, and stick to the facts.
Ben Bradlee, when still at the Washington Post, called Reed (in a letter) a "miserable, carping retromingent vigilante." I called Reed a hero. (I had to look up "retromingent": http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=23349)
Peter Lance's righteous indignation will be validated as facts are revealed. However, don't hold your breath waiting for the FBI to throw themselves on their sword and admit to eschewing ‘Duty, Honor, Country' for personal CYA.
More on Operation Mockingbird:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MOCK/mockingbird.html
http://www.grandconspiracy.com/library.html#operation
Geoff is an author and talk show host. He is a ninth-generation commissioned officer in the U.S. armed services, a former Green Beret, and a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel. Geoff hunts down the stories the rest of the media ignores and exposes them for public scrutiny. He is also Editor of CalNews.com.
Editor's note:
Get Tammy Bruce's latest blockbuster and learn how you can help save America from extremists – Go Here Now!
Ronald Kessler takes you inside the Bush White House, the CIA and Congress
John Stossel`s New Book - FREE! Go Here Now
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Media Bias
Michelle Obama Listed Daughters Malia and Sasha as “Senior Staffers” for $432,142 Family Vacation to Africa ?
Posted on October 5, 2011 by samiam60| 11 Comments
U.S. first lady Michelle Obama stands with Karen Dudley, right, at her restaurant “The Kitchen” as she makes an unscheduled stop for lunch in Cape Town, South Africa, Thursday, June 23, 2011. Also pictured, left to right, daughters Malia and Sasha Obama, niece Leslie Robinson, nephew Avery Robinson. (AP/Charles Dharapak, Pool)
Michelle Obama Listed Daughters
Malia and Sasha as
“Senior Staffers”
for $432,142 African Trip
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, October 4, 2011Washington Whispers reported on the African trip.
First lady Michelle Obama’s family trip to South Africa andBotswana in June cost taxpayers well over $424,000, according to new accounting based on Air Force manifests obtained by Judicial Watch, a taxpayer watchdog group.The use of Air Force aircraft alone for the June 21-27 trip cost $424,142, said the group, and that doesn’t include the food, lodging, and ground transportation for the 21 family and staff members.
Have a Happy Angry Meal America
Related articles 
- Michelle Obama Takes Her Daughters on Lavish “Mommy and Me” Trips(sfcmac.wordpress.com)
- Was Michelle Obama’s Target Photo Staged? (styleite.com)
FIRST BOOB SAYS:
Michelle Obama: ‘That's Why We Start With Kids, Right? We Can Affect Who They Will Be Forever’
By Elizabeth Harrington
October 18, 2011
Subscribe to Elizabeth Harrington's posts
U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and First Lady Michelle Obama at a reception for the HealthierUS School Challenge at the White House on Oct. 17, 2011. (White House photo)(CNSNews.com) - First Lady Michelle Obama said yesterday that the government can affect who kids “will be forever” if it can shape their "habits and preferences" during the large part of the day they are at school.
Mrs. Obama was speaking on the South Lawn of the White House at a reception to honor schools that met the goals of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s HealthierUS School Challenge (HUSSC). The USDA Web site describes HUSSC as “a voluntary initiative established in 2004 to recognize those schools participating in the National School Lunch Program that have created healthier school environments through promotion of nutrition and physical activity.” The program has since been rolled into Mrs. Obama’s “Let’s Move!” initiative.
“When many kids spend half of their waking hours and get up to half their daily calories at school, you know that with the food you serve and, more importantly, the lessons you teach that you're not just shaping their habits and preferences today, you’re affecting the choices they’re going to make for the rest of their lives,” said Mrs. Obama.
“That's why we start with kids, right?” she said. “We can affect who they will be forever.”
At the reception, Mrs. Obama praised the 1,273 schools that have doubled the number of students eating federally subsidized meals that fit the program’s criteria.
Among the schools Mrs. Obama praised was the Burlington Elementary School of North Dakota, where, she said, the teachers eat two USDA-approved meals a day with the students.
“And the teachers eat breakfast and lunch with students every single day,” said Mrs. Obama. “Now, that's a sacrifice. You know it. That's love. They even send out a monthly newsletter called, “Nutrition Notes,” to provide healthy eating tips and recipes for the families.
“You’re affecting not just how these kids feed themselves, but how they’re going to feed their own children,” she said.
“So the beauty is, is that you’re not just making this generation of kids healthier, but the next generation as well. And that is truly, truly powerful stuff,” she said.
Mrs. Obama said that the children trained in these schools may have a trickle-down effect on their families.
“They're changing the way they think about their health and they're trickling that information down to their families,” said the First Lady.
Obama Admin Hides Public Comments Against Obamacare Mandate
by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 10/21/11 10:54 AM
The Obama administration today is coming under fire from pro-life advocates who submitted tens of thousands of public comments opposing a new mandate that would force insurance companies to cover birth control, contraception and drugs that may cause abortions.
The administration has initially approved a recommendation from the Institute of Medicine suggesting that it force insurance companies to pay for birth control and drugs that can cause abortions under the Obamacare government-run health care program.
The IOM recommendation, opposed by pro-life groups, called for the Obama administration to require insurance programs to include birth control — such as the morning after pill or the ella drugthat causes an abortion days after conception — in the section of drugs and services insurance plans must cover under “preventative care.” The companies will likely pass the added costs on to consumers, requiring them to pay for birth control and, in some instances, drug-induced abortions of unborn children in their earliest days.
Even though tens of thousands of pro-life Americans have done so, Jeanne Monahan of FRC says the Obama administration is not making those comments public, as promised.
“On September 30th, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) received thousands of negative comments related to the interim final rule published on August 3rd where all insurance plans were informed that they must cover the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives with no co-pay,” Monahan explains. “A very narrowly defined conscience exemption for religious organizations was included which, in essence, covers only places of worship and was originally drafted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for a bill in California.”
“Curious to read some of the comments and get a sense of volume, this week I perused the official regulatory website of the government, regulations.gov,” she continues. “Recall that the language from the rule indicated that comments would be posted publicly: ‘All comments are posted on the Internet exactly as received, and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines.’”
“Much to my surprise, my search led me to only a very small number of comments — under 100,” Monahan says. “Knowing that FRC constituents alone submitted close to 12000 comments, and that USCCB constituents filed close to 60,000 comments, I was surprised and assumed I was searching incorrectly.”
Monahan called the regulations.gov helpline and had a customer service representative walk her through the process to assure her she was accessing the web site correctly.
“At the end of that conversation together we located only 58 comments,” Monahan says. “I then asked the customer service representative if HHS may withhold certain comments. The representative ironically began by telling me that the ‘Obama Administration is committed to transparency’ but then told me that HHS has control over what they post.”
The HHS accepted the IOM guidelines that “require new health insurance plans to cover women’s preventive services” and those services include “FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling” — which include birth control drugs like Plan B and ella that can cause abortions. The Health and Human Services Department commissioned the report from the Institute, which advises the federal government and shut out pro-life groups in meetings leading up to the recommendations.
“These historic guidelines are based on science and existing literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need,” HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, an abortion advocate, said in a statement LifeNews received.
Sebelius said new health plans will be required to include coverage with plan years beginning on or after August 1, 2012 but that also exempts group health plans sponsored by certain religious employers, though the exemptions are very narrowly drawn.
Monahan, director of Family Research Council’s Center for Human Dignity, which covers pro-life, issues, panned the IOM report and HHS’ decision to adopt it.
“The mandate will include FDA-approved drugs like Ella and Plan B that are misleadingly labeled ‘emergency contraceptives’ despite the fact that they can actually destroy a developing baby prior to or after implanting in the mother’s womb. HHS failed to address this problem in the interim rule published today despite many public comments on this very issue,” she told LifeNews.
She also said the conscience protections were not sufficient.
“HHS offered a fig leaf of conscience protection for certain churches that fulfill very specific criteria. However, religious groups that provide social services, engage in missions work to people of different religious faiths, religious health insurance companies, let alone religious health care providers and individuals in such health plans are not protected from any discrimination whatever. The new rule will force many Americans to violate their consciences or refrain from participating in health care insurance, further burdening an already costly system,” Monahan said.
“For an administration that promised to protect conscience laws in effect now, this decision completely ignores opinion, research and science that do not support a pro-abortion ideology. In the words of one of the committee members who objected to the IOM recommendations, the ‘evaluation for evidence lacked transparency … the process tended to result in a mix of objective and subjective determination through the lens of advocacy,” Monahan continued. “This administration is promoting mandates that will violate the consciences of millions.”
Americans United for Life president Charmaine Yoest also weighed in in opposition to it.
“Ideologically-driven recommendations became policy,” Yoest noted, “when the Obama Administration adopted the Institute of Medicine recommendations. Nearly every American will be forced to pay for the abortion-inducing drug ella in the name of ‘preventive care.’ In addition, the conscience rights of Americans who choose not to distribute life-ending prescriptions may be trampled.”
As part of the health care reform process, AUL’s attorneys testified about the guidelines during hearings held by the Institute of Medicine. However, among the groups chosen to effectively help write the health care plan for all Americans was Planned Parenthood.
AUL attorneys noted that the Obama Administration has offered an exceedingly narrow conscience protection that leaves the majority of pro-life Americans vulnerable by so narrowly defining the concept of “religious employer,” that most religious schools, hospitals, and charitable organizations would be excluded from its protection. Moreover, an organization such as AUL and its sister organization, Americans United for Life Action — with pro-life missions, but no religious affiliation — are unquestionably unprotected by the Administration’s fig-leaf conscience protection.
“The preventive care provision of the health care law was intended to prevent diseases, not to end pregnancies,” said Yoest. “Americans United Life Action urges Congress to pass the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, H.R. 1179, to address today’s unconscionable mandate.”
But NARAL, a top pro-abortion organization, supports the Obama administration’s decision.
Bill Saunders of Americans United for Life is also concerned about the recommendations:
PPACA requires all private health insurance plans to provide coverage of “preventive care for women,” not just those plans participating in the insurance exchanges that the law requires be established by 2014. These services must be covered without cost-sharing, meaning these services must be fully covered without a co-pay. Significantly, this means that no American will be able to choose a health insurance plan that does not cover what is determined to be “preventive care for women.”
Instead of defining “preventive care” in the statute, Congress left this determination to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Tasked with advising HHS, the IOM serves an important role in determining what constitutes “preventive care for women.”
At the IOM’s three public meetings on “preventive care,” groups that were invited to present to IOM on “women’s issues” nearly all took a public stance in favor of abortion. The list included Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, who stands to gain financially if abortion and abortion-inducing drugs are included in this mandate. This huge conflict of interest was not disclosed at the meeting.
At the IOM meetings, nearly every official presenter urged that all FDA approved contraceptivesbe included in the preventive care mandate. Such a definition would require coverage for so-called emergency contraceptives, including ella, which can kill a human embryo even after implantation. Thus, if “contraception” is included in the definition of “preventive care,” Americans will be forced to subsidize abortion-causing drugs with their insurance premiums. And that is precisely what we expect the IOM will announce on Wednesday.
Pro-life groups may call on members of Congress to pass legislation that would further mitigate the effects of the HHS adoption of the regulations.
WORLDCHINESE TODDLER LEFT BLOODY IN HIT-AND-RUN DIES OF INJURIES
- Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:56am by
Scott Baker
- Email »
BEIJING (AP) — A toddler who was twice run over by vans and then ignored by passers-by on a busy market street died Friday a week after the accident and after days of bitter soul-searching over declining morality in China.
The Guangzhou Military District General Hospital said that the 2-year-old girl, Wang Yue, died shortly after midnight of brain and organ failure. “Her injuries were too severe and the treatment had no effect,” intensive care unit director Su Lei told reporters.
The plight of the child, nicknamed Yueyue, came to symbolize what many Chinese see as a decay in public morals after heady decades of economic growth and rising prosperity.
Gruesome closed-circuit camera video of last Thursday’s accident, aired on television and posted on the Internet, showed Yueyue toddling along the hardware market street in the southern city of Foshan. A van strikes her, slows and then resumes driving, rolling its back right wheel over the child. As she lays with blood pooling, 18 people walk or cycle by and another van strikes her before a scrap picker scoops her up.
See the video in our original report by clicking here.
Yueyue’s death touched off another round of hand-wringing about society and personal responsibility. Many comments posted to social media sites said “we are all passers-by.”
Li Xiangping, a professor of religion at Huadong University, said on a Twitter-like service that it is too easy to blame others. “What after all prompted such a sad phenomenon? Officials? The rich? Or is it our own cold-heartedness?” Li said on Sina Corp.’s Weibo.
Police have detained the drivers of both vans on suspicion of causing a traffic accident but have not said what formal charges they would face and if manslaughter would be among them now that the girl has died.
The people who could be seen on the video passing by the injured Yueyue have recounted being harassed for ignoring her. The respected Southern Metropolis Daily newspaper quoted a man it identified only as a hardware merchant Mr. Chen as saying that he had been receiving crank calls ever since someone picked him out as the 16th passer-by. He said he hadn’t noticed the child.
Some experts said an unwillingness to help others is an outgrowth of urbanization as migrants pour into cities and create neighborhoods of strangers.
“Rapid urbanization not only affects China or Foshan, but anywhere in the world where you have a lot of high-rise buildings, where there is high population density, then the relationship with the neighbors, and with each other is affected,” said Yao Yue, a psychologist and director of telephone help-line for distressed people in Beijing.
Gallup: Obama concludes worst polling quarter of his presidency
POSTED AT 1:25 PM ON OCTOBER 21, 2011 BY ED MORRISSEY
PRINTER-FRIENDLY
Gallup published its quarterly analysis of its presidential polling, and the good news is that Obama set a new record. That’s good news for his opponents, however, as Obama hit a new low of 41%. The quarter-on-quarter decline was the worst of his presidency since the third quarter results (via Andrew Malcolm):
President Barack Obama’s 11th quarter in office was the worst of his administration, based on his quarterly average job approval ratings. His 41% approval average is down six percentage points from his 10th quarter in office, and is nearly four points below his previous low of 45% during his seventh quarter.These results are based on Gallup Daily tracking from July 20-Oct. 19, 2011. During this time, Obama’s approval rating ranged narrowly between 38% and 43% for all but a few days of the quarter. The 38% approval ratings, registered on several occasions, are the lowest of his presidency to date.The most notable event in Obama’s 11th quarter was probably the negotiations to raise the federal debt ceiling in late July and early August. Shortly after the agreement was reached, the stock market plummeted after Standard and Poor’s downgraded the U.S. credit rating. Later, the government’s jobs report showed no new net jobs were created in August, a sign the economy was still a long way from recovery. The president has been unsuccessful so far in getting Congress to pass the jobs bill he proposed in early September.For the record, this is the worst level of support in the 11th quarter since Jimmy Carter’s 31% in Gallup’s series. Carter ended up being a one-term President both for what preceded that 11th quarter result, and for what followed it — the Iranian hostage crisis and 444 days of futility.
The good news? The only other presidents with below-majority 11th quarter polling were Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. However, there are significant differences in the comparisons. By the time the 11th quarter rolled around for Reagan, the economic recovery had already started and was building steam. For Clinton, the poll came in the middle of the HillaryCare debacle, and while Clinton was making a successful triangulation on welfare reform and economic policy to recapture the momentum.Gallup notes that the measure in the 12th and 13th quarters are more indicative of what will happen in the next election cycle, but this is notable for another reason. This includes at least six weeks of polling after Obama’s decision to strike a much more populist, class-warfare tone in Washington, a strategy that undoubtedly at least inspired the Occupy movement, if not explicitly coordinated with that effort. There is no particular reason for such a sharp dropoff in approval otherwise — no big economic setback, no significantly bad outcome militarily or diplomatically, either. This looks like a very good indication that Obama’s attempt to appease the hard Left has further marginalized him with the overall electorate, and if Obama can’t produce economic growth quickly, this trend could turn into a rout.
OCTOBER 21, 2011, 12:48 PM ETSeptember Jobless Rates by State
By Josh MitchellThe federal government’s latest snapshot of state and regional unemployment is out, and New Mexico appears to be one of the few somewhat-bright spots.The state saw the biggest drop in unemployment in September from a year ago, the U.S. Labor Department reported Friday in its latest breakdown of the 9.1% unemployment rate across the nation.New Mexico’s 6.6% unemployment rate for September is two percentage points lower than it was a year ago. Only three other states — Florida, Oregon and Massachusetts — reported statistically significant decreases over the year, the new data show.
New Mexico’s growth tracks closely with that of the entire country, Mark Snead, an economist at the Denver Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, said Thursday, according to the New Mexico Business Weekly. Mr. Snead said the U.S. economy averaged a 2.5% growth rate over the past nine quarters, according to the paper.“You have had a very rapid turnaround and it looks like things are finally going your way,” in comparison to the U.S. economy, Snead said at the Albuquerque Economic Forum’s monthly breakfast meeting, the New Mexico Business Weekly reported . “You had a false start [in 2010], but are now on track with the U.S. cycle. Your growth potential is showing again.”Snead said the state’s mining and manufacturing sectors have grown recently, the paper reported.The Labor Department’s latest snapshot reflects an otherwise stubborn jobs picture. While half the states saw the jobless rate drop in September from the previous month, the rest, along with Washington, DC., registered an increase or no change. North Dakota (3.5%) and Nebraska (4.2%) had the lowest unemployment rates.REAL TIME ECONOMICS HOME PAGE
Email
Printer Friendly- Share:
Oct 21, 10:27 AM EDT
Stimulus funds paid foreign workers in Oregon
*
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- A federal investigation found that at least $7 million in federal stimulus money intended to provide jobs for unemployed Oregonians instead paid wages to 254 foreign workers.The Oregonian reports (http://bit.ly/qIcQRW ) the money went for forest cleanup jobs in central Oregon in 2009 when unemployment was over 11 percent.Contractors told federal regulators they could not find enough local workers for the jobs and brought in foreign workers.A report this week from the Labor Department's inspector general found the contractors used legal loopholes but violated no laws or regulations.Congressman Peter DeFazio, who asked for the investigation, says it's "obscene that U.S. companies were rewarded for abusing our American workers and immigration laws to undercut competition and squeeze more profits out of contracts."---Information from: The Oregonian,http://www.oregonlive.com
Where the jobs aren’t…
By Andrew BiggsOctober 21, 2011, 9:18 am- A A A
Harry Reid apparently thinks the real jobs problem is in the public sector, saying “It’s very clear that private sector jobs are doing just fine.” I’ll let the chart below, which tracks unemployment rates for public employees versus similar private sector workers—meaning, those with similar education, experience, and so forth—speak for itself.
TO CONTINUE READING THE BLOG, GO HERE:https://docs.google.com/document/d/10GklnNKudQ4TT6kXfcUCFK8OKpjSmHKqKGruLQvvy3E/edit?pli=1&hl=en_US
This was entirely predictable. The Muslim Brotherhood is Egypt, jihadists in Libya and the Muslim Brotherhood in America have joined the Nazi party and the uber-left destroyers in a sinister cabal to bring down America.
Iranian students demonstrate in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street Leftists: “Down with the United States,” “Death to Israel,” “Down with Capitalism" Jihadwatch
"The people of the United States have become fed up with moral corruption of the country’s officials, they added." That is certainly true.
Leftist/Islamic Supremacist Alliance Update: "Tehran students hold demo in solidarity with Occupy Wall St," from the Tehran Times, October 22:
TEHRAN –A number of students from universities across Tehran held a demonstration outside the Swiss Embassy on Saturday to express their solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Iran and the United States do not have diplomatic relations, and the Swiss Embassy in Tehran hosts the U.S. Interests Section in Iran.
The demonstrators chanted slogans in support of the protesters and denounced the crackdown on the protests.
The students also set the flags of the United States and the Zionist regime on fire and chanted “Down with the United States,” “Death to Israel,” “Down with Capitalism,” and other slogans.
A number of students also delivered speeches at the event, in which they said that true democracy could only be established under the banner of religion.
They also said that the Occupy Wall Street movement has been inspired by the tide of popular uprisings rolling across the Middle East and North Africa region.
The people of the United States have become fed up with moral corruption of the country’s officials, they added.
Analysts say demonstrations in Western countries which followed the Occupy Wall Street movement mark the start of a new uprising against the greed of the capitalism.
Ramin Shamsaii, a student who was present at the demonstration, said liberal democracy is intended to “deceive” people. Shamsaii said “real democracy is only realized under the umbrella of religious democracy.”
He added so long as religious democracy is not established “the world will remain in darkness.”...
"Religious democracy" = Sharia = Islamic supremacism.
Occupy Boston Protesters Arrested For Dealing Heroin – With 6 Year-Old in Tent
Posted by Jim Hoft on Sunday, October 23, 2011, 1:07 PMA demonstrator wrapped in a blanket sits at the edge of the Occupy Boston tent village in Boston early Tuesday Oct. 11, 2011. Police arrested people sleeping in an expansion of the campsite on an adjacent parcel of the Rose Kennedy Greenway in Boston. (Josh Reynolds /AP)
Yup. They’re just like the tea party.
Police arrested two Obama-endorsed Occupy Boston protesters and charged them with distribution of a class heroin and possession with intent to distribute a class A drug within 1,000 feet of a school zone. They were dealing out of their tent.
Verum Serum reported this from the Boston Herald:
Two Occupy Boston members have been arrested on drug charges, Boston police said yesterday.
Bostonians Isaac Bell, 34, and Charlene Dumont, 31, were both charged with distribution of a class A drug (heroin) and possession with intent to distribute a class A drug within 1,000 feet of a school zone, police say.
The 6-year-old child who was living with them in a tent is now staying with family members, police said.
The arrests were made Friday after police said they received “multiple reports of drug activity in and around” Occupy Boston’s Rose Kennedy Greenway encampment.
Also this weekend, protest-minded vandals made their mark on 21 downtown buildings, police said.
At the Bank of America building at 100 Federal St., vandals spray-painted “Occupy,” “Bad for America” and “Yer building is crowding our skyline,” while the international anarchist symbol was painted on buildings at 100 Summer St., 101 Arch St. and 65 Franklin St.
October 23, 2011 Protesters Occupy GE CEO Jeff Immelt's Connecticut Front Lawn
By Clare O'Connor, Forbes Staff
Occupy Wall Street protesters took a field trip from Zuccotti Park on Saturday morning, all the way to the wealthy suburban enclave of New Canaan, Conn., where they took their anger at income and tax disparity to GE CEO Jeff Immelt’s front lawn.
“In the land of the free they tax me but not G.E.!” read the invitation to protesters to take an hour bus ride to Immelt’s family home. “General Electric made billions last year; they paid no taxes, outsourced thousands of jobs, and got over $3 billion in tax refunds! Join us on a free bus trip to G.E’s CEO’s front lawn to see how our friends in the 1% live.”
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/jeffrey-immelt/2011/10/23/protesters-occupy-ge-ceo-jeff-immelts-connecticut-front-lawn#ixzz1bdmdyhX8
Sunday, October 23, 2011
U.S. WARNS OF IMMINENT THREAT OF JIHADIST ATTACK IN KENYA
A year after Obama spent $24 million to assist in changing the Kenya constitution to a sharia compliant, non-Muslims are facing increased brutal and bloody jihad from the ghazis. Obama campaigned as far back as 2006 and $upported pro-Islamic Raila Odinga in Kenya, and the sharia compliant constitution was the poisonous fruit of that dangerous liaison. Obama praised Kenya for approving the controversial new constitution that partially implemented Sharia law within Kenya’s borders.It will be interesting to see how Obama handles the Islamic war against his native homeland after helping to establish sharia courts in Kenya.
U.S. warns of imminent threat of jihadist attack in Kenya Jihadwatch
The jihadists from Somalia's Al-Shabaab have threatened Kenya: "your skyscrapers will be destroyed, your tourism will disappear." In other words, they are threatening to turn the place into Somalia. "U.S. embassy warns of imminent threat in Kenya," by Yara Bayoumy for Reuters, October 22:
NAIROBI (Reuters) - The U.S. embassy in Kenya warned of a threat to American citizens in the country after Nairobi launched a cross-border operation against Islamist militants in Somalia.
The embassy in a note to U.S. citizens living in or visiting Kenya said on Saturday that reprisal attacks could be directed at "prominent Kenyan facilities and areas where foreigners are known to congregate, such as malls andnight clubs."
The statement said the embassy had taken measures to limit official U.S. government travel to Kenya.
Kenya launched its boldest incursion yet into its anarchic neighbor six days ago after a wave of kidnappings against foreigners that Nairobi has blamed on the al Qaeda-linked al Shabaab militants.
The rebels have denied responsibility for the kidnappings and said Nairobi was using them as a pretext for an attack.
The rebels have warned Nairobi to withdraw from its southern strongholds or risk bringing the "flames of war" into Kenya.
Posted by Pamela Geller on Sunday, October 23, 2011 at 02:19 PM in Kenya's killing fields | Permalink
GROUND ZERO MOSQUETEER GAMAL, RAT SLUMLORD
Rats. Surprising? No. But true to form.Mosque developer can't take care of vermin-infested apartment building NY Post
The developer who wants to build a $100 million mosque and community center near Ground Zero can’t take care of a rat-ridden apartment building with just 14 units.
Sharif El-Gamal, the main developer behind the mosque, has nearly 400 open violations that he has refused to fix despite a court order. His company owes the city $61,633 in fines, fees and taxes for the property at 1835 Amsterdam Ave.
El-Gamal, a principal in the company that owns the Washington Heights building, is due in court Thursday. If he doesn’t showup, he risks being sent to jail.
He already failed to appear at a Sept. 28 hearing.
Tenant Madeline Javier has been locked in a legal battle with El-Gamal and his partners to try to fix the problems in her $647-a-month apartment.
She claims in legal papers that her bathroom ceiling collapsed, blocking the tub, toilet and sink, and that dust and vermin worsened her and her children’s asthma. She said the conditions forced her to flee to live in her mother’s home for two years.
“It’s really bad,” Javier said. “They always promise they’re going to fix, and they don’t do nothing.”
More than 150 complaints about the building, including rats, roaches and lack of heat, were logged with the city from July 2010 to May 2011.
The building’s staircase “was obstructed with construction debris, and the fire escapes were also obstructed,” according to legal papers.
There are 366 housing-code violations that the owner hasn’t addressed, according to the city Department of Housing Preservation and Development.
Read more.
AllenWestRepublic
Federal authorities to shut off all TV and radio communications simultaneously 11/9/11 at 2PM ET
If you have ever wondered about the government’s ability to control the civilian airwaves, you will have your answer on November 9th.
On that day, federal authorities are going to shut off all television and radio communications simultaneously at 2:00PM EST to complete the first ever test of the nationalEmergency Alert System (EAS).
This isn’t a wild conspiracy theory. The upcoming test is posted on the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureauwebsite.
Only the President has the authority to activate EAS at the national level, and he has delegated that authority to the Director of FEMA. The test will be conducted jointly by theDepartment of Homeland Security (DHS) through FEMA, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Weather Service(NWS).
In essence, the authority to seize control of all television and civilian communication has been asserted by the executive branch and handed to a government agency.
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Report: President's buddy gave grants to fraud suspect
Chicago woman accused of making off with $500,000
Posted: September 24, 2011
10:30 pm Eastern
© 2011 WND
| * Sen. Barack Obama |
The Washington-based Judicial Watch, the government watchdog that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, is noting that most media reports about an alleged fraud case in Chicago – and in fact even the government news releases about it – have neglected to mention that "a close friend, adviser and donor of President Obama" is "embroiled in the scandal."
The case, according to the U.S. attorney's office in the central district of Illinois, involves Margaret A. Davis, a Chicago woman who formerly served as program director for the Chicago Chapter of the National Black Nurses Association.
She is suspected of defrauding various state grant programs of approximately $500,000, and the 59-year-old is accused in a 16-count indictment with 14 counts of mail fraud and two counts of money laundering.
"It's the taboo portion of the story that's been ignored by the mainstream media and conveniently omitted in government press releases announcing the June federal indictment a month after it was filed," Judicial Watch said.
"What the feds haven't revealed is that the state agency that gave Davis all the money, the Illinois Department of Public Health, was run by one of Obama's closest pals, Dr. Eric Whitaker, when the cash was disbursed. We know this only because Chicago's conservative-leaning newspaper has been digging around. This week it published a lengthy article connecting the dots between Whitaker and the corruption scheme," Judicial Watch said.
That report,from the Sun Times, said under Whitaker, the Illinois Department of Public Health awarded Davis a "no-bid contract and seven AIDS- and cancer-related grants that became part of her $500,000 cash-siphoning scheme, prosecutors say."
"Whitaker – who's now a top executive at the University of Chicago Medical Center – has not been accused of any wrongdoing. He says he couldn't have known about the problems the Davis indictment describes and that he and his staff acted quickly when they became aware of problems with other contractors," the report said.
It said federal authorities have demanded information from the health department about a wide range of outreach programs that Whitaker supervised.
He had been hired for the post by then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2003 on Obama's recommendation.
"During Whitaker's four-year tenure, the agency spent millions of taxpayer dollars on highly questionable publicity campaigns to educate African-Americans and other minorities about common disease in the communities, mainly AIDS," Judicial Watch said.
The watchdog organization said Whitaker had referred to the indicted nurse as 'the ultimate advocate for health care and human services.'"
Judicial Watch added, "He seems to have little worries as he enjoys his lucrative, private-sector job. In 2007 Whitaker resigned to join Michelle Obama at the University of Chicago Medical Center where he makes more than $670,000 a year as executive vice president for strategic affiliations and associate dean for community-based research."
The newspaper said Whitaker and several others were named in a subpoena seeking their state-government emails earlier. But none of those was charged.
The Sun-Times said during the 2008 campaign, "Whitaker frequently traveled with Obama, and he remains part of the president's inner circle. He vacationed with the president in Martha's Vineyard late last month and attended three White House parties earlier this year."
Read more:Report: President's buddy gave grants to fraud suspecthttp://www.wnd.com/?pageId=348169#ixzz1bdEP6IDf
Solyndra to Auction Assets, But Taxpayers Won’t See a Dime
Lachlan MarkayOctober 21, 2011 at 2:14 pm
As part of its bankruptcy proceedings, defunct solar company Solyndra will auction off thousands of items from its California production facility on Nov. 2 and 3. But taxpayers won’t see a dime of the proceeds, due to the Energy Department’s decision to subordinate taxpayers to Solyndra’s private financiers in repayment of their investments.
As I explained in a Friday column in the Washington Examiner, DOE has developed an unprecedented interpretation of the law to allow Solyndra’s private investors to recoup $75 million of their investment before taxpayers are repaid.
Heritage Global Partners, which is conducting the auction, told Scribe that the money raised “will not be anywhere near” $75 million, meaning the proceeds will go entirely towards repaying Solyndra’s private investors (though later asset sales may exceed that threshold).
DOE’s legal position is without precedent in the history of its loan guarantee program, as I explain in the Examiner:
Two Treasury Department officials who testified before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee last week said they had never before seen taxpayers subordinated to private investors in the repayment of a government loan.
Until Solyndra, that is. In February 2011, the Energy Department helped refinance the struggling solar company’s loan in a way that gave private lenders priority in repayment of their loans.
Under the restructuring agreement, the first $75 million of private investment would be repaid before taxpayers saw a dime. Reps. Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., who chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee and its investigative subcommittee, respectively, said the restructuring agreement “violated the plain letter of the law.”
The upcoming asset sale includes thousands of pieces of office equipment, computers, power tools, assembly line machinery, and even solar panels. But because the expected returns from the auction do not exceed $75 million, the government won’t recoup any of the taxpayer money used (unsuccessfully) to prop up the company.
*****UPDATE: Contacted about these revelations, Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), who chairs the House Energy and Commerce investigative subcommittee, called the news “a sobering reminder that taxpayers are on the hook for a half billion dollars because of DOE’s misdeeds.”
Posted in Energy and Environment, Scribe
Print This PostSOLYNDRA IS ANOTHER ISSUE WHERE THE WHITE HOUSE IS REFUSING TO RELEASE ALL DOCUMENTS THAT WOULD VERIFY TO TAXPAYERS, OR AT THIS POINT, CONFIRM THAT THIS COMPANY WAS USED FRAUDULENTLY AS A DONOR FUNNEL FOR OBAMA’S CAMPAIGN FINANCE MACHINE. INITIAL BANKRUPTCY CLAIM WAS $535 MILLION IN TAXPAYER DOLLARS. AFTER A MISPRINT OF $535 BILLION IN MY OWN THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS IN THE LAST NEWSLETTER, THE WHITE HOUSE REFUSED TO RELEASE THE DOCUMENTS, SO WE NOW KNOW 2 THINGS:
1) OBAMA WAS USING SOLYNDRA FOR FRAUD, AND SOLYNDRA WILL DONATE OR HAS DONATED THIS MONEY TO HIS CAMPAIGN, PROBABLY THE ONLY WAY DEMOCRATS OUTFUNDRAISED RECENTLY, AND
2) THE FRAUD IS MORE THAN $535 MILLION, AND THAT IS SERIOUS FRAUD OF TAXPAYERS, IN ADDITION TO FRAUD CHARGES OF THE 2008 ELECTION FOR LYING UNDER OATH ABOUT BEING A CITIZEN AND MISREPRESENTING HIS CAMPAIGN AND MOTIVES FOR BEING PRESIDENT.
DON’T BE SURPRISED TO SEE THESE FLOATING AROUND TOWN....
| * | The Corner ABOUT | ARCHIVE | E-MAIL | LOG IN | EMAIL FRIEND Subscribe to National Review and get 75% off the newsstand price! |
*| Obama’s Solyndra Veto Threat By Andrew Stiles So far this year, President Obama has threatened to veto legislation to restrict public funding for abortions, any meaningful attempt at entitlement reform and, most recently, repeal of the CLASS Act, a program his own administration admits is functionally inoperable. Just yesterday, he issued yet another veto warning, threatening to reject any appropriations bill “that undermines critical domestic priorities or national security through funding levels or language restrictions, contains earmarks, or fails to make the tough choices to cut where needed while maintaining what we need to spur long-term job creation and win the future.” In a letter from OMB director Jack Lew to congressional appropriators, the administration cites “critical domestic priorities” necessary to “win the future” such as full funding for the implementation of Obamacare, which presumably includes the CLASS Act, full funding for the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory regime and, last but not least, full funding for the Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs. That’s right, the same “green” energy initiative that brought us Solyndra, and for which the administration has requested no less than $1.95 billion this year. Republicans will presumably put the president’s words to the test. As well they should.
|
Share191
Conservatives Revolt in House to Help Defeat Stopgap Spending Bill
by Audrey Hudson09/21/2011
House conservatives unexpectedly bolted from the Republican leadership on Wednesday and helped Democrats vote down a $1.43 trillion stopgap spending measure to keep the federal government operating when the 2011 fiscal year ends next week. The measure was defeated 195 yeas to 230 nays, and as the fifteen-minute vote stretched to a half hour, 48 Republicans ultimately voted no.
Although no one in the Republican Party spoke out against the bill during the two hours of debate on the House floor, some said afterward it allowed the temporary spending through Nov. 18 at too high a rate.
Conservatives are still smarting from the debt-ceiling deal and insist that the lower spending levels they approved in Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R.-Wis.) budget be adhered to.
“It's business as usual, with another missed deadline and another missed opportunity to finally put an end to the out-of-control spending that has put our nation's economic health in crisis,” said Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R.-Kan.). “This level of spending is far from meeting the goal we set for ourselves before coming to Washington last November.”
The defeat will have House Republican leaders scrambling to find a compromise within their own party before recess begins next week to observe Rosh Hashanah, though some conceded privately they knew they didn’t have enough votes to pass the measure.
At least three conservative Republicans, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming and Tom Graves of Georgia, sent a letter to House leaders telling them beforehand to stick to the Ryan numbers.
“The House simply cannot push the level of discretionary spending for the coming year upwards as its first action after the extended debt ceiling debate,” the letter said.
“Given the current state of the U.S. economy, taxpayers' continued focus on cutting deficits and reducing the national debt, and the global attention to spending issues, it would be difficult to conceive of a less opportune time to send such a clear message that Washington continues to be tone deaf when it comes to federal spending,” the letter said.
While Republicans said the measure allowed too much spending, Democrats opposed the bill because they wanted billions more in spending for disaster relief.
The so-called Continuing resolution (CR) was necessary because none of the 12 appropriation measures have passed Congress or been signed into law by President Obama.
“This is not a departure from our path of restoring fiscal sanity,” said Rep. Rob Woodall (R.-Ga.). “We're committed to continuing on that path, but unfortunately, the actions of the other body leave us no choice but to consider this Continuing Resolution today.”
Rep. Louise Slaughter, (D.-N.Y.) said, “Not a single appropriation bill has been enacted … despite the Republicans' pledge to America.”
“Throughout this failed process, they have blamed everyone but themselves,” Slaughter said. “They’ve worked to fulfill their campaign pledges to Grover Norquist and the far Right.”
The Republican-controlled House has passed all 12 spending bills out of committee, and half of those have passed the House and been sent to the Senate. However, only one bill has passed the Democrat-controlled Senate.
“I’m not going to point the finger of blame at anyone, I’m keeping my hands at my side,” said Rep. David Drier (R.-Calif.) chairman of the House Rules Committee.
“But we inherited a hell of a mess,” Drier said.
“With all due respect, our friends on the other side of the aisle didn’t write a budget this year, and that took up a lot of time,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R.-Okla.).
The CR would keep government operating at its current level until Nov. 18, to give Congress more time to pass all of the appropriation measures. The CR includes an additional $3.6 billion for the Federal Emergency management Agency (FEMA) and other emergency spending that Republicans have offset by more than $1 billion by cutting guaranteed loans to build new green automobiles.
Democrats objected because they want $6.9 billion in emergency spending without any offsets, and without their support in the Senate to pass the measure before Congress adjourns this week to observe Rosh Hashanah, the government faces a shutdown.
“We’re having 100-year floods, every year,” said Rep. Edward Markey (D.-Mass). “The planet is warming, the weather is worsening. What is the response of Republicans? They have to find the money, they say, for disaster relief. What does the Tea Party want? They want to cut the clean-car factory fund.”
The emergency funding is intended to pay for disaster relief from recent hurricanes and the East Coast earthquake, as well as flood control projects for the Army Corps of Engineers.
“Using offsets to pay for disaster relief is the rule here, it is not the exception,” said Rep. Hal Rogers (R.-Ky.) chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
Even in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Rogers said, Congress offset that emergency spending.
If the $3 billion is not enough to fund disaster spending until mid November, Rogers said, the Obama administration can come back to Congress then with documentation to show more is needed.
“It’s simply a ruse to spend more money in other areas without being responsible,” Cole said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) said that when the measure comes to the Senate for a vote this week, he would insert the additional spending. By changing the legislation, Reid would trigger additional congressional procedures, which puts the entire legislation on a precarious time line of passing before the fiscal year ends Sept. 30.
“We're not going to cave on this,” Reid said.
Rep. Eliot Engel, a New York Democrat whose district includes the Bronx and Rockland and Westchester Counties, said his area was “devastated by Irene,” and that demanding spending cuts “in times of disaster” is “ridiculous logic.”
“Try telling my constituents who are struggling in the aftermath of the hurricane, ‘Sorry, we have to find offsets,’ ” Engel said. Rep. Steve Womack (R.-Ark.) said Democrats are using Republicans as a “political prop designed to make us look hard-hearted.”
“Nothing could be further from the truth,” Womack said.
Audrey Hudson, an award-winning investigative journalist, is a Congressional Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS. A native of Kentucky, Mrs. Hudson has worked inside the Beltway for nearly two decades -- on Capitol Hill as a Senate and House spokeswoman, and most recently at The Washington Times covering Congress, Homeland Security, and the Supreme Court. Follow Audrey on Twitter and Facebook.
How the Obama administration bungled the Iraq withdrawal negotiations
Posted By Josh Rogin Friday, October 21, 2011 - 3:26 PM Share
The Obama administration is claiming it always intended to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year, in line with the president's announcement today, but in fact the White House tried hard to negotiate a deal for thousands of troops to remain -- and failed."I can report that as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over," President Barack Obama said today, after speaking with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. "The last American soldier will cross the border out of Iraq with their held -- heads held high, proud of their success, and knowing that the American people stand united in our support for our troops. That is how America's military efforts in Iraq will end."
Deputy National Security Advisors Denis McDonough and Tony Blinken said in a White House briefing that this was always the plan.
"What we were looking for was an Iraq that was secure, stable, and self reliant, and that's what we got here, so there's no question that was a success," said McDonough, who traveled to Iraq last week.
But what about the extensive negotiations the administration has been engaged in for months, regarding U.S. offers to leave thousands of uniformed soldiers in Iraq past the deadline? It has been well reported that those negotiations, led by U.S. Ambassador James Jeffrey, Army Gen.Lloyd Austin, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and White House official Brett McGurk, had been stalled over the U.S. demand that the remaining troops receive immunity from Iraqi courts.
"What the president preferred was for the best relationship for the United States and Iraq going forward. That's exactly what we have now," McDonough said, barely acknowledging the administration's intensive negotiations.
"We talked about immunities, there's no question about that.... But the bottom line is that the decision you heard the president talk about today is reflective of his view and the prime minister's view of the kind of relationship we want to have going forward. That relationship is a normal relationship," he said.
Of course, the U.S.-Iraqi relationship is anything but normal. Following nine years of war, the death of over 4,000 Americans and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and the disbursement of at least hundreds of billions of dollars of American taxpayer' money, the United States now stands to have significantly less influence in Iraq than if the administration had been able to come to terms with Iraq over a troop extension, according to experts and officials.
"Iraq is not a normal country, the security environment is not normal, the embassy is not a normal embassy," said Marisa Cochrane Sullivan, managing director at the Institute for the Study of War, who traveled to Iraq this summer and has been sounding the alarm about what she saw as the mishandling of the negotiations ever since.
For more evidence that the administration actually wanted to extend the troop presence in Iraq, despite today's words by Obama and McDonough, one only has to look at the statements of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
In July, Panetta urged Iraqi leaders to, "Dammit, make a decision" about the U.S. troop extension. In August, he told reporters that, "My view is that they finally did say, ‘Yes.'" On Oct. 17, he was still pushing for the extension and said, "At the present time I'm not discouraged because we're still in negotiations with the Iraqis."
Sullivan was one of 40 conservative foreign policy professionals who wrote to Obama in September to warn that even a residual force of 4,000 troops would "leave the country more vulnerable to internal and external threats, thus imperiling the hard-fought gains in security and governance made in recent years at significant cost to the United States."
She said that the administration's negotiating strategy was flawed for a number of reasons: it failed to take into account Iraqi politics, failed to reach out to a broad enough group of Iraqi political leaders, and sent contradictory messages on the troop extension throughout the process.
"From the beginning, the talks unfolded in a way where they largely driven by domestic political concerns, both in Washington and Baghdad. Both sides let politics drive the process, rather than security concerns," said Sullivan.
As recently as August, Maliki's office was discussing allowing 8,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops to remain until next year, Iraqi Ambassador Samir Sumaida'ie said in an interview with The Cable. He told us that there was widespread support in Iraq for such an extension, but the Obama administration was demanding that immunity for U.S. troops be endorsed by the Iraqi Council of Representatives, which was never really possible.
Administration sources and Hill staffers also tell The Cable that the demand that the troop immunity go through the Council of Representatives was a decision made by the State Department lawyers and there were other options available to the administration, such as putting the remaining troops on the embassy's diplomatic rolls, which would automatically give them immunity.
"An obvious fix for troop immunity is to put them all on the diplomatic list; that's done by notification to the Iraqi foreign ministry," said one former senior Hill staffer. "If State says that this requires a treaty or a specific agreement by the Iraqi parliament as opposed to a statement by the Iraqi foreign ministry, it has its head up its ass."
The main Iraqi opposition party Iraqiya, led by former U.S. ally and former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, decided to tie that vote to two non-related issues. It said they would not vote for the troop extension unless Maliki agreed give them control of a high-level policy council and let them choose the minister of defense from their ranks. Maliki wasn't about to do either.
"It was clear from the beginning that Maliki wasn't going to make a move without the support of the other parties behind him," Sullivan explained, adding that the Obama administration focused on Maliki and neglected other actors, such as Allawi. "There was a misunderstanding of how negotiations were unfolding in Iraq. The negotiations got started in earnest far too late."
"The actions don't match the words here," said Sullivan. "It's in the administration's interest to make this look not like they failed to reach an agreement and that they fulfilled a campaign promise. But it was very clear that Panetta and [former Defense Secretary Robert] Gates wanted an agreement."
So what's the consequence of the failed negotiations? One consequence could be a security vacuum in Iraq that will be filled by Iran.
"It's particularly troubling because having some sort of presence there would have really facilitated our policy vis-a-vis the Iranians and what's going on in Syria. The Iranian influence is going up in Iraq," said Andrew Tabler, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "It makes it harder for us to play our cards, and that's a real setback. We've spent a lot of blood and treasure in Iraq. And these days, stability in that region is not what it used to be."
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) echoed those sentiments in a statement today and expressed skepticism that Iraq is as "safe, stable, and self reliant" as the White House claims.
"Multiple experts have testified before my committee that the Iraqis still lack important capacities in their ability to maintain their internal stability and territorial integrity," McKeon said. "These shortcomings could reverse the decade of hard work and sacrifice both countries have endured to build a free Iraq."
Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry (D-MA), in his own Friday statement, backed up the administration's argument that the lack of a troop extension was in the best interest of the United States and Iraq.
"The United States is fulfilling our agreement with an Iraqi government that wants to shape its own future," he said. "The President is also following through on his commitment to end both the conflict in Iraq and our military presence... These moves appropriately reflect the changes on the ground. American troops in Iraq will be coming home, having served with honor and enormous skill."
AFP/Getty Images
EXPLORE:ARAB WORLD,DIPLOMACY,IRAN,IRAQ,OBAMA ADMINISTRATION,STATE DEPARTMENT,U.S. CONGRESS,U.S. FOREIGN POLICYMcCain says U.S. should consider military action in Syria
By Meghashyam Mali - 10/23/11 12:34 PM ETSen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) Sunday called on the United States to consider military action in Syria, where president Bashir al-Assad’s regime has used violence against anti-government protesters seeking democratic reforms.
“Now that military operations in Libya are ending, there will be renewed focus on what practical military options might be considered to protect civilian lives in Syria,” said McCain, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Jordan.
“The Assad regime has spilled too much blood to stay in power. Its days are numbered, but it will use those days to murder more of its own people,” he said. “In this way, there is no moral distinction whatsoever between the case of Syria and that of Libya. The question is, what can be done about it?”
“The Assad regime should not assume that it can get away with mass murder,” he added. “Qaddafi made that mistake, and it cost him everything."In Libya, the U.S. joined a NATO-backed air campaign to oust leader Moammar Gadhafi from power. That operation ended Thursday with Gadhafi’s capture and death at the hands of forces allied with the new Libyan transitional government.
President Obama in the face of strong congressional opposition defended the operation on humanitarian grounds saying that Western intervention was needed to prevent Gadhafi from targeting and killing Libyan civilians.
McCain, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, often disagreed with the president’s strategy in Libya, but was nonetheless a strong supporter of U.S. involvement in NATO’s campaign against Gadhafi.
Speaking Sunday, McCain said that in Syria, there were “growing calls among the opposition for some kind of foreign military intervention.”
McCain's statements represent a shift for the senator. In April, he had downplayed comparisons between the then ongoing-Libyan NATO campaign and the possibility of action in Syria.
"I don't see a scenario right now or anytime in the near future where the injection of U.S. or NATO military action would in any way beneficially help the situation, I'm sorry to say," McCain had said regarding Syria.
HOLMES: Iran does not fear President Obama
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
What is the Obama administration’s response to the Iranian plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador in Washington? To “work closely with our international partners to increase Iran’s isolation,” according to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and unite “world opinion” against Iran, according to Vice President Joseph R. Biden.
There’s only one problem: Iran’s leaders don’t fear Barack Obama or the kind of “isolation” his administration promises.
President Obama thought that softening criticism of Iran and backing off support for Iranians’ democratic aspirations would make the regime more cooperative. Instead, the regime used this policy to ease international pressure over Iran’s nuclear program and ratchet up repression at home. It responded to Mr. Obama’s belated and muted criticism of its crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in 2009 by rounding up, torturing and killing dissidents, and by accelerating uranium enrichment for nuclear weapons.
The administration tried sanctions, but the current crop poses no immediate threat to the regime. The Iranian people, sectors of the economy and even some government factions bridle at them, but not enough to force AyatollahAli Khamenei, the “supreme leader,” to change policies. And though the U.S. bans trade and investment in Iran, others trade with it to varying extents and buy its oil that bankrolls the regime.
Tehran no doubt thinks Mr. Obama can't get heftier sanctions approved. It expects Russia and China to block any attempt at the U.N. Security Council. It doesn’t expect countries to ban its oil in this tight market. Without international unity, proposed sanctions to strangle its international financial transactions and destroy its currency won’t work. That unity, promised by Mr. Obama’s friendlier outreach to Iran, never materialized.
Iran’s leaders don’t expect military force either. Washington already indicated reluctance to exercise that option, despite recent claims it is still “on the table.”
Most of the “hard power” pressure on Iran is believed to have come from the Israelis. The Stuxnet cyber-attack is mainly responsible for the Iranian nuclear program’s difficulties, but all it did was slow its advancement. The amount of enriched uranium the Iranians have today is greater than before the attack. Sanctions may have restricted imports of specialized steel for centrifuges, but they have not stopped progress in the overall program. If U.S. intelligence supported the Stuxnet attack, it was likely the result of work done in George W. Bush’s presidency.
What the Obama administration never understood is that Iran’s leaders never wanted his brand of engagement. The last thing they want is to open up to the West and allow Americans in to bolster democratic opposition. Iran’s leaders fear their own people more than Barack Obama, who in the past made it clear that he was reaching out to the mullahs, not the Iranian people.
Now that none of these policies has worked, the administration is flipping to a position of overt hostility. It is caught between what it doesn’t want to do (threaten force against Iran) and what it can’t do (arrange true international diplomatic isolation). About the only way to get the regime’s full attention - short of attack - is to immediately cut off the money flow and bring the Iranian people back to the streets.
Unfortunately, the administration’s policies make this difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. Undercutting friends like Egypt’s former President Hosni Mubarak has reduced the willingness of other Middle Eastern allies to support U.S. initiatives of any kind. Its “reset” policy toward Russia has not gotten Moscow to cooperate on Iran, and China still resists tough sanctions. And its “engagement” policies toward the regime have diminished the Iranian people’s trust in America and their ability to organize and mount a resistance.
It’s a far cry from the heady days when Mr. Obama spoke to the Iranian people about a “new day,” putting aside three decades of “strained” relations, and building “constructive ties.” There was no new day in Iran. Only more time for the regime to work on its nuclear program and repress its people.
• Kim R. Holmes, a former assistant secretary of state, is a vice president at the Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org). Follow him on Twitter @kimsmithholmes.
Obama speaks at West Wilkes High School in Millers Creek, N.C., on Monday where his three-day bus tour promoting the American Jobs Act made a stop. (Associated Press)
By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times Thursday, October 20, 2011
FOLLOW US ON FACEBOOK
FOLLOW @WASHTIMES
After halting President Obama’s entire $447 billion jobs-stimulus bill last week, the Senate blocked a $35 billion slice of the package in a late-night filibuster vote Thursday that highlighted the lingering questions among both parties over the White House ’s plans.
The 50-50 vote fell 10 short of the 60 votes needed to advance the bill, and saw two Democrats and one independent join with all 47 Republicans in sustaining a bipartisan filibuster.
“Four out of every five Americans who would pay higher taxes are small business owners. That doesn’t sound like a jobs bill to me,” said
Sen. Lamar Alexander, Tennessee Republican.
Minutes later the Senate also blocked Republicans’ counter-proposal, which would have repealed a requirement that would have withheld 3 percent of payments from all government contractors beginning in 2013 — something all sides say is burdensome, but which they can’t agree on how to pay for.
The bill came much closer to seeing action, falling just three votes shy of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. Ten Democrats joined with all Republicans in the chamber to try to advance the bill.
President Obama earlier in the evening had threatened to veto the Republicans’ bill, decrying the $30 billion in discretionary spending cuts he would be forced to make to fund the $11 billion bill.
“Cutting already-tight discretionary program levels even further, as this bill would do, would be a serious mistake,” the
White House said in a statement of policy. “The bill’s unspecified rescission of $30 billion in appropriated funds would cause serious disruption in a range of services supported by the federal government.”
Mr. Obama’s broad $447 billion bill to pay for infrastructure spending, expand last year’s payroll tax cut and transfer federal money to states to fund public teachers and first responders failed in a Senate filibuster last week after lawmakers balked at the surtax Democrats used to pay for it.
Democratic leaders and Mr. Obama had vowed to try to carve the bill up piece-by-piece and send them through Congress to force lawmakers to weigh individual elements such as teacher funding against increases taxes on the wealthy.
But Thursday’s vote showed there is no more appetite for the bill in pieces than there was for it in its entirety.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who crafted Democrats’ strategy, lost three members of his caucus on the teachers bill. Afterwards, though, he focused on the GOP, which voted unanimously against his plan.
“Unfortunately, protecting millionaires and defeating President Obama
are more important to my Republican colleagues than creating jobs and getting our economy back on track,” he said. “Democrats agree with the overwhelming majority of Americans that teachers and first responder jobs are worth defending, while lower taxes for millionaires and billionaires are not.”
© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2011
Income Inequality Explained by Demographics
From my post yesterday on the Enterprise Blog:
The Occupy Wall Street protest has returned national attention to the topic of income inequality; see recent commentary from bloggers Megan McArdle here and James Pethokoukis here andhere. Both highlight empirical evidence that challenges the narrative that income inequality has gotten worse over time.
Most of the discussion on income inequality focuses on the relative differences over time between low-income and high-income American households, but it’s also instructive to analyze the demographic differences among income groups at a given point in time to answer the question: How are high-income households different from low-income households? Recently released data from the Census Bureau (available here, here, and here) for American households by income quintiles in 2010 allows for such a comparison: see the chart above (click to enlarge).
Bottom Line: American households in the top income quintile have almost five times more family members working on average than the lowest quintile, and individuals in higher-income households are far more likely than lower-income households to be well-educated, married, and working full-time in their prime earning years. In contrast, individuals in low-income households are far more likely to be less-educated, working part-time, either very young or very old, and living in single-parent households.
Read more here.
John Bryson nomination to be commerce secretary confirmed by Senate
Bryson was confirmed nearly five months after his May 31 nomination. | AP PhotoCloseBy DARREN GOODE | 10/20/11 7:58 PM EDT
The Senate on Thursday approved John Bryson’s nomination to be Commerce secretary despite some Republican misgivings over his environmental community ties and past support of climate change legislation.
Bryson was confirmed nearly five months following his May 31 nomination after Senate leaders late Wednesday agreed to have this nomination considered on the same 60-vote threshold needed for defeating filibusters.
Continue Reading
POLITICO 44
Latest on POLITICO
"As secretary of Commerce, John Bryson will be a key member of my economic team, working with the business community to promote job creation, foster growth, and help open up new markets around the world for American-made goods," President Barack Obama said in a statement Thursday evening. "At such a critical time for our economy, I nominated John because I believe his decades of experience both in the public and private sector have given him a clear understanding of what it takes to put America on a stronger economic footing and create jobs."
Bryson succeeds Gary Locke, who resigned to become the U.S. ambassador to China.
His supporters touted his diverse experience, which includes former chief of power conglomerate Edison International and president of the California Public Utilities Commission.
“I think he is an exceptional choice by the president … and he is going to be one of our best,” said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).
“Mr. Bryson’s business-minded leadership is needed now more than ever,” Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) added.
Bryson’s nomination was opposed by Republicans such as Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma and John Barrasso of Wyoming due to his co-founding of the Natural Resources Defense Council and support for cap-and-trade legislation.
Inhofe called the NRDC "one of the most radical, left-wing, extreme environmentalist groups."
“This nominee is actually the wrong person at the worst time,” Barrasso said before the vote. Barrasso said President Barack Obama needed to nominate someone whose mission “is to promote job creation, to promote economic growth, to promote sustainable development and improve standards of living for all Americans.
“Instead the president has nominated someone whose political advocacy is, in my opinion, detached from the financial hardships facing tens of millions of Americans today," Barrasso added.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66519.html#ixzz1bSAdr0FP
Earlier this summer, Barrasso distributed to Republican colleagues a one-pager with the heading "Mismatched: John Bryson & the Commerce Department,” in part citing his support of the cap-and-trade bill House Democrats passed in 2009.
Bryson's nomination had also initially attracted drama not of his own doing. Senate Republicans in March threatened to oppose any Commerce secretary nominee due to inaction on pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea that were subsequently approved this month.
Listen
But even some Republicans that also don’t see eye to eye philosophically with Bryson said he was qualified to serve and did not warrant taking the unusual move in blocking his confirmation.
“If I were president of the United States, I would probably not have nominated Mr. Bryson,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said. “But I think we all ought to appreciate the fact that elections do have consequences.”
While noting that Republicans would be nominating their own Cabinet officials if they take over the White House again, McCain — a former chairman of the Commerce Committee and 2008 Republican presidential candidate — said blocking a nominee should be a rare feat done only when that nominee is not fit to serve.
“Now that’s a big difference between whether you think that individual should serve or not,” McCain said. “Now he may not have made statements or done things that we particularly agree with. But I don’t think you can really question Mr. Bryson’s credentials and background … and that should be the criteria in my view.”
Rockefeller’s panel approved his nomination by voice vote earlier this month.
Commerce Committee ranking member Kay Bailey Hutchison noted that Bryson has the backing of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers as well as six former Commerce secretaries under multiple administrations in both parties.
The Senate was not initially expected to take up Bryson’s nomination until after returning from next week’s break. But amid a lapse of amendments being offered to a Senate spending package on the floor, Majority Leader Harry Reid decided to go ahead and bring it up. “Progress is being made, but not nearly enough,” Reid said regarding the spending package five Cabinet departments and several agencies.
This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 7:54 p.m. on October 20, 2011 Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66519_Page2.html#ixzz1bSAREf3U
Misjudging the Iranian Threat
Emil MaineOctober 21, 2011 at 10:30 am
As the Obama Administration has discovered, containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions and support for terrorism and insurgencies requires more than Washington’s willingness to “extend [its] hand.” As Heritage’s Kim Holmes points out, Iran’s foiled plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador on U.S. soil illustrates that Iran’s leaders don’t fear Barack Obama or the “isolation” his Administration promises. The plot also highlights the disturbing consequences of Obama’s “good cop/confused cop” strategy on Iran. While the Obama Administration continues to maintain that all options remain on the table, Washington’s public downplay of the military option undermines its ability to threaten consequences.
What emboldened Iran to attempt such a brazen act on U.S. soil?
In a 2009 video address aimed at Iran’s people, President Obama said his Administration was committed to diplomacy that pursued “constructive ties” between the two countries. But Washington’s willingness to hold diplomatic talks was never really the problem. President George W. Bush’s Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, held the door open for such talks. Tehran’s rejection of diplomatic engagement has less to do with who is in the White House than with Tehran’s fears that opening up to America and the West will breathe life into the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people.
The Obama Administration has misjudged a dangerous adversary. The foiled plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in our nation’s capital demonstrates that the regime’s threats are real, and it is willing to take considerable risks in launching a high-profile terrorist attack for marginal gains. Containing Iran’s ambitions will be difficult, particularly since Obama’s strategy has not garnered sufficient international support to impose the “crippling sanctions” that the Administration promised, and Russia and China continue to delay and dilutesanction efforts in the U.N. Security Council.
Washington can neither credibly threaten the use of force nor forge meaningful international pressure. And that is perhaps what is most disquieting about Obama’s strategy on Iran.
Emil Maine is currently a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: http://www.heritage.org/about/departments/ylp.cfm
Posted in American Leadership
Print This PostAnalysis: Gaddafi's death a warning to Syrian, Yemeni leaders
By Dominic Evans
BEIRUT | Fri Oct 21, 2011 11:06am EDT(Reuters) - The first fled to exile, the second is on trial and the third Arab ruler to be toppled in an Arab revolt died at the hands of rebels he once dismissed as rats.
The killing of Muammar Gaddafi sends a bleak message to Syrian and Yemeni presidents still resisting demands for change that the longer they hold out, the higher the price of failure.
Tunisia's leader Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak both stepped down within a few short weeks of mass protests breaking out against them.
But Syria's President Bashar al-Assad shows no sign of yielding to seven months of unrest, and protesters who called at first for political reform of his tightly controlled Arab country are now openly chanting for his execution.
Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who reneged three times on pledges to hand over power, has already survived an assassination attempt which forced him briefly into exile for medical treatment.
Gaddafi's killing "sends a message for the presidents and the entourage around them -- what fate awaits us even if we are prevailing now?" said Ibrahim Seif, resident scholar at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.
For months Gaddafi had the option of seeking safe haven in sympathetic African countries, Seif said, but chose to stand his ground against a rebel force which, backed by NATO jets, gradually turned the tide against his forces and eventually defeated and killed him.
Neither Assad nor Saleh yet faces the prospect of foreign military intervention, but the longer their standoffs with protesters continue, the smaller the prospect of any deal to end the unrest.
"Some people are now saying that Zine al-Abidine and Mubarak were wise men for leaving in that way," Seif said.
Even if the Yemeni and Syria leaders were determined to stay in power, their close supporters might have second thoughts, he added. "When they see total collapse they have to think twice about what they are doing."
WHAT NEXT?
Successive gains by Libyan rebels, from the capture of the capital Tripoli in August to Gaddafi's killing on Thursday, have been closely monitored elsewhere by protesters and presidents alike.
"Dictators share the same habits and traits -- every time one of their own falls, the others take notice," said Yemeni political analyst Abdulghani al-Iryani. "This will have a big political impact on President Saleh."
But the veteran Yemeni leader is unlikely to be pushed into a dramatic change of strategy.
"Saleh is now calibrating his response. It will be a game of combining military pressure with calls for negotiations," Iryani said. "If things seem to be going his way he will increase military pressure, but if they seem to worsen for him he will open more to reconciliation."
Hafedh al-Buqari, an analyst and president of the Yemen Polling Center, said Gaddafi's death would frighten Saleh but might drive him to be "more stubborn against international pressure" to stand aside.
"Saleh is looking for the fourth option -- the Yemeni option without fleeing or dying. He thinks he can cling to power," he said.
In some Arab countries, where rulers face calls for reform rather than regime change, the bloody end to Gaddafi's 42-year hold on power could still encourage attempts at compromise.
"In Jordan, Morocco and Bahrain, they still have room to maneuver... and I think what happened to Gaddafi will accelerate the process of them engaging with their community," Seif said.
But in Syria, as in Yemen, the news of Gaddafi's death could simply entrench both sides in confrontation, as leaders do all in their powers to avoid sharing his fate.
"It may give courage (to protesters) but it may also give the regime extra impetus to resist any opposition," said Nikolaos Van Dam, a Dutch scholar and former diplomat.
Pointing to the huge military advantage Assad's forces have over his opponents, despite the reported desertions of thousands of Sunni Muslim army conscripts, Van Dam said the impact of Gaddafi's death would be limited.
"The motivation may be stronger, but it doesn't mean success," he said.
Syrian television described the killing as an assassination and stressed the civilian deaths and bomb damage it said NATO had caused -- a repeated theme of state media seeking to show what Western powers might inflict on Syria.
"Most people in the West have thought only about toppling Gaddafi but they haven't thought about what happens afterwards," Van Dam said. "That is the point of the Syrian regime -- is it going to be better when the regime falls?"
(Additional reporting by Erika Solomon in Dubai; Editing by Myra MacDonald)
*HOMELAND INSECURITY
Guess who's lobbying against tracking of al-Qaida in U.S.?
Probes of Islam terrorists show bias against Muslims, says 'civil rights group'
Posted: October 20, 2011 8:05 pm Eastern By Bob Unruh © 2011 WND
| CAIR LOBBIES AGAINST INTEREST OF USA |
An organization that monitors Islamic extremism around the world reports there have been 3,094 people killed in 66 Islamic terror attacks in the United States in recent years, but the activist Council on American Islamic Relations says it is unfair for the nation's Department of Homeland Security to single out Muslims for observation.
CAIR, which calls itself a civil liberties and advocacy organization and says its goal is to "empower American Muslims," is distressed with proposals in Congress that would authorize the federal department to appoint an official to coordinate efforts that would be aimed at deterring and preventing such attacks.
The organization is urging Muslims "and other people of conscience" to lobby members of Congress an oppose the plans that are outlined in Senate Bill 1546, which calls for the DHS secretary to "designate an official … to coordinate efforts to counter violent extremism in the United States, particularly the ideology that gives rise to Islamist terrorism as identified in the 9/11 Commission Report."
Get your autographed copy of Pamela Geller's "Stop the Islamization of America" directly from WND.
A related proposal, pending in the House, is H.B. 3116. It calls for DHS secretary "to designate an official of the department to coordinate efforts to counter homegrown violent Islamist extremism, including the violent ideology of al-Qaida and its affiliated groups, in the United States."
It is the Religion of Peace website that has compiled lists of Muslim attacks around the world. Its list for the United States alone features the 2010 attack in Illinois in which "a Muslim convert shots his family members to 'take them back to Allah.'"
It includes the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington, with a fatality toll in the thousands.
Also included is the 2008 incident in which "a devout Muslim strangles his 25-year-old daughter in an honor killing" and in 2009 when "a woman dies from injuries suffered when her father runs her down with a care for being too 'Westernized.'"
Also in 2006 in Maryland, "a 62-year-old Jewish moviegoer is shot to death by a Muslim gunman in an unprovoked terror attack," and the same year in Denver, "Saying it was 'Allah's choice,' a Muslim shoots four of his co-workers and a police officer."
In 2007 in Salt Lake City, "A Muslim immigrant goes on a shooting rampage at a mall, targeting people buying Valentine's Day cards at a gift shop and killing five."
The website notes that since the Islamic terror attacks on 9/11, there have been 17,881 deadly Islamic terror attacks around the world. For the week of Oct. 8-14, there were 29 jihad attacks with 145 fatalities and 534 critically injured globally. For the month of September, there were 144 attacks with 658 dead and 1,377 critically injured.
But, according to Robert McCaw, CAIR government affairs coordinator, "CAIR, along with the mainstream American Muslim community, utterly rejects violent extremists. Any action that harms innocent civilians is reprehensible, regardless of ideology that drives it. Focusing solely on American Muslims to combat domestic extremism is misguided." However, the legislation doesn't focus "solely" on American Muslims; both proposals target "violent extremism in the United States" and "homegrown violent Islamist extremism, including the violent ideology of al-Qaida."
And both are consistent with the department's purpose to deter and prevent violence from any source, according to the bills themselves.
But CAIR wants the Muslim factor to be ignored.
"The Department of Homeland Security's own statistics show there are a variety of domestic extremist groups threatening the nation and that each deserves serious consideration and consistent attention," McCaw said.
The group is urging Muslims and "people of conscience" to "call members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee about proposed legislation" that focuses on a group that factors largely in the violent extremism in the U.S. and around the world.
"CAIR believes that the legislation, sponsored by Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME), is too narrowly focused and does not go far enough to keep Americans safe from all types of violent extremism," the group said. In a release about the issue, the organization tells people what to say to members of Congress, including to U.S. senators: "I also ask you to ensure that if the Department of Homeland Security Reauthorization Act of 2011 comes to a vote in the Senate, that Section 213 is amended to remove all problematic language that targets ideology and singles out American Muslims for additional scrutiny."
| * |
CAIR also advises supporters to say: "As your constituent, I urge you to oppose any legislation that singles out the American Muslim community for unwarranted scrutiny. I also ask that you support measures that persue (sic) criminal action, not beliefs."
In a letter from DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to Collins, she noted that homegrown violent extremism is "not limited to a single ideology."
But she also wrote, "We know that foreign terrorist groups affiliated with al-Qaida, and individual terrorist thought leaders, are actively seeking to recruit or inspire Westerners to carry out attacks against Western and U.S. targets."
The activism of CAIR and like-minded groups has been getting more attention in recent days.
WND reported this week when the Hyatt Place Hotel in Sugar Land, Texas, abruptly canceled a tea party organization's meeting with author Pamela Geller, who wrote "Stop the Islamization of America."
Geller said the action, apparently in response to telephone calls to the hotel from Islamic activists, puts, "free speech, the cornerstone of our constitutional republic … in serious jeopardy."
"Under the Shariah, criticism of Islam is blasphemy (punishable by death in Muslims countries living under the Shariah). This is the death of free speech in the continuing Islamization of America, as I saw vividly Tuesday night when I was spoke in Houston, Texas. But free people and free speech ultimately prevailed, despite the best efforts of Islamic supremacists to crush them. The Hyatt's cancellation, and the reaction of freedom lovers to it, best illustrates why I wrote my book "Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance:" to show what Islamic supremacists are doing in America today, and how we must fight back."
She said, "I was scheduled to speak Tuesday evening for the Sugar Land Tea Party at the Hyatt Place Houston/Sugar Land. But Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) thugs intimidated the hotel where the event was scheduled to take place, Hyatt Place Houston/Sugar Land, into canceling the event altogether. Giving Tea Party organizers little time to find a new venue, the Hyatt Place in Sugar Land caved to Islamic pressure and agreed to enforce the blasphemy law under the Shariah."
WND also reported that a key individual behind the radical uprisings called "Occupy" protests is also a leading activist for Muslims in Orlando.
The opposition to Geller's address is hardly the first time revelations about CAIR and Shariah have generated a response. The authors of "Muslim Mafia" also have been taken to court by CAIR over the revelations it contains.
The CAIR legal attack on WND's author is far from over. WND needs your help in supporting the defense of "Muslim Mafia" co-author P. David Gaubatz, as well as his investigator son Chris, against CAIR's lawsuit. The book's revelations have led to formal congressional demands for three different federal investigations of CAIR. In the meantime, however, someone has to defend these two courageous investigators who have, at great personal risk, revealed so much about this dangerous group. Although WND has procured the best First Amendment attorneys in the country for their defense, we can't do it without your help. Please donate to WND's Legal Defense Fund now.
Read more: Guess who's lobbying against tracking of <i>al-Qaida</i> in U.S.?http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=358197#ixzz1bRf2o3G9
'Become a Muslim warrior'
by Daniel PipesJerusalem Post
July 3, 2002
*
*
*
*
*Translations of this item:
"Become a Muslim warrior during the crusades or during an ancient jihad." Thus read the instructions for seventh graders in Islam: A Simulation of Islamic History and Culture, 610-1100, a three-week curriculum produced by Interaction Publishers, Inc. In classrooms across the United States, students who follow its directions find themselves fighting mock battles of jihad against "Christian crusaders" and other assorted "infidels." Upon gaining victory, our mock-Muslim warriors "Praise Allah."
Is this a legal activity in American public schools? Interaction says it merely urges students to "respect Islamic culture" through identification with Islam. But the Thomas More Law Center, a public-interest law firm based in Michigan, disagrees and last week filed a federal lawsuit to prohibit one school district, in Byron, California, from further using the Interaction materials on Islam.
The Interaction unit contains many other controversial elements. It has students adopt a Muslim name ("Abdallah," "Karima," etc.). It has them wear Islamic clothing: For girls this means a long-sleeved dress and the head covered by a scarf. Students unwilling to wear Islamic clothes must sit mutely in the back of the class, seemingly punished for remaining Westerners.
Interaction calls for many Islamic activities: taking off shoes, washing hands, sitting on prayer rugs, and practicing Arabic calligraphy.
Students study the Koran, recite from it, design a title page for it, and write verses of it on a banner. They act out Islam's Five Pillars of Faith, including giving zakat (Islamic alms) and going on the pilgrimage to Mecca. They also build a replica of the "sacred Kaaba" in Mecca or another holy building.
It goes on. Seventh graders adopt the speech of pious believers, greeting each other with "assalam aleikoom, fellow Muslims" and using phrases such as "God willing" and "Allah has power over all things."
They pronounce the militant Islamic war-cry, Allahu akbar ("God is great.") They must even adopt Muslim mannerisms: "Try a typical Muslim gesture where the right hand moves solemnly... across the heart to express sincerity."
In the same pious spirit, the curriculum presents matters of Islamic faith as historical fact. The Kaaba, "originally built by Adam," it announces, "was later rebuilt by Abraham and his son Ismail." Really? That is Islamic belief, not verifiable history. In the year 610, Interaction goes on, "while Prophet Muhammad meditated in a cave ... the angel Gabriel visited him" and revealed to him God's Message" (yes, that's Message with a capital "M.") The curriculum sometimes lapses into referring to "we" Muslims and even prompts students to ask if they should "worship Prophet Muhammad, God, or both."
The Thomas More Law Center is absolutely correct: This simulation blatantly contradicts Supreme Court rulings which permit public schools to teach about religion on condition that they do not promote it. Interaction openly promotes the Islamic faith, contrary to what a public school should do. As Richard Thompson of the center notes, the Byron school district "crossed way over the constitutional line when it coerced impressionable 12-year-olds to engage in particular religious rituals and worship, simulated or not."
Islam: A Simulation serves as a recruitment tool for Islam, for children adopting a Muslim persona during several weeks amounts to an invitation to them to convert to Islam. (One can't but wonder did John Walker Lindh take this course?) The educational establishment permits this infraction due to an impulse to privilege non-Western cultures over Western ones. It never, for example, would permit Christianity to be promoted in like fashion ("Become a Christian warrior during the crusades," for example.)
Militant Islamic lobbying groups want Islam taught as the true religion, not as an academic subject. They take advantage of this indulgence, exerting pressure on school systems and on textbook writers. Not surprisingly, Interaction Publishers thanks two militant Islamic organizations by name (the Islamic Education and Information Center and the Council on Islamic Education) for their "many suggestions."
Americans and other Westerners face a choice: They can insist that Islam, like other religions, be taught in schools objectively. Or, as is increasingly the case, they can permit true believers to design instruction materials about Islam that serve as a mechanism for proselytizing. The answer will substantially affect the future course of militant Islam in the West.
Dec. 11, 2003 update: The Thomas More Law Center has failed in its court case; on this, see "Courts: Okay to Proselytize for Islam in California Schools."
Sep. 4, 2004 update: For a review of INTO ISLAM: An Introduction to the History of Islam, a derivative of the above curriculum manual, see William J. Bennetta, Another Manual, Another Fraud.
Dec. 27, 2006 update: It appears that students are on their own initiative taking up Muslim ways. WHSV-TV reports that at Spotswood High School in Penn Laird, Virginia, Casey Morris has begun a research project into Islam: he will wear traditional Muslim clothing and pray five times a day. In addition, Morris says, he will be going without pork for 30 days. "That's going to be rough but we'll make do."
Related Topics: Academia, Dhimmitude, Muslims in the United Statesreceive the latest by email: subscribe to daniel pipes' free mailing listThis text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.
Submit a comment on this item
#OccupyFannieMae: Government Policy Caused the Subprime Crisis
by PubliusFrom Investors Business Daily:
While not blameless, Wall Street is an easy scapegoat. And investment houses that made billions slicing and dicing mortgages into CDOs, derivatives, credit default swaps and other exotic paper are easy to demonize. But the problem wasn’t these financial instruments. Or even the obscene profits they generated. Mortgage-backed securities were nothing new, and we’ve always had speculation in the market.
The problem was the underlying assets: low-quality mortgages. We’ve never had so many junk home-loans poisoning the financial well before. And who poisoned the well? Washington and its affordable-housing policies.
It was Washington that declared prudent home-lending standards racist and gutted traditional underwriting rules in the name of diversity. It was government that created the risk on Main Street.
Yes, Wall Street spread it, with the help of Treasury-backed Fannie and Freddie. But who’s at greater fault for harming the village — the person who poisons the well or the one who distributes the water?
Read more here.
Tags: CDOs, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, lending, Main Street, mortgage, mortgage-backed securities, occupy, subprime, Wall Street
Posted Oct 21st 2011 at 11:17 am in Obama, Occupy Wall Street | Comments (3)
Great Game in the Horn of Africa
By Paul Mutter, October 19, 2011Child soldier in Uganda; photo courtesy of Unicef
The United States announced this past week that it is deploying a 100-man mission to assist the Ugandan government in tracking down the remnants of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), a force whose bloody conflict with the Ugandan military has devastated northern Uganda and its environs since 1987.
But why now, in 2011, is the U.S. government making this commitment to combat the LRA?
The humanitarian impulse is certainly present among policymakers, if for no other reason than humanitarianism scores political points in Washington. Multiple human rights groups have been supportive of the announcement. The Ugandan government and people certainly desire an end to this conflict. As undemocratic as the Ugandan government of Yoweri Museveni has proven, the state the LRA would establish—if we take stock of their rule over parts of northern Uganda—would almost certainly be an even more nightmarish place. Joseph Kony, the founder of the LRA who masquerades as a champion of his Acholi ethnic group and as a Christian mystic, has ordered the killing, maiming, and rape of tens of thousands of people across northern Uganda and neighboring countries. This “army” relies heavily on child soldiers and "concubines," young girls abducted from churches and schools to serve as servants and sex slaves.
Make no mistake: the LRA is an abominable threat to the Ugandan people—and to the people of Sudan, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the Central African Republic, countries the LRA moves in and out of seeking safe havens.
But we must not be blinded by the darkness of the LRA so much that we fail to see the tarnish that mars the U.S. and Ugandan governments’ joint interests in East Africa.
Why did Washington not intervene at any other point over the course of the LRA's horrendous, decades-long campaign in Northern Uganda, where civilians not caught in the sadistic sights of the LRA often found themselves in the crossfirebetween the terrorist army and the Ugandan military? George W. Bush sent advisers in 2008-9 to assist the Ugandan military in what is said to have been a botched capture operation, but why did it take five U.S. presidents to get to this stage—a stage in which the LRA has been, according to most reports, drastically weakened? What took Washington so long to finally accept this mandate, which human rights activists have been urging for years?
The Obama administration is not likely embracing a “Responsibility to Protect.” The sad answer is that only now, in the post-9/11 world, is there sufficient U.S. interest to risk getting "mired" in Africa. The unstated target of this 100-man deployment is, in fact, al-Qaeda.
AFRICOM and the Horn of Africa
The 100-strong force being sent to Uganda (ostensibly as advisers) will be overseen by AFRICOM, the new strategic command for Africa created by George W. Bush in 2007. AFRICOM provides billions of dollars worth of equipment to U.S. allies in Africa, as well as controversial training and intelligence-sharing programs, and even Special Forces deployments.For AFRICOM, security imperatives intersect with economic ones. At AFRICOM's urging, for example, the U.S. military has designed war games involving the "fall" of Nigeria, the no. 5 source of U.S. oil imports, to insurgent forces. The United States has had a strategic interest since the 1990s in demonstrating its commitment to the security of Uganda, which has fought al-Shabab in Somalia and until recently bordered Sudan. Sudan, an Islamist pariah state and also an LRA supporter, is still on the radar for U.S. and Ugandan policymakers (especially with South Sudan's formation), but Somalia is the "new" looming terror threat, a "failed state" fought over by Islamist groups like al-Shabab and infiltrated by others. The United States asserts that a strong al-Qaeda presence there today has ill designs for the countries of the Arabian Peninsula, Ethiopia, Kenya, and as we saw in 2010, Uganda.
The Ugandans did not pull out from Somalia following the 2010 Kampala bombings, though, and remain committed to maintaining a force there, something other U.S. allies in Africa have been reluctant to do. Those boots on the ground might go some way in firmly establishing a central Somalia government the United States and Uganda can live with. As Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institute has said:
To the extent the United States has any interest in Somalia being stabilized, it has an interest in seeing the Ugandan government able to keep its own country together, and able to keep it its own forces partially deployed to Somalia in order to help with that country where there have been al-Qaida related groups in the past.
The United States is waging a drone war in Somalia. Although it is not on the scale of the campaigns in Pakistan or Yemen, this may soon change. But with "Black Hawk Down" never far removed from Washington’s memory, sending troops into Somalia will be a hard decision for U.S. officials to make. Furthermore, the United States is, once again after its brief dalliance with "provincial reconstruction teams," no longer as interested in nation building as in effecting regime change and targeted assassinations. Uganda helps the latter along nicely in Somalia and may one day make the former possible there in concert with AFRICOM.
For now and for the foreseeable future, the Ugandan forces in Somalia are working in line with U.S. interests (as are the Kenyans, who this very Monday entered Somalia in force and are fighting against al-Shahab).
A War for Oil?
There are also economic considerations, though these may be secondary to security concerns. Uganda is indeed hoping to exploit newly discovered oil and gas reserves, and the government has undertaken a hurried developmentcampaign. But the United States is not well-placed at this time to pursue energy extraction opportunities there: the UK-registered Tullow Oil, joined by the French Total AS and the PRC's China National Offshore Oil Corporation, holds the best energy extraction hand in Uganda today. The U.S. government is, naturally, keeping an eye on the sector, and as The Economist notes, "several jealous Western governments and companies want to stall China’s advance into the Congo basin, with its vast reserves of minerals and timber."Whatever potential Uganda holds—in and of itself and as a gateway to the DRC—China's much stronger economic position in Uganda and the UK's ties to its former colony do not leave the United States much economic leeway besidesforeign aid allocations at this point. But what is clear is that Washington’s commercial prospects in Uganda in the coming years will depend on the security situation.
Emboldening Museveni
Perhaps the most pressing issue for Ugandans, however, is the extent to which U.S. assistance might not only stir up a renewed conflict in the region but also embolden Yoweri Museveni—once hailed as an upstanding member of "a new generation of African leaders"—to further crack down on opposition politicians in Uganda, which until 2005 was an officially one-party state.As Wikileaks disclosures show, the United States holds few illusions about theundemocratic and corrupt tendencies of Museveni and his party, the National Resistance Movement (NRM). "It appears Ugandan security services spend the majority their time tracking opposition leaders and critics of the NRM," reported a 2010 cable from the U.S. Embassy in Kampala.
Museveni's participation in the Second Congolese War, in which Ugandan military forces and their Congolese allies were accused of trafficking "blood diamonds" and committing human rights abuses, also damaged his international image. His questionable domestic record on both human rights and corruption issues has further soured foreign lenders and leaders toward him. The presidential electionheld in Uganda earlier this year delivered Museveni another stellar victory, though it was marred by accusations of intimidation on the part of the security apparatus and ruling party, accusations that the U.S. Embassy found credible inprevious elections.
Protests against Museveni's policies have frequently turned deadly thanks to the intervention of the state security apparatus, and just days after the U.S. deployment was announced, Ugandan security forces arrested 45 "Action 4 Change" activists, 15 of whom will be tried for treason. If convicted, they will be subject to a death sentence.
Action 4 Change is a coalition of opposition parties, community organizers, and rights groups who have undertaken a series of "walk to work" protests to demonstrate against food and fuel price increases. The Ugandan government asserts that Action 4 Change members are not nonviolent demonstrators but disgruntled electoral losers plotting the overthrow of the government. AndUganda Radio Network reports that a 500-man Coalition for Stable Uganda (CSU), led by an NRM member, has been formed "to counter activities of [the] Action for Change Coalition" because "there is no doubt in [the CSU's] minds that the opposition actions are well coordinated with backing from other forces bent [on] destabilizing Uganda, loot[ing] property, and caus[ing] deaths."
This landmark U.S. assistance to Uganda against the LRA, simply by putting boots on the grounds, surpasses any past offers of foreign or diplomatic aid from U.S. officials. But will Washington pressure Museveni to clean up corruption or scale back his crackdown on Action 4 Change? That's the sort of discussion that needs to be happening.
Liked this Post? Share it!
- inShare10
Paul Mutter is a graduate student at the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute at NYU and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.
recommended citation:
Paul Mutter, "Great Game in the Horn of Africa" (Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, October 19, 2011)
Obama’s raised more money for Democrats from Wall Street donors than all Republican candidates combined
POSTED AT 10:25 PM ON OCTOBER 20, 2011 BY ALLAHPUNDIT
PRINTER-FRIENDLY
The story’s a day old but it’s not to be missed. How much filthy “bankster” lucre are we talking about here? Put it this way: He’s raised more than twice as much for himself and the DNC as Romney has … from Bain Capital.Remember, this is a guy whose campaign is asking artists to work for free while he’s busy posing for photos with tycoons and carrying off giant sweepstakes-sized donation checks. I almost admire him for having the stones to try to frame himself as Occupy Wall Street’s new best friend.
Obama’s key advantage over the GOP field is the ability to collect bigger checks because he raises money for both his own campaign committee and for the Democratic National Committee, which will aid in his reelection effort.
As a result, Obama has brought in more money from employees of banks, hedge funds and other financial service companies than all of the GOP candidates combined, according to a Washington Post analysis of contribution data. The numbers show that Obama retains a persistent reservoir of support among Democratic financiers who have backed him since he was an underdog presidential candidate four years ago…
Obama has raised a total of $15.6 million from employees in the industry, according to the Post analysis. Nearly $12 million of that went to the DNC, the analysis shows.
Romney has raised less than half that much from the industry, while Texas Gov. Rick Perry brought in about $2 million. No other Republican candidate has raised more than $402,000 from the finance sector, which also includes insurance and real estate interests.
In other words, O and the Dems have a structural advantage right now because he can raise money for the DNC whereas the RNC can’t get help from a candidate until Republicans choose a nominee. (If you exclude donations to the DNC, Romney actually leads Obama by more than $3 million.) The punchline is that, once the GOP nominee is unleashed and Wall Street money starts stampeding into the RNC, Democrats will segue effortlessly from months of quietly raking in as much finance cash as they can muster to months of demagoging the GOP as “the party of Wall Street” for having outraised them. Neat trick, that. They’ll end up being Occupy Wall Street’s best friend just in time for the general election after spending months stuffing their pockets to bursting with offerings from the banking world’s masters of the universe.The NRCC rolled out an ad today tarring Democrat Steve Israel with the OWS crowd, but I think this clip of Paul Ryan via Think Progress shows a better way to handle them. No need for histrionic denunciations by leading Republicans; just remind those listening that corporate-government collusion isn’t exclusively a GOP problem, as our friends at Solyndra can tell you. Save the denunciations for the class-warrior-in-chief. Exit quotation: “What seems so ironic to me, or hypocritical, if you remember, it seems like yesterday that President Obama was saying things like, ‘we don’t have red states or blue states, we’re the United States of America, I want to be a uniter, not a divider, hope and aspiration.’ But what we’re getting is a commitment to division here.”
Share92
George Soros Funds Occupy Wall Street
by Matthew Vadum10/21/2011
CommentsRadical anti-American billionaire George Soros is a major backer of a left-wing group that is funneling money to the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Radical anti-American billionaire George Soros is a major backer of a left-wing group that is funneling money to the Occupy Wall Street movement.The nonprofit organization at the receiving end of Soros’ largesse, Alliance for Global Justice, is managing donations benefiting the communists, socialists, anarchists and hippies now occupying Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan. As of Oct. 19, OWS had taken in a grand total of $435,000 from all sources, including donations made by individuals online and in person, according to reports.
It should surprise no one that Soros (net worth: $22 billion), the ultimate Wall Street insider and preeminent funder of the activist Left today, embraces Occupy Wall Street.
As I note in my new book Subversion Inc., this Communist sympathizer co-founded the ultra-secretive Democracy Alliance, a billionaires’ club that wants to radically transform America. He has said that European-style socialism “is exactly what we need now” and favors American decline. Soros, a currency manipulator with an insider-trading conviction, praises Red China effusively, saying the totalitarian nation has “a better-functioning government than the United States.”
The Alliance for Global Justice has received grants from George Soros’ philanthropy, the Open Society Institute ($100,000 since 2004), and from the left-wing, money launderers of the Tides Foundation ($60,000 since 2004) that allows high-profile donors to give secretly to radical causes.
Much of the money received by the Tides network of philanthropies has come from Soros’ charity, according to philanthropy databases.
The Open Society Institute has given $24,599,553 to the Tides network of philanthropies since 1999. Of that total, $18,154,270 went to the Tides Foundation and the remaining $6,445,283 went to the Tides Center, which like the Alliance for Global Justice, serves as a fiscal sponsor for small or new activist groups.
A hotbed of anti-American activity, the Alliance takes money from the most extreme left-wing philanthropies operating in America today. The Alliance has accepted grants from the (pro-Fidel Castro) Arca Foundation ($185,000 since 2001), General Service Foundation ($165,000 since 2001), and Foundation for DeepaEcology ($30,000 since 2000), an anti-science environmentalist group that regards human beings as a cancer on the earth.
Alliance for Global Justice is a “fiscal sponsor,” which means that it serves as a financial clearinghouse for radical causes that haven’t filed papers to incorporate themselves as nonprofit organizations. Donors give money to the Alliance and are then able to deduct the donations from their income tax even though the cause they are funding isn’t recognized as tax-exempt by the IRS. Fiscal sponsors take a percentage of donations as management fees, and then pass on the rest to the cause favored by the donor.
Founded in 1998, the Alliance, which is headquartered in Washington, D.C., has a long history of anti-American activism. The Alliance and its resident, Katherine Hoyt, are longtime supporters of the Sandinista (Communist) movement in Nicaragua and the Zapatistas, a Marxist-Leninist guerrilla movement in Mexico.
When a credit card-processing glitch caused the Alliance’s website to reject $144,000 in donations for Occupy Wall Street, Hoyt claimed that an evil capitalist conspiracy was afoot. “I can’t help but believe that politics must be involved somewhere,” Hoyt said in a statement on the Alliance’s website.
It turns out the donations were rejected because of the Alliance’s own technological blundering, so Hoyt’s comment was scrubbed from the website. Alliance leader Chuck Kaufman blamed technology for the banking error.
“Our group normally processes a dozen donations a week, so all of a sudden Occupy Wall Street took off and it was 400 per day,” Kaufman said. “We just didn’t understand the banking architecture.”
Other causes supported by the Alliance include the antiwar group World Can’t Wait (a spinoff of the Revolutionary Communist Party), and Courage to Resist, which encourages U.S. soldiers to desert and supports accused traitor Bradley Manning of WikiLeaks infamy. Its leaders also have an abiding hatred of Israel. The Alliance has funded anti-Israel groups including Israeli Anarchists Against the War and Bil’in Center for Joint Struggle.
The Alliance for Global Justice’s antipathy toward things that Americans revere makes it a perfect business partner for George Soros.
Matthew Vadum is Senior Editor at Capital Research Center, a Washington, D.C. think tank, and author of Subversion Inc.: How Obama's ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off Taxpayers, (WND Books, 2011).
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
- Sunrise Stories 10.21.11 | TYLERCRALLE.COM
- » Blog Archive » The Romney Rule: Declaration of Class War
Comments
OWS hardest hit.
By Jake Tapper
(JAKE TAPPER ATTEMPTS TO REDEEM HIMSELF AFTER READING FROM THE TELEPROMPTER, SAYING THAT OBAMA’S FUNDRAISING HAS BEEN A SUCCESS... IN OBAMA’S WORST POLLING NUMBERS --- EVER !!)
Oct 21, 2011 10:57am
President Obama Has Written Personal Checks to Letter-Writers In Need, Author Says
In February 2009, ABC News was first to report on the 10 letters from constituents that the president is given each day.
Culled from the thousands the White House Correspondence Office receives each day from Americans who have taken the time to sit down and write to their president,” the letters “help him focus on the real problems people are facing,” said then-senior adviser David Axelrod.
Some of these, maybe two or three each day, the President responds to in his own hand.
Then-White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told us that before two different economic speeches, the President “pulled letters he has gotten and distributed them to staff, to understand what people were going through.”
The White House is now cooperating with a book about those letters, written by the Washington Post’s Eli Saslow, who says that sometimes the president has written a check to help his correspondents. “A few times during his presidency, Obama admitted, he had written a personal check or made a phone call on the writer’s behalf, believing that it was his only way to ensure a fast result,” Saslow wrote in the Post.
“It’s not something I should advertise, but it has happened,” the president told Saslow. “Some of these letters you read and you say, ‘Gosh, I really want to help this person, and I may not have the tools to help them right now. And then you start thinking about the fact that for every one person that wrote describing their story, there might be another hundred thousand going through the same thing. So there are times when I’m reading the letters and I feel pained that I can’t do more, faster, to make a difference in their lives.”
-Jake Tapper
SHOWS: Nightline This Week Top Line World News
Government Manipulation of Media
Geoff Metcalf
Monday, Sept. 4, 2006
*
*
*
*
*
*
*I'm not talking about confusion and inefficiency, which to a certain extent are products of all wars, but about muddle-headed thinking, cover-your-ass orders, lies and outright foolishness on the very highest levels.
– Cdr. James Meacham, 1968
The fact that the Pentagon is overtly moving toward monitoring media is no real surprise. That they will spend $20 million for a public relations contract is kinda odd. Government has gotten good results with far less cost.Peter Lance is a best-selling author. His third 9/11 investigative work, "Triple Cross," is due out in October. Lance recently had his work ‘spun' and manipulated by National Geographic and feds attempting to rewrite history [ http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060829/cm_huffpost/028270 ]
The venerable National Geographic wanted to do a documentary on Lance's book. However, ‘something' happened mid-production. The author was dealt out and his work edited with a cleaver. They then replaced Lance with Jack Cloonan, one of the very feds that Lance's research had found grossly negligent ... very ‘fox guarding hen house' stuff.
Viewers of the ‘documentary' "never saw any of this evidence critical of the feds because Nat Geo Channel allowed the story of FBI failures in the Ali Mohamed case to be told from the Bureau's point of view." Huh?!?
According to Lance, "It was like doing 'Schindler's List' from Hitler's perspective."
Story Continues Below
Several years ago the temporary outplacement of U.S. Army psyops personnel was confirmed. [ http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17437 ] "The assignment durations have been short-term up to one full year, depending on the mission." When asked "What were the missions?" responses varied from "No comment," "need to know," to smiles and, in one case, an obscene recommendation.
Meanwhile in a recent government solicitation, companies are being asked to demonstrate how they will "provide continuous monitoring and near-real time reporting of Iraqi, pan-Arabic, international, and U.S. media."
This latest efforts comes in the wake of a White House effort to get more offensive against critics of Iraq policy. It isn't a stretch to suggest that similar efforts against critics of ‘other' policies could occur.
Control of the news media isn't exactly a new concept. From Tokyo Rose to Pravda, the dissemination of news, information and propaganda has been a robust concern. The Catholic Church, Islam, Communist regimes, and American administrations (not to mention our infamous ‘yellow journalism' phases) have all attempted to control what was reported and how ... perception becomes reality, and the first draft of history is written in the news.
A few years ago I wrote "To Kill or Feed a Mockingbird," in which I addressed "two mutually exclusive and under-reported stories." One was the obvious penchant for political operatives to leak classified information. The other was a generational control of information dissemination by powerful ‘controllers'.
The left-leaning mainstream media cabal ‘enabled' the Clinton administration big time with spin, cover, and obfuscation. It may have been "more ubiquitous, and at times even clumsy, but it was not unique." And it was successful.
Operation Mockingbird was a program reportedly hatched by State Department official Frank Wisner. Wisner selected Philip Graham, then publisher of the Washington Post, to manage the program. According to Deborah Davis, author of "Katharine the Great," "By the early 1950s, Wisner 'owned' respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles, plus stringers, four to six hundred in all, according to a former CIA analyst."
Investigators digging into Mockingbird were flabbergasted to discover FOIA documents in which agents boast (in CIA office memos) of pride in having placed "important assets" inside every major news publication in the country.
This may sound like the stuff of Ludlum novels and conspiracy wackos, but not until 1982 did the ‘Company' finally concede that reporters on the CIA payroll have been case officers to field agents.
The entire Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson fiasco (please read Christopher Hitchens, http://www.slate.com/id/2148555) reveals the sausage-making aspect of political spin.
Peter Lance had years of work editorially bastardized by National Geographic and a small gang of CYA federal officials. The rest of the story will come out when his book is published in October. Those who read the book, "Triple Cross," or read the reportage of the book, will discover a far different story from the whitewashed, sanitized, government-approved version that National Geographic aired.
The late Reed Irvine (a dear and missed friend) routinely took on America's biggest and most influential journalists and media companies to account for their errors, and stick to the facts.
Ben Bradlee, when still at the Washington Post, called Reed (in a letter) a "miserable, carping retromingent vigilante." I called Reed a hero. (I had to look up "retromingent": http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=23349)
Peter Lance's righteous indignation will be validated as facts are revealed. However, don't hold your breath waiting for the FBI to throw themselves on their sword and admit to eschewing ‘Duty, Honor, Country' for personal CYA.
More on Operation Mockingbird:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MOCK/mockingbird.html
http://www.grandconspiracy.com/library.html#operation
Geoff is an author and talk show host. He is a ninth-generation commissioned officer in the U.S. armed services, a former Green Beret, and a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel. Geoff hunts down the stories the rest of the media ignores and exposes them for public scrutiny. He is also Editor of CalNews.com.
Editor's note:
Get Tammy Bruce's latest blockbuster and learn how you can help save America from extremists – Go Here Now! Ronald Kessler takes you inside the Bush White House, the CIA and Congress John Stossel`s New Book - FREE! Go Here NowRead more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Media Bias
Michelle Obama Listed Daughters Malia and Sasha as “Senior Staffers” for $432,142 Family Vacation to Africa ?
Posted on October 5, 2011 by samiam60| 11 CommentsU.S. first lady Michelle Obama stands with Karen Dudley, right, at her restaurant “The Kitchen” as she makes an unscheduled stop for lunch in Cape Town, South Africa, Thursday, June 23, 2011. Also pictured, left to right, daughters Malia and Sasha Obama, niece Leslie Robinson, nephew Avery Robinson. (AP/Charles Dharapak, Pool)Michelle Obama Listed Daughters
Malia and Sasha as
“Senior Staffers”
for $432,142 African Trip
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Washington Whispers reported on the African trip.
First lady Michelle Obama’s family trip to South Africa andBotswana in June cost taxpayers well over $424,000, according to new accounting based on Air Force manifests obtained by Judicial Watch, a taxpayer watchdog group.
The use of Air Force aircraft alone for the June 21-27 trip cost $424,142, said the group, and that doesn’t include the food, lodging, and ground transportation for the 21 family and staff members.
Have a Happy Angry Meal America
Related articles
- Michelle Obama Takes Her Daughters on Lavish “Mommy and Me” Trips(sfcmac.wordpress.com)
- Was Michelle Obama’s Target Photo Staged? (styleite.com)
FIRST BOOB SAYS:
Michelle Obama: ‘That's Why We Start With Kids, Right? We Can Affect Who They Will Be Forever’
By Elizabeth HarringtonOctober 18, 2011
Subscribe to Elizabeth Harrington's posts
U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and First Lady Michelle Obama at a reception for the HealthierUS School Challenge at the White House on Oct. 17, 2011. (White House photo)
(CNSNews.com) - First Lady Michelle Obama said yesterday that the government can affect who kids “will be forever” if it can shape their "habits and preferences" during the large part of the day they are at school.Mrs. Obama was speaking on the South Lawn of the White House at a reception to honor schools that met the goals of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s HealthierUS School Challenge (HUSSC). The USDA Web site describes HUSSC as “a voluntary initiative established in 2004 to recognize those schools participating in the National School Lunch Program that have created healthier school environments through promotion of nutrition and physical activity.” The program has since been rolled into Mrs. Obama’s “Let’s Move!” initiative.
“When many kids spend half of their waking hours and get up to half their daily calories at school, you know that with the food you serve and, more importantly, the lessons you teach that you're not just shaping their habits and preferences today, you’re affecting the choices they’re going to make for the rest of their lives,” said Mrs. Obama.
“That's why we start with kids, right?” she said. “We can affect who they will be forever.”
At the reception, Mrs. Obama praised the 1,273 schools that have doubled the number of students eating federally subsidized meals that fit the program’s criteria.
Among the schools Mrs. Obama praised was the Burlington Elementary School of North Dakota, where, she said, the teachers eat two USDA-approved meals a day with the students.
“And the teachers eat breakfast and lunch with students every single day,” said Mrs. Obama. “Now, that's a sacrifice. You know it. That's love. They even send out a monthly newsletter called, “Nutrition Notes,” to provide healthy eating tips and recipes for the families.
“You’re affecting not just how these kids feed themselves, but how they’re going to feed their own children,” she said.
“So the beauty is, is that you’re not just making this generation of kids healthier, but the next generation as well. And that is truly, truly powerful stuff,” she said.
Mrs. Obama said that the children trained in these schools may have a trickle-down effect on their families.
“They're changing the way they think about their health and they're trickling that information down to their families,” said the First Lady.
Obama Admin Hides Public Comments Against Obamacare Mandate
by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 10/21/11 10:54 AMThe Obama administration today is coming under fire from pro-life advocates who submitted tens of thousands of public comments opposing a new mandate that would force insurance companies to cover birth control, contraception and drugs that may cause abortions.
The administration has initially approved a recommendation from the Institute of Medicine suggesting that it force insurance companies to pay for birth control and drugs that can cause abortions under the Obamacare government-run health care program.
The IOM recommendation, opposed by pro-life groups, called for the Obama administration to require insurance programs to include birth control — such as the morning after pill or the ella drugthat causes an abortion days after conception — in the section of drugs and services insurance plans must cover under “preventative care.” The companies will likely pass the added costs on to consumers, requiring them to pay for birth control and, in some instances, drug-induced abortions of unborn children in their earliest days.
Even though tens of thousands of pro-life Americans have done so, Jeanne Monahan of FRC says the Obama administration is not making those comments public, as promised.
“On September 30th, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) received thousands of negative comments related to the interim final rule published on August 3rd where all insurance plans were informed that they must cover the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives with no co-pay,” Monahan explains. “A very narrowly defined conscience exemption for religious organizations was included which, in essence, covers only places of worship and was originally drafted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for a bill in California.”
“Curious to read some of the comments and get a sense of volume, this week I perused the official regulatory website of the government, regulations.gov,” she continues. “Recall that the language from the rule indicated that comments would be posted publicly: ‘All comments are posted on the Internet exactly as received, and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines.’”
“Much to my surprise, my search led me to only a very small number of comments — under 100,” Monahan says. “Knowing that FRC constituents alone submitted close to 12000 comments, and that USCCB constituents filed close to 60,000 comments, I was surprised and assumed I was searching incorrectly.”
Monahan called the regulations.gov helpline and had a customer service representative walk her through the process to assure her she was accessing the web site correctly.
“At the end of that conversation together we located only 58 comments,” Monahan says. “I then asked the customer service representative if HHS may withhold certain comments. The representative ironically began by telling me that the ‘Obama Administration is committed to transparency’ but then told me that HHS has control over what they post.”
The HHS accepted the IOM guidelines that “require new health insurance plans to cover women’s preventive services” and those services include “FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling” — which include birth control drugs like Plan B and ella that can cause abortions. The Health and Human Services Department commissioned the report from the Institute, which advises the federal government and shut out pro-life groups in meetings leading up to the recommendations.
“These historic guidelines are based on science and existing literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need,” HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, an abortion advocate, said in a statement LifeNews received.
Sebelius said new health plans will be required to include coverage with plan years beginning on or after August 1, 2012 but that also exempts group health plans sponsored by certain religious employers, though the exemptions are very narrowly drawn.
Monahan, director of Family Research Council’s Center for Human Dignity, which covers pro-life, issues, panned the IOM report and HHS’ decision to adopt it.
“The mandate will include FDA-approved drugs like Ella and Plan B that are misleadingly labeled ‘emergency contraceptives’ despite the fact that they can actually destroy a developing baby prior to or after implanting in the mother’s womb. HHS failed to address this problem in the interim rule published today despite many public comments on this very issue,” she told LifeNews.
She also said the conscience protections were not sufficient.
“HHS offered a fig leaf of conscience protection for certain churches that fulfill very specific criteria. However, religious groups that provide social services, engage in missions work to people of different religious faiths, religious health insurance companies, let alone religious health care providers and individuals in such health plans are not protected from any discrimination whatever. The new rule will force many Americans to violate their consciences or refrain from participating in health care insurance, further burdening an already costly system,” Monahan said.
“For an administration that promised to protect conscience laws in effect now, this decision completely ignores opinion, research and science that do not support a pro-abortion ideology. In the words of one of the committee members who objected to the IOM recommendations, the ‘evaluation for evidence lacked transparency … the process tended to result in a mix of objective and subjective determination through the lens of advocacy,” Monahan continued. “This administration is promoting mandates that will violate the consciences of millions.”
Americans United for Life president Charmaine Yoest also weighed in in opposition to it.
“Ideologically-driven recommendations became policy,” Yoest noted, “when the Obama Administration adopted the Institute of Medicine recommendations. Nearly every American will be forced to pay for the abortion-inducing drug ella in the name of ‘preventive care.’ In addition, the conscience rights of Americans who choose not to distribute life-ending prescriptions may be trampled.”
As part of the health care reform process, AUL’s attorneys testified about the guidelines during hearings held by the Institute of Medicine. However, among the groups chosen to effectively help write the health care plan for all Americans was Planned Parenthood.
AUL attorneys noted that the Obama Administration has offered an exceedingly narrow conscience protection that leaves the majority of pro-life Americans vulnerable by so narrowly defining the concept of “religious employer,” that most religious schools, hospitals, and charitable organizations would be excluded from its protection. Moreover, an organization such as AUL and its sister organization, Americans United for Life Action — with pro-life missions, but no religious affiliation — are unquestionably unprotected by the Administration’s fig-leaf conscience protection.
“The preventive care provision of the health care law was intended to prevent diseases, not to end pregnancies,” said Yoest. “Americans United Life Action urges Congress to pass the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, H.R. 1179, to address today’s unconscionable mandate.”
But NARAL, a top pro-abortion organization, supports the Obama administration’s decision.
Bill Saunders of Americans United for Life is also concerned about the recommendations:
PPACA requires all private health insurance plans to provide coverage of “preventive care for women,” not just those plans participating in the insurance exchanges that the law requires be established by 2014. These services must be covered without cost-sharing, meaning these services must be fully covered without a co-pay. Significantly, this means that no American will be able to choose a health insurance plan that does not cover what is determined to be “preventive care for women.”
Instead of defining “preventive care” in the statute, Congress left this determination to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Tasked with advising HHS, the IOM serves an important role in determining what constitutes “preventive care for women.”
At the IOM’s three public meetings on “preventive care,” groups that were invited to present to IOM on “women’s issues” nearly all took a public stance in favor of abortion. The list included Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, who stands to gain financially if abortion and abortion-inducing drugs are included in this mandate. This huge conflict of interest was not disclosed at the meeting.
At the IOM meetings, nearly every official presenter urged that all FDA approved contraceptivesbe included in the preventive care mandate. Such a definition would require coverage for so-called emergency contraceptives, including ella, which can kill a human embryo even after implantation. Thus, if “contraception” is included in the definition of “preventive care,” Americans will be forced to subsidize abortion-causing drugs with their insurance premiums. And that is precisely what we expect the IOM will announce on Wednesday.
Pro-life groups may call on members of Congress to pass legislation that would further mitigate the effects of the HHS adoption of the regulations.
WORLDCHINESE TODDLER LEFT BLOODY IN HIT-AND-RUN DIES OF INJURIES
- Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:56am by
- Email »
The Guangzhou Military District General Hospital said that the 2-year-old girl, Wang Yue, died shortly after midnight of brain and organ failure. “Her injuries were too severe and the treatment had no effect,” intensive care unit director Su Lei told reporters.
The plight of the child, nicknamed Yueyue, came to symbolize what many Chinese see as a decay in public morals after heady decades of economic growth and rising prosperity.
Gruesome closed-circuit camera video of last Thursday’s accident, aired on television and posted on the Internet, showed Yueyue toddling along the hardware market street in the southern city of Foshan. A van strikes her, slows and then resumes driving, rolling its back right wheel over the child. As she lays with blood pooling, 18 people walk or cycle by and another van strikes her before a scrap picker scoops her up.
See the video in our original report by clicking here.
Yueyue’s death touched off another round of hand-wringing about society and personal responsibility. Many comments posted to social media sites said “we are all passers-by.”
Li Xiangping, a professor of religion at Huadong University, said on a Twitter-like service that it is too easy to blame others. “What after all prompted such a sad phenomenon? Officials? The rich? Or is it our own cold-heartedness?” Li said on Sina Corp.’s Weibo.
Police have detained the drivers of both vans on suspicion of causing a traffic accident but have not said what formal charges they would face and if manslaughter would be among them now that the girl has died.
The people who could be seen on the video passing by the injured Yueyue have recounted being harassed for ignoring her. The respected Southern Metropolis Daily newspaper quoted a man it identified only as a hardware merchant Mr. Chen as saying that he had been receiving crank calls ever since someone picked him out as the 16th passer-by. He said he hadn’t noticed the child.
Some experts said an unwillingness to help others is an outgrowth of urbanization as migrants pour into cities and create neighborhoods of strangers.
“Rapid urbanization not only affects China or Foshan, but anywhere in the world where you have a lot of high-rise buildings, where there is high population density, then the relationship with the neighbors, and with each other is affected,” said Yao Yue, a psychologist and director of telephone help-line for distressed people in Beijing.
Gallup: Obama concludes worst polling quarter of his presidency
POSTED AT 1:25 PM ON OCTOBER 21, 2011 BY ED MORRISSEY
PRINTER-FRIENDLY
Gallup published its quarterly analysis of its presidential polling, and the good news is that Obama set a new record. That’s good news for his opponents, however, as Obama hit a new low of 41%. The quarter-on-quarter decline was the worst of his presidency since the third quarter results (via Andrew Malcolm):President Barack Obama’s 11th quarter in office was the worst of his administration, based on his quarterly average job approval ratings. His 41% approval average is down six percentage points from his 10th quarter in office, and is nearly four points below his previous low of 45% during his seventh quarter.
These results are based on Gallup Daily tracking from July 20-Oct. 19, 2011. During this time, Obama’s approval rating ranged narrowly between 38% and 43% for all but a few days of the quarter. The 38% approval ratings, registered on several occasions, are the lowest of his presidency to date.
The most notable event in Obama’s 11th quarter was probably the negotiations to raise the federal debt ceiling in late July and early August. Shortly after the agreement was reached, the stock market plummeted after Standard and Poor’s downgraded the U.S. credit rating. Later, the government’s jobs report showed no new net jobs were created in August, a sign the economy was still a long way from recovery. The president has been unsuccessful so far in getting Congress to pass the jobs bill he proposed in early September.
For the record, this is the worst level of support in the 11th quarter since Jimmy Carter’s 31% in Gallup’s series. Carter ended up being a one-term President both for what preceded that 11th quarter result, and for what followed it — the Iranian hostage crisis and 444 days of futility.The good news? The only other presidents with below-majority 11th quarter polling were Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. However, there are significant differences in the comparisons. By the time the 11th quarter rolled around for Reagan, the economic recovery had already started and was building steam. For Clinton, the poll came in the middle of the HillaryCare debacle, and while Clinton was making a successful triangulation on welfare reform and economic policy to recapture the momentum.
Gallup notes that the measure in the 12th and 13th quarters are more indicative of what will happen in the next election cycle, but this is notable for another reason. This includes at least six weeks of polling after Obama’s decision to strike a much more populist, class-warfare tone in Washington, a strategy that undoubtedly at least inspired the Occupy movement, if not explicitly coordinated with that effort. There is no particular reason for such a sharp dropoff in approval otherwise — no big economic setback, no significantly bad outcome militarily or diplomatically, either. This looks like a very good indication that Obama’s attempt to appease the hard Left has further marginalized him with the overall electorate, and if Obama can’t produce economic growth quickly, this trend could turn into a rout.
OCTOBER 21, 2011, 12:48 PM ET
September Jobless Rates by State
By Josh Mitchell
The federal government’s latest snapshot of state and regional unemployment is out, and New Mexico appears to be one of the few somewhat-bright spots.
The state saw the biggest drop in unemployment in September from a year ago, the U.S. Labor Department reported Friday in its latest breakdown of the 9.1% unemployment rate across the nation.
New Mexico’s 6.6% unemployment rate for September is two percentage points lower than it was a year ago. Only three other states — Florida, Oregon and Massachusetts — reported statistically significant decreases over the year, the new data show.
New Mexico’s growth tracks closely with that of the entire country, Mark Snead, an economist at the Denver Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, said Thursday, according to the New Mexico Business Weekly. Mr. Snead said the U.S. economy averaged a 2.5% growth rate over the past nine quarters, according to the paper.
“You have had a very rapid turnaround and it looks like things are finally going your way,” in comparison to the U.S. economy, Snead said at the Albuquerque Economic Forum’s monthly breakfast meeting, the New Mexico Business Weekly reported . “You had a false start [in 2010], but are now on track with the U.S. cycle. Your growth potential is showing again.”
Snead said the state’s mining and manufacturing sectors have grown recently, the paper reported.
The Labor Department’s latest snapshot reflects an otherwise stubborn jobs picture. While half the states saw the jobless rate drop in September from the previous month, the rest, along with Washington, DC., registered an increase or no change. North Dakota (3.5%) and Nebraska (4.2%) had the lowest unemployment rates.
REAL TIME ECONOMICS HOME PAGEEmailPrinter Friendly- Share:
Oct 21, 10:27 AM EDT Stimulus funds paid foreign workers in Oregon |
* PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- A federal investigation found that at least $7 million in federal stimulus money intended to provide jobs for unemployed Oregonians instead paid wages to 254 foreign workers. The Oregonian reports (http://bit.ly/qIcQRW ) the money went for forest cleanup jobs in central Oregon in 2009 when unemployment was over 11 percent. Contractors told federal regulators they could not find enough local workers for the jobs and brought in foreign workers. A report this week from the Labor Department's inspector general found the contractors used legal loopholes but violated no laws or regulations. Congressman Peter DeFazio, who asked for the investigation, says it's "obscene that U.S. companies were rewarded for abusing our American workers and immigration laws to undercut competition and squeeze more profits out of contracts." --- Information from: The Oregonian,http://www.oregonlive.com |
*
*
*
*
Where the jobs aren’t…
By Andrew Biggs
October 21, 2011, 9:18 am
- A A A
No comments:
Post a Comment