Rep. Conyers Aids CAIR in Plot Against FBI

by Jim Kouri

An Islamic group and one of its top contacts within the U.S. Congress are in the midst of a plot to neutralize FBI counterterrorism efforts. And they've found a willing collaborator in Attorney General Eric Holder.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) applauded the news that the Attorney General Eric Holder and his Justice Department Civil Rights Division will review the shooting death of a Detroit imam, Luqman Ameen Abdullah, by FBI agents on October 28 in Dearborn.

House Judiciary Chairman Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) announced the Justice Department review at a news conference yesterday in Detroit sponsored by CAIR's Michigan chapter (CAIR-MI) and attended by a coalition of civil rights groups.

The news conference was scheduled following the release of autopsy results showing that Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah was shot at least 20 times, including once in the back, as well as being found handcuffed in the prone position. However, there was no mention that Abdullah's leader is serving a life sentence in prison for killing one cop and wounding another.

CAIR and other groups had called for an independent investigation of the shooting. On January 13, 2010, Rep. Conyers sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder to request that the civil rights division investigate both the October shooting and whether the FBI violated the Constitution by using informants in mosques.

"I'm not surprised that Congressman Conyers would side with his big campaign contributors in defending radical killers and terrorists," said former NYPD detective and military intelligence officer Mike Snopes.

"And they have the perfect prosecutor in Attorney General [Eric Holder] who's law firm often defends terrorist thugs," he added.

"We welcome the decision to open a civil rights investigation of the imam's death and thank Representative Conyers for his leadership in ensuring that all the facts in this troubling case come out," said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism's Steven Emerson has noted in several studies the questionable associations and actions by many of CAIR's leaders that cast serious doubt on its claims of moderation and restraint. Some have committed criminal acts themselves; others have ties to organizations with connections to Islamic extremism.

Those convicted of direct criminal activity include Ghassan Elashi, a founding board member of CAIR-Texas; Randall (Ismail) Royer, once a communications specialist for the national group, and Bassam Khafagi, the organization's one-time director of community relations, according to Emerson.

The Radical Islamist's Shootout with FBI

According to a report for The Examiner, agents working on a counterterrorism task force in Detroit, Michigan reported that during a gun battle they shot and killed the Imam of a radical Islamic group. Agents say the gunfight began after Luqman Ameen Abdullah refused to surrender and face various criminal charges.

Abdullah is the spiritual leader of a group that is alleged to have engaged in violent activity over a period of many years, and known to be armed. According to the report obtained by the National Association of Chiefs of Police, the FBI was in the midst of arresting Abdullah and 10 of his followers on charges that included conspiracy to sell stolen goods and illegal possession and sale of firearms.

According to a preliminary report obtained by NACOP, Abdullah was killed while exchanging gunfire with Federal Bureau of Investigation agents on Wednesday at a warehouse in Dearborn, a suburb of Detroit.

Abdullah was the leader of part of an group of Islamists who call themselves Ummah (“the brotherhood”), a group of mostly African-American converts to Islam that seeks to establish a separate Sharia-law governed state within the United States.

The Ummah is ruled by Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, formerly known as H. Rap Brown, a 1960s radical and Black Panther who is serving a life sentence for the murder of a police officer in Georgia.

As detailed in the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint that was unsealed, Abdullah has espoused the use of violence against law enforcement, and has trained members of his group in use of firearms and martial arts in anticipation of some type of action against the government. Abdullah and other members of this group were known to carry firearms and other weapons.

According to the FBI Abdullah is also known as Christopher Thomas.

The FBI report states that Abdullah regularly preached anti-government rhetoric, and that some of his followers converted to Islam while in prison.

In 2000, Sheriff's deputies Ricky Kinchen and Aldranon English went to (H. Rap Brown's) al-Amin's home to serve an arrest warrant for failing to appear in court on a traffic citation of speeding and impersonating a police officer. al-Amin opened fire with a .223 rifle and English was hit four times. Kinchen was shot with the rifle and a 9mm handgun.

The following day, Kinchen died of his wounds in a Georgia hospital. English survived his wounds and identified al-Amin as the shooter from six photos he was shown while recovering in the hospital.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he's a columnist for The Examiner (examiner.com) and New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he's a blogger for the Cheyenne, Wyoming Fox News Radio affiliate KGAB (www.kgab.com). Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.

He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He's a news writer and columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. Kouri appears regularly as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Fox News Channel, Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, etc.

Read more >>

Brown’s Win Is a Victory for TEApublicanism

By Tim Dunkin

Last Tuesday was an exciting day if you are an opponent of the socialistic agenda that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and their various and sundry acolytes in Congress have spent the better part of the past year trying to ram down our throats. In Massachusetts of all places — that bright, glowing sapphire blue jewel in New England's crown — a reasonably conservative Republican won the Senate seat held by the Kennedy's since 1952. In doing so, Scott Brown becomes the 41st Republican vote in the Senate, and the barrier to the passage of Obamacare in any of its present House and Senate forms. Brown, an energetic and charismatic candidate, campaigned on a platform of fiscal responsibility and opposition to the insanity we see unfolding in Washington. His victory over Marcia, er, Martha Coakley, in what should have been the single safest seat in the entire universe for the Democrats, has helped to underscore the disgust and anger on the part of the electorate for the present ruling power in the Capitol. People are angry, people don't want Obamacare, cap'n'trade', more spending, greater debt, higher taxes, and the rest of the "progressive" agenda that has hithertofore been pushed so aggressively by the Democrats.

The days and weeks to come will prove whether the Democrats learned anything from the drubbing they took in Massachusetts. So far, the signals seem to be mixed. Their handlers in the media seem to be in panic mode — even Chris Matthews, one of the wackiest of the whackos on television, has urged the Dems to pull back and reassess what they're doing. But then again, Matthews also got into a shouting match with Howard Dean about it, since Dean cluelessly thinks that the real problem is that the American people are mad that the Dems haven't gone far or fast enough. Several "moderate" Senatorial Democrats, like Evan Bayh (Indiana) and Jim Webb (Virginia) publically called on their leadership to back off of universal health care, and Pelosi was forced to admit that they don't have the votes in the House now to pass the thing — a sure sign that "Blue Dog" Democrats are abandoning ship, knowing that Obama isn't going to save them come November. Yet...there's also some noise that Pelosi is nevertheless going to make an attempt at passing Obamacare by reconciliation, which would serve as an end run around the loss of their filibuster-proof majority. Also, the Democrats just floated the idea of increasing the debt limit for the federal government another $1.9 trillion, so they can continue to borrow and spend more and more. So maybe the Democrats didn't learn their lesson after all.

While not as much of a red-meat conservative as I and many others would like, the general perception of Scott Brown is that he's "conservative enough," certainly as good as we can expect to see out of Massachusetts. As a state Senator in Massachusetts, he voted for Romneycare — the Massachusetts state version of socialized medicine — and he did so knowing it had a provision requiring the program to co-pay for abortions. His own stance on abortion, as articulated on his campaign's website, would appear to be a "soft pro-choice" position — he makes noise about abortion ultimately being "between a woman and her doctor" — yet he goes on to support a litany of positions which are indeed pro-life, such as parental notification and consent laws, opposition to partial-birth abortion, and support for making adoption easier. Brown stands generally for fiscal responsibility, and is on the record for supporting the right to keep and bear arms, opposing illegal immigration, and has stated that marriage is between a man and a woman. He also appears to desire to devolve a lot of these, and other, issues back to the states, so he sees to be solid on the issue of federalism as well. So I reiterate my terminology — Brown is "conservative enough," about as good as we'll get from a very leftist Northeastern state. Much better than Marcia, er, Martha Coakley would have been. As a Senator, Brown will give the conservative movement many more votes than Coakley would have, though he will probably have us rolling our eyes and groaning at times, too.

As imperfect of a candidate as he was, ideologically at least (as a campaigner, he was preternaturally exquisite), Brown nevertheless garnered the support of one group that has also been taking American politics by storm — the Tea Party movement. The Tea Partiers in Massachusetts endorsed and came out for Brown, which helped to put him over the finish line by delivering to him a strong majority among Independents.

This helps to illustrate the point I made earlier this month, which is that the Tea Party movement needs to "hijack" the Republican Party. The two cannot stand apart from each other, but they are unstoppable together — the essence of TEApublicanism. The Tea Party movement lacks the organization to operate as a mass-movement third party across the nation, and most of its leadership doesn't seem inclined to try to do so anywise, if the example of the coolness of the Florida Tea Partiers towards the self-proclaimed "Tea Party Party" started in that state is any indication. Further, if the Tea Party movement fields its own candidates in races where there is already a credibly conservative Republican running, then all they will accomplish is to split the vote and hand the seat to the Democrats — completely unnecessarily. DO run Tea Party conservatives when the GOP foolishly tries to install a Dede Scozzafava into office. DON'T run Tea Party candidates, however, when the GOP does the right thing and runs a Doug Hoffman on its ticket instead.

The Republican Party, in turn, desperately needs the Tea Party movement, and would be indescribably foolish to ignore or reject it. The Tea Party movement, as I said earlier this month, is a re-energized mass movement of conservatives who are getting active again after having gone dormant for a while. The Tea Party movement is, in essence, the rebuilding of the Reagan coalition of conservatives — Republicans, Independents, "Reagan" Democrats, libertarians — people who want fiscal discipline from their government and less intrusion into their own lives. If the Republican Party follows the John McCain route — trying to pawn off more big-government establishment insiders onto us — then it deserves to lose, and lose big.

However, that need not be the case. The election of Scott Brown shows us the way out of the wilderness. The Tea Partiers helped to elect the Republican. They united the thin-on-the-ground Republicans in Massachusetts with the much-thicker-on-the-ground Independents, and elected a Republican candidate who represents their views and interests much more than Marcia, er, Martha Coakley would have. The Republicans pick up a seat, while the Tea Partiers helped to kill, or at least severely wound, Obamacare. A win-win situation for all involved.

So what would have happened had the Tea Partiers irrationally played the "hate Republicans" game and endorsed the Independent candidate, Joseph Kennedy, perhaps delivering him a few percentage points of the vote, taken from Brown? Ol' what's-her-name would now be the Senator-elect from Massachusetts, the Democrats would have had no lessons to learn, and would even now be preparing to finalize the destruction of American health care and American freedom.

The example of the election of Scott Brown needs to be the wave of the future for conservative political activists. Granted, I hope we can find many candidates who are more conservative to run in the many more conservative districts all across this country. But this fusion of the conservative grassroots in the Republican Party with the concerned conservatives who make up a broad portion of the self-described Independents in this nation is what Reagan rode to victory in 1980 and what the Contract with America Republicans rode into office with in 1994. The people of this nation don't want socialism, nor do they want socialism-lite. They want statesmen (rather than politicians) who will stand up and protect their freedoms, their pocketbooks, and their country. Give them that by uniting the conservative movement and seeing the conservative agenda advanced, and follow up on it by not going soft and forgetting why we were elected in the first place, and we will see a renaissance for conservatism and America.

Read more >>

Time to Eliminate Czars and Handmaidens, Mr. President!

By John W. Lillpop

Scores of millions of Americans are fitfully waiting the unveiling of the new and improved President Obama, set to roll out at 9 tonight.

A word of caution, Mr. President: People are looking for real CHANGE this time, mostly to the wrong-headed policies and decisions that you have implemented over the past 12 months.

We hear that you will propose a spending "freeze" in order to address the huge deficit that you, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Leader have rung up.

With all due respect, sir, isn’t a freeze just too little, too late?

From a taxpayers’ perspective, it certainly seems that the Obama deficit has grown so unwieldy that only a legitimate slash and burn effort stands a chance at making a difference. Running in place should not be an option.

Only real CHANGE will do, sir.

When it comes to identifying unneeded bloat in government, you could make a decent start simply by looking around the White House itself.

For instance, why in Hades does a man with an IQ of 170 need 40 "czars" to keep track of doings in government? Better to slash the unneeded programs AND the czars. Do it now for the people!

And can you please explain to the American people, many of whom have lost their homes or are in the process of suffering that indignity, why the FLOTUS needs 30 or so hand maidens to tend to her personal needs?

Surely, there must be a less costly way to provide a family of four with luxury and comfort in the White House?

When it comes to wasteful spending, why not propose a freeze on all non-essential congressional travel? Like Speaker Pelosi’s million dollar extravaganza in which she loaded a few Air Force jets with leftist cheerleaders to watch you fail at the global warming farce in Copenhagen?

Why not force Pelosi to justify why she had to go to Copenhagen and why it was necessary for her to take most of San Francisco with her on a winter’s holiday-- at taxpayer expense?

Speaking of wasteful boondoggles, perhaps you and Michelle should pool your money with that of Oprah in order to pay the US Treasury back for the money spent to transport the three of you to Copenhagen in your failed attempt to have the 2016 Olympics staged in Chicago?

Even greater savings could be realized by using common sense in the handling of KSM and other brutal terrorists. Is it really necessary to spend $200 million a year just to try these renegades in New York City when a military tribunal is much more than they deserve?

Why not abandon your leftist agenda, sir, and "spread the wealth" back to the American people from whence it came?

Read more >>

What's Really Going On In Haiti?

By Chuck Baldwin

People of goodwill everywhere are rightly sympathetic to the plight of hundreds of thousands of innocent Haitians in the aftermath of the terrible earthquake that rocked the island country. Private donations and volunteer efforts are pouring into Haiti from all over the globe--especially from the United States. This is a good thing, right? So, why I am troubled?

 

Simply put, I cannot remember such an all-out "relief effort" by our nation's military and government forces following a natural disaster anywhere--ever! Not even New Orleans, Louisiana, and surrounding Gulf Coast communities here in the homeland received the kind of attention from Washington, D.C., that Haiti is receiving.

 

According to Agence France-Press (AFP), "The US military is ramping up its mission in quake-hit Haiti, with 20,000 US troops expected to operate on ground and offshore by Sunday [January 24], the US commander overseeing the region said."

 

No doubt, this would include ships and personnel from the USS Carl Vinson carrier group. Cost to US taxpayers to send an entire carrier group--along with more than 20,000 (so far) military personnel--to Haiti already numbers in the multiplied millions of dollars. It is also almost certain that there will be no quick exit from the island nation. There never is. In other words, our military presence (dare I say occupation?) in Haiti will doubtless last for years. At least, that's the way Latin American and European countries see it. And they are probably right.

 

Suffice it to say that the United States military is now completely in charge in Haiti.

 

At this point, it would be very enlightening for everyone to read Walter Williams' column dated January 20, 2010, entitled "Haiti's Avoidable Death Toll."

 

See Walter's column at:

 

http://tinyurl.com/haiti-avoidable-death

 

In short, Williams notes that the high death toll in Haiti is directly related to the inferior political/economic philosophies of the Haitian government. There is no economic liberty, which has relegated it to being one of the world's poorest nations, with no opportunity to build the kind of homes and businesses that can withstand natural disasters. Williams is right when he says, "President Barack Obama called the quake 'especially cruel and incomprehensible.' He would be closer to the truth if he had said that the Haitian political and economic climate that make Haitians helpless in the face of natural disasters are 'especially cruel and incomprehensible.'"

 

Williams also observes, "Corruption is rampant" in Haiti. Crime is, likewise, ubiquitous in Haiti, with little real law enforcement. Private property rights are nonexistent. Like many (if not most) third world countries, people live in tyranny and bondage to insensitive, power-mad strongmen who use up the country's resources for their own selfish purposes.

 

Tyranny always impoverishes people; freedom enriches them.

 

Williams rightly concludes, "Haiti's disaster demands immediate Western assistance but it's only the Haitian people who can relieve themselves of the deeper tragedy of self-inflicted poverty." Amen.

 

All of that said, however, there are still several things bugging me about the Haiti story.

 

For one thing, why was an earthquake of this magnitude not felt beyond Port-au-Prince? (The only reports saying tremors were felt out of Haiti belong to US-controlled sources.) All of the testimonies that I have read from people living in the adjoining country of the Dominican Republic (which shares the same island with Haiti) that were quoted by French, British, or Spanish outlets universally say they felt nothing. If the foreign press is reporting the story accurately, the devastation was almost exclusively contained in and around Port-au-Prince. That is very strange to me. Even most of the roads reportedly remained open after the quake.

 

Another oddity is the fact that this earthquake did not produce a tsunami.

 

It is being called "miraculous" that an earthquake measuring 7.0 on the Richter Scale did not produce a colossal tsunami, which would have affected everyone in the region.

 

Furthermore, does the French government know something that we don't--but should? According to a report of the Global Analysis International Intelligence (GAII), "Not coincidentally, Agence France-Press (AFP), which of course is closely affiliated with French intelligence, filed a report on 14th January which contained the following concluding sentence:

 

"'On Wednesday, Obama ordered a "swift, coordinated and aggressive effort to save lives" in Haiti following the murderous quake, as a massive US aid mission swung into action, using troops, naval forces, aircraft and rescue teams.'

 

"FACT: An 'act of God,' or natural calamity, is NOT a 'murderous quake.'

 

"The use of the word MURDEROUS here implies that someone is doing the MURDERING."

 

GAII further speculates that the earthquake may have been the work of US Black Ops, which "flattened the French embassy and many of its officials, imploded the United Nations' own establishments in the Haitian capital, and no doubt obliterated evidence of US Government and rogue official drug-running complicity . . . channeled through the Haitian capital for many years."

 

See the intelligence report at:

 

http://tinyurl.com/gaii-haiti

 

Intelligence reports are also circulating about the possible disruption of liens and seizures of trillions of dollars by the international community relative to past crimes committed by former Presidents George Bush I and II, and Bill Clinton, which were being channeled through Haiti's Central Bank.

 

If any of this is even remotely true, it is certainly more than convenient that the Haitian capital was destroyed.

 

This particular part of the story is a real sore spot with me. And I know if I broach this topic, many readers (especially my Christian brethren who live under the delusion that the Bush family can do no wrong) will refuse to believe anything I report and will even take their anger and umbrage out on me. So be it.

 

I am personally convinced that certain members of the Bush and Clinton families have been involved in the international smuggling of illicit drugs for decades. I have spoken in confidence with those who were in positions to know, and they have emphatically told me that both then-Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton and then-President George H.W. Bush were complicit in CIA-assisted drug running out of Mena, Arkansas. (You don't think I would say this if I did not have absolute confidence in the integrity and credibility of these sources, do you? Plus, why would they tell me this at potential great harm to themselves, if it were not true? And, no, I cannot divulge their names, for obvious reasons.) And there is absolutely no reason to believe that similar operations are not ongoing. In my opinion, it would be utterly naïve to think otherwise.

 

After all, it has been often reported that the CIA used Army Special Forces troops to facilitate the smuggling of drugs out of Indochina during the Vietnam War, has it not? Yes, it has. That rogue elements within the US government would use war--or even earthquakes--as cover and facilitation for illegal drug smuggling or money laundering would not surprise me one bit.

 

I realize it is extremely difficult for many Americans to contemplate that members of their own federal government could be evil enough to be involved in anything such as is implied above. According to the thinking of many Americans, evil people only live in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, or North Korea.

 

And, of course, that is exactly what government propagandists want us to believe.

 

The truth is, no country or people has a monopoly on sin. As the prophet Jeremiah was inspired to say, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9) The Apostle Paul agreed. He told the Philippians, "We . . . have no confidence in the flesh." (Philippians 3:3)

 

Thomas Jefferson said virtually the same thing when he said, "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

 

This is why Jefferson and the rest of America's founders insisted that we should be diligent to hold our civil magistrates accountable to the limits and protections of the US Constitution. They well understood the sentiments so wisely expressed by Lord Acton, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

 

Christians, of all people, should understand this.

 

So, why are so many of us so quick to believe everything our government and their toadies in the national media are telling us? Are we so naïve as to believe that unregenerate politicians in Washington, D.C., are incapable of the same evil acts of barbarity and savagery that might be found in other parts of the world? Are sinners less sinful because they happened to receive their fallen nature from American bloodlines?

 

Am I saying that Black Ops personnel manufactured the earthquake in Haiti--and killed tens of thousands of people in the process--for the purpose of hiding or facilitating illegal activity? No, I am not. How in the world would I know it, even if it were true?

 

What I am saying is that, once again, for me, there are many things that do not add up regarding what is going on in Haiti. The way the earthquake behaved; the lack of related seismic and tsunamic activity usually associated with earthquakes of this magnitude; the unprecedented involvement of US military forces being used for "relief efforts" even as commanders are desperate to fill combat theaters in Iraq and Afghanistan; the occupation of another independent nation, which occurred at lightning speed; the vast sums of US taxpayer dollars being expended; the devastation done to key Haitian governmental and banking institutions--which were known to be conduits for international financial disbursements--with virtually no devastation experienced anywhere else; and intelligence reports of surreptitious activity circulating all over Europe and Latin America all add up to one big question, What's really going on in Haiti?

 

 

 

Read more >>

Pentagon Sanitizes Fort Hood Islamic Terrorist Massacre Report

By TVC Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon

 

The Pentagon's report on the Islamic terrorist Army Major who gunned down 13 Americans at Fort Hood in November 2009, uses the word "Islam" and "Islamic" one time each in footnote 22.

 

In addition, the report doesn't even name Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Islamist who killed the Americans. The first paragraph of the Executive Summary refers to Hasan as "a gunman" who opened fire at the Soldier Readiness Center. In the same paragraph, he is referred to as an "assailant." His name is not anywhere to be found in the document.

 

The rest of the report talks about "shortcomings" in the military's ability to stop foreign terrorists from using American soldiers against the U.S.

 

According to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, "It ... reveals shortcomings in the way the department is prepared to defend against threats posed by external influences operating on members of our military community. We have not done enough to adapt to the evolving domestic internal security threat to American troops and military facilities."

 

The fact is that Major Nidal Malik Hasan, was known for a long time to be an anti-American Muslim who didn't hide his views from his fellow soldiers. The FBI was certainly aware of his anti-American Jihadist views. FBI agents were monitoring his emails to Al Qaeda operatives!

 

He screamed "Allah Akbar" (Allah Is Great) as he gunned down his victims in the Soldier Readiness Center.

 

The Pentagon report is clearly an Obama-inspired whitewash of one of the most tragic Islamic terrorist acts in our history. Clearly, Hasan wasn't loyal to our country and betrayed his oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. To me, he is not only guilty of murder but of treason against his country.

Read more >>

The Federal Reserve Is Inflating Another Bubble

By Thomas E. Brewton

Stock market exuberance is symptomatic of a rapidly expanding money supply’s corrosive effect.

In the last two trading days of the week ending January 23rd, the Dow Industrial Index plummeted 430.170 points, the worst decline in a year.  Major factors, according to Street gossip, were continuing weakness in corporate sales and growing fears that Helicopter Ben Bernanke might not be re-appointed Fed chairman.

As the Wall Street Journal reported:

Much of the selling Friday, which took the Dow down 2.1% to 10172.98, was pinned on news out of Washington, where more Democratic senators came out against the nomination of Ben Bernanke to a second term as Federal Reserve chairman.

“It felt as though every time a senator came out expressing doubt or uncertainty about their willingness to vote in favor of Bernanke, it took us down another five points,” said Craig Peckham, equity trading strategist at Jefferies & Co.

Why would the possible loss of Mr. Bernanke at the Fed cause a stock market panic? 

The answer is that money managers and individual investors have come to rely upon the Fed’s readiness to pump up the stock market with increases in the money supply that lower interest rates. 

Much of the stock market’s spectacular 61% rise from the March, 2009, low point to the high point on January 19, 2010, was the product of unprecedented loose money and low interest rates, and of Mr. Bernanke’s continual assurances that he would keep it that way.  At the beginning of the past year, stock market columnists noted that vast amounts of investment funds were on the sidelines.  Despite murky economic conditions, money managers piled back into the higher-risk stock market in the expectation of continuing Fed accommodation.

Money managers and stock traders had reason for that expectation.

From 2001 to 2004, the Fed pumped massive amounts of fiat money into the economy to deal with the collapse of the dot.com bubble that cratered the stock market.  Before that the dot.com bubble had been inflated by the Fed’s bailout of Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) in 1998.  LTCM itself was a bubble enabled by the Fed’s flooding the markets with money after the 1987 stock market crash.

In the short run, which is the only dimension on the radar screen of liberal-progressivism’s Keynesian economics, stock markets tend initially to rise under those conditions.  Usually within a year or two, however, inflation takes hold and punishes the stock market.  Other financial market assets are similarly affected, as happened most recently in the housing bubble and collapse of the subprime, securitized mortgages.

Mr. Bernanke’s short-sighted policies at the Fed produce both low interest rate on Treasuries and declining purchasing power of the dollar.  Creating vast amounts of money out of thin air lowers interest rates until inflation takes hold.  It also reduces interest rates until business begins to expand.  In the long run, consequent inflation causes investors to demand much higher interest rates to compensate for the dollar’s loss of purchasing power.  Those higher interest rates choke business expansion, reduce government’s tax revenues, and lead to demands for newer and larger deficit spending programs that set the stage for yet another round of recession and inflation.

Last year there were two short-term factors in play.  First, the lowest-risk place to park investable funds was in short-term U.S. Treasury securities. But short-term Treasuries were, and still are, yielding far less than 1% per annum, much less than the rate at which the purchasing power of the dollar is declining.  The Fed’s loose-money, low-interest-rate policy, and Mr. Bernanke’s assurances that interest rates will not be increased rapidly or soon, gave money managers strong incentive to put investable funds into higher-risk securities.  Ergo, the booming stock market.

Second, Mr. Bernanke and his predecessor Alan Greenspan steadily held to the Keynesian economic faith that unlimited amounts of fiat money will cure any economic problem.  Because the stock market had come to expect that policy, money managers, as noted, felt fairly safe in jumping back into the stock market, believing that all that Fed-created money supply had nowhere else to go.

Meanwhile, the real economy is marking time.  Corporate earnings have bounced back somewhat, almost entirely as a consequence of cost-cutting and higher productivity per worker.  That’s another way of saying that business remains very cautious about the unknowable extent to which the socialist Obama administration will hammer them with higher taxes and higher medical benefits costs, as well as what further nationalizations or draconian regulations may be imposed to punish business.  Businessmen will defer significant re-hiring of employees until they know the full extent of the socialistic depredations to be inflicted by the Democrat/Socialist Party. 

If President Obama continues publicly to berate bankers and businessmen and Congress continues to impose costly new liberal-progressive programs, business will remain slow to ramp up production, and unemployment will remain high.  Without growth of sales to raise business profits, the stock market will enter another cycle of decline.

Read more >>

Network flaw causes scary Web error

By JORDAN ROBERTSON

A Georgia mother and her two daughters logged onto Facebook from mobile phones last weekend and wound up in a startling place: strangers' accounts with full access to troves of private information.

The glitch—the result of a routing problem at the family's wireless carrier, AT&T—revealed a little known security flaw with far reaching implications for everyone on the Internet, not just Facebook users.

In each case, the Internet lost track of who was who, putting the women into the wrong accounts. It doesn't appear the users could have done anything to stop it. The problem adds a dimension to researchers' warnings that there are many ways online information—from mundane data to dark secrets—can go awry.

Several security experts said they had not heard of a case like this, in which the wrong person was shown a Web page whose user name and password had been entered by someone else. It's not clear whether such episodes are rare or simply not reported. But experts said such flaws could occur on e-mail services, for instance, and that something similar could happen on a PC, not just a phone.

"The fact that it did happen is proof that it could potentially happen again and with something a lot more important than Facebook," said Nathan Hamiel, founder of the Hexagon Security Group, a research organization.

Candace Sawyer, 26, says she immediately suspected something was wrong when she tried to visit her Facebook page Saturday morning.

After typing Facebook.com into her Nokia smart phone, she was taken into the site without being asked for her user name or password. She was in an account that didn't look like hers. She had fewer friend requests than she remembered. Then she found a picture of the page's owner.

"He's white—I'm not," she said with a laugh.

Sawyer logged off and asked her sister, Mari, 31, her partner in a dessert catering company, and their mother, Fran, 57, to see whether they had the same problem on their phones.

Mari landed inside another woman's page.

Fran's phone—which had never been used to access Facebook before—took her inside yet another stranger's page, one belonging to a young woman from Indiana. They sent an e-mail to one of their own accounts to prove it.

They were dumbfounded.

"I thought it was the phone—`Maybe this phone is just weird and does magical, horrible things and I have to get rid of it,'" said Candace Sawyer.

The women, who live together in East Point, Ga., outside Atlanta, had recently upgraded to the same model of phone and all used the same carrier, AT&T.

Sawyer contacted The Associated Press after reporting the problem to Facebook and AT&T.

The problem wasn't in the phones. It was a flaw in the infrastructure connecting the phones to the Internet.

That illuminates a grave problem.

Generally Web sites and computers are compromised from within. A hacker can get a Web page or computers to run programming code that they shouldn't. But in this case, it was a security gap between the phone and the Web site that exposed strangers' Facebook pages to the Sawyers. Misconfigured equipment, poorly written network software or other technical errors could have caused AT&T to fumble the information flowing from the Sawyers' phones to Facebook and back.

Fortunately, Hamiel said, the vulnerability would be of limited use to a hacker interested in pulling off widespread mayhem, because this hole would let him access only one account at a time. To do more damage the criminal would have to pull off the unlikely feat of gaining full control of the piece of equipment that routes Internet traffic to individual users.

AT&T spokesman Michael Coe said its wireless customers have landed in the wrong Facebook pages in "a limited number of instances" and that a network problem behind those episodes is being fixed.

The Sawyers experienced a different glitch. Coe said an investigation points to a "misdirected cookie." A cookie is a file some Web sites place on computers to store identifying information—including the user name that Facebook members would enter to access their pages. Coe said technicians couldn't figure out how the cookie had been routed to the wrong phone, leading it into the wrong Facebook account.

He also said AT&T could confirm only that the problem occurred on one of the Sawyers' phones, possibly because they had logged off Facebook on the other two before reporting the incident.

Facebook declined to comment and referred questions to AT&T.

Some Web sites would be immune from this kind of mix-up, particularly those that use encryption. A Web browser would have trouble deciphering the encryption on a page that a computer user didn't actually seek, said Chris Wysopal, co-founder of Veracode Inc., a security company.

Sensitive sites and those used for banking and e-commerce generally use encryption. But most other sites, including some Web-based e-mail services, don't use it. One way of checking: The Web addresses of encrypted sites begin with "https" rather than "http." Facebook uses encryption when user names and passwords are entered, to cloak the sign-on from snoops, but after the credentials are entered the encryption is dropped.

It's unclear how many people were affected by the problem the Sawyers discovered, and whether it was limited to Facebook.

The reason all three women experienced the glitch is a function of the way cellular networks are designed. In some cases, all the mobile Internet traffic for a particular area is routed through the same piece of networking equipment. If that piece of equipment is misbehaving or set up incorrectly, strange things happen when computers down the line receive the data.

Usually that means a Web site simply won't load, said Alberto Solino, director of security consulting services for Core Security Technologies. In the Sawyers' case, "somehow they got the wrong user but they could keep using that account for a long period of time. That's what's strange," he said.

The AP tried to contact two of the people whose Facebook pages were exposed to the Sawyers, but the calls and e-mails were not returned. It's unclear whether they are also AT&T customers, though security experts said that's likely the case.

Indeed, it was the case in a similar incident in November.

Stephen Simburg, 25, who works in marketing, was home for Thanksgiving in Vancouver, Wash., when he logged onto Facebook from his cell phone. He didn't recognize the people who had written him messages.

"I thought I had gotten really popular all of a sudden, or something was wrong," he said. Then he saw the picture of the account owner: A young woman.

He got her e-mail address from the site, logged off and wrote the woman a message. He asked whether he had met her at some point and she had borrowed his phone to check her Facebook account.

"No," she wrote back, "but I was just telling my family that I ended up in your profile!"

Simburg and the woman figured out they were both using AT&T to access Facebook on their phones. (AT&T had no comment because the incident wasn't reported to the company.)

"I felt like I had been let down by the phone company and by Facebook," he said.

He says he has put the incident behind him. But one piece of it remains: He and the young woman are now Facebook friends.

Read more >>

FCC looks at ways to assert authority over Web access

By Cecilia Kang

The Federal Communications Commission is considering aggressive moves to stake out its authority to oversee consumer access to the Internet, as a recent court hearing and industry opposition have cast doubt on its power over Web service providers.

The FCC, which regulates public access to telephone and television services, has been working to claim the same role for the Internet. The stakes are high, as the Obama administration pushes an agenda of open broadband access for all and big corporations work to protect their enormous investments in a new and powerful medium.

"This is a pivotal moment," said Ben Scott, director of policy at the public interest group Free Press. The government wants to treat broadband Internet as a national infrastructure, he said, like phone lines or the broadcast spectrum. But federal regulators are grappling with older policies that do not clearly protect consumers' access to the Web, their privacy or prices of service.

The issue may have reached a turning point last week when a federal appeals court questioned the limits of the FCC's authority in a 2008 case involving Comcast. The agency had ordered the Internet and cable giant to stop blocking subscribers' access to the online file-sharing service BitTorrent. But in an oral hearing last Friday, three judges grilled an FCC lawyer over whether the agency had acted outside the scope of its authority.

The appeals court is still hearing the case, but analysts predict that the FCC will lose and that the ruling could throw all of its efforts to oversee Internet access into question. A loss could undermine the legality of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's push for policies that would prohibit service providers from restricting customers' access to legal Web content -- the concept known as net neutrality -- and throw into doubt the agency's ability to oversee pricing and competition among Internet service providers.

The agency said it will continue to argue that it had the authority to rule against Comcast, but it is making plans to deal with a loss.

"If the court removes the legal basis for the current approach to broadband, the commission may be compelled to undertake a major reassessment of its policy framework . . . or Congress will have to act," said Colin Crowell, senior adviser to Genachowski. "Any policies the commission pursues for the broadband marketplace will be rooted in the pro-consumer, pro-competitive structure of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, regardless of how the court ultimately decides."

Specifically, that could mean the agency will reverse policies from the past decade that put cable and DSL Internet services in a special category over which the agency has only "ancillary jurisdiction." Those policies were intended to deregulate Internet services in order to promote competition and innovation in the young industry as it developed. Consumer groups argue that they instead reduced competition and drove prices higher.

Analysts said the FCC may look to put broadband services back into a category alongside phone services that is clearly under the authority of the government.

At issue, some FCC officials say, is the future of how Americans will communicate and receive information. One in five U.S. homes has swapped landline telephone service for wireless. Most of those phones have Web browsers that are fast enough to watch videos and navigate traffic in real time. Consumers are also adopting ultra-high-speed Internet services over fiber and cable for 3-D games and videoconferencing.

"While I am still hopeful that we'll win the case, I am absolutely certain that consumers expect protection against gatekeeper control," said Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat. "That's why we need to move forward with whatever tools we have at our disposal to ensure an open Internet."

A move to reclassify broadband services would almost certainly be opposed. The telephone category is steeped in decades-long rules that are meant to prohibit blocking of services, protect consumer prices and spur competition. Such rules would be a stark change for Internet service providers that invest billions of dollars each year in networks but also receive high rates of consumer complaints over prices and services.

"To the extent that we need more regulation, we think less is more," said Kyle McSlarrow, head of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, a trade group. "The more granular and more regulatory we become with practical and legal issues, we can go too far."

The agency also could ask Congress to grant it explicit authority over Internet service providers. But that approach would also face significant barriers, analysts said.

"The odds are against it," said Paul Gallant, an analyst at Concept Capital, a research firm. "Net neutrality is the most controversial issue in the telecom media world, and even with a Democratic majority, it's not easy to pass."

Read more >>

Democrats Threaten: Senate Can Pass Health With 51 Votes

By Jonathan D. Salant

Even if Democrats lose the special election to pick a new Massachusetts senator Tuesday, Congress may still pass health-care overhaul through a process called reconciliation, a top House Democrat said.

That procedure requires 51 votes rather than the 60 needed to prevent Republicans from blocking votes on President Barack Obama’s top legislative priorities. That supermajority is at risk as the Massachusetts race has tightened.

"Even before Massachusetts and that race was on the radar screen, we prepared for the process of using reconciliation," Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said.

"Getting health-care reform passed is important," Van Hollen said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s "Political Capital with Al Hunt," airing this weekend. "Reconciliation is an option."

Should Democrats take that route, the legislation would have to be scaled back because of Senate rules.

He also said he expects Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley to win in Massachusetts.

Van Hollen said Republican predictions that the political climate had changed so much that they can capture the 40 seats needed to regain control of the House was "pure hallucination."

‘Into the Ditch’

"Why would you hand the keys to the car back to the same guys whose policies drove the economy into the ditch and then walked away from the scene of the accident?" Van Hollen said. "For the Republicans to say vote for us and bring back the guys who got us into this mess in the first place, I don’t think it’s a winner."

He said Democrats expect to see their majority shrink this year because the party that occupies the White House traditionally loses congressional seats in the first midterm election.

At the end of a week dominated by images of death and destruction after the Jan. 12 earthquake in Haiti, Van Hollen said lawmakers likely will approve whatever relief money the president requests. Obama has already asked for $100 million.

"We want to help people who need relief immediately, and so to that extent I support it," Van Hollen said this afternoon.

Separately, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that Haitian nationals now in the U.S. will be allowed to stay for an additional 18 months because of the quake devastation.

Gasoline Tax

On other domestic issues, Van Hollen said Congress won’t raise the gasoline tax this year to fund a new long-term construction program for roads and mass transit. The current six-year, $286.5 billion transportation legislation is expiring.

Jobs legislation passed by the House includes $50 billion for construction projects, Van Hollen said. Longer-term legislation with a gas-tax increase will require "some kind of bipartisan consensus before you more forward," he said.

On the decision to require Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to testify before the House Financial Services Committee, Van Hollen said that while he didn’t believe Geithner was in political danger, it was appropriate for him to come before Congress.

AIG Payments

Lawmakers want to know why the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which Geithner formerly led, agreed to payments of 100 cents on the dollar to companies that held American International Group Inc. credit-default swaps tied to subprime mortgages.

Van Hollen said the New York Fed’s decision was wrong and the U.S. needed to "understand how that decision was made, because that kind of decision should not be made in the future."

As Democratic congressional leaders worked with the White House to meld House and Senate versions of the health-care overhaul legislation, Van Hollen said there was no deadline for completing the measure.

"Our more important goal is to make sure we get it right," he said.

While polls show opposition to the legislation -- a Quinnipiac University survey found 58 percent of Americans opposing the way Obama was handling the issue -- Van Hollen said the individual components were popular and most people will support the measure once it clears Congress.

"It’s been subject to a lot of demagoguery, a lot of misinformation," Van Hollen said. Once the measure is finished, "people will see the benefits."

Read more >>

Dem Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn't work in the emergency room'

Democrat Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn't work in the emergency room'

By Kerry Picket

How can a Massachusetts Senate candidate possibly offend  39 percent of voters in her state? If it's Democrat Attorney General Martha Coakley, she would tell devout Catholics not to bother working in an emergency room (H/T Jim Hoft - Big Government). In the audio clip below, Ms. Coakley chokes on a question from radio host Ken Pittman referring to the conscience clause. Under the  conscience clause, workers in health-care environments ranging from doctors to maintenance men can refuse to offer services, information, or advice to patients on issues like contraception, blood transfusions, etc..if the workers are morally against it. Here is how Ms. Coakley handled the matter. (audio and transcript below):

Ken Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don’t want to do that.

Martha Coakley: No we have a seperation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.

Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.

Martha Coakley: (……uh, eh…um..) The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.

---

Editor: I do not know about you, but that statement sure OFFENDS ME!

Read more >>

Obama Delivers on His Transparency Promise: We're Seeing Straight Through Him

by Doug Giles

"Since a politician never believes what he says, he is surprised when others believe him."

—Charles de Gaulle

I’m hearing nada from the likes of Matthews, Maddow and Olbermann regarding Obama lying to us with his many empty yet unctuous campaign promises to allow "we the plebes" a peek into the claymation of his health care crap via CSPAN.

Why the silence, sweeties? Oh, I remember why: You’re a spigot for the Obama chum slick. Silly me.

Now, you just know the aforementioned tres Chihuahuas of faux facts would have been on Bush like a condom full of PETN in Umar’s undies if Dubya would have parlayed that smack on the general populace and then failed to deliver in an oh-so-odious and obvious Obama-like way.

However, when Obama lies to us all … I hear crickets … nuttin’ but crickets … from these deeply biased chicks on their severely unwatched propaganda programs. It must be weird to suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. Hope and change, morons, hope and change. Sing it, Keith, Mmm … mmm… mmm… Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama promised us transparency, and I for one believe he has delivered; I think we’re all beginning to see straight through Mr. KY. Those who bought his initial "look at me, I’m Jesus" rhetoric during the campaign are having that same "I got screwed" sensation my friend Slappy White felt when he ordered the At Home Hair Cut Kit and the inflatable girlfriend off QVC. It just ain’t working like it did on TV, man.

Gawd, you know it’s getting bad for Obama and the sand is indeed running out of his ruse when the in-the-tank White House Press Corp and the Queen of Botox & Bollocks, Nancy Pelosi, start busting his chops about his CSPAN/Health Care lies. This is truly Obama’s "read my lips" moment.

However, Keith, Chris and Rachel are not going to stop cheerleading; they’re going to ride this Obama thang out ‘til the bloody end. Indeed, they will keep singing and skipping down Lover’s Lane with a man who’s got no flippin’ problem with lying to our faces.

Now, don’t get me wrong: If Obama did air the Health Care sausage fest on CSPAN, I probably would not watch it. If I wanted to watch greedy, power hungry, scum-sucking whores who virulently do not give a flibbertigibbet about anyone or anything sell their souls, their friends’ futures, and their grandmothers’ back skin to the devil, I’ll go to South Beach. At least the people there are way better looking.

As far as I’m concerned, Obama the CSPANer is nothing more, nothing less than an Eddie Haskell with a tan—a smarmy and svelte liar you can count on to do the exact opposite of what he tells Mrs. Cleaver he will do. And the CSPAN bollocks highlights his hypocrisy with bright, fluorescent yellow hues.

Read more >>

R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

by Mike Adams

I used to wonder what it would be like to work for Nancy Pelosi. Imagine having to answer to a left-wing feminist who alternately encourages uncivil discourse (to war protestors) and civil discourse (to town hall protestors) depending on political expediency. But I do know something about working for Nancy Pelosi. I work for her ideological twin sister, Rosemary DePaolo.

In January of 2008, there was a movement by some members of the faculty senate to fire DePaolo for, among other things, her authoritarian style of leadership. DePaolo undoubtedly got wind of the potential coup. She could not possibly have been unaware of the fact that she was losing control over the faculty. So she did what many radical feminists do under the circumstances: She hired a man to come save her.

After Provost Brian Chapman was hired to come to the aid of our East Coast Nancy Pelosi it took only a matter of weeks for him to wear out his welcome. Somewhere between slamming his cell phone on desks during arguments and shaking his finger at faculty members while scolding them he quickly earned a reputation as a hot-head.

Chapman later tried to mend his damaged reputation by attending various department meetings in a stated effort to correct "misperceptions" about his style of governance. During one of those faculty meetings a tenured professor asked Chapman whether he was hired to come in here and "kick a**" for DePaolo. He answered in the affirmative.

In other words, our East Coast Nancy Pelosi needed someone to yell at the faculty and keep them in line. But she didn’t want to be the one who was tagged as being "uncivil." She gave the job to a stronger man.

The faculty responded with an uprising and fired Chapman. Chancellor DePaolo (hereafter: DePelosi) responded by pushing for greater "respect" and "civility" on campus. She even had the following "Seahawk Respect Compact" framed and posted in every classroom on campus:

"In the pursuit of excellence, UNC Wilmington actively fosters, encourages and promotes inclusiveness, mutual respect, acceptance and open-mindedness among students, faculty, staff and the broader community.

Therefore, we expect members of the campus community to honor these principles as fundamental to our ongoing efforts to increase access to and inclusion in a community that nurtures learning and growth for all."

~ We affirm the dignity of all persons. ~ ~ We promote the right of every person to participate in the free exchange of thoughts and opinions within a climate of civility and mutual respect. ~

~ We strive for openness and mutual understanding to learn from differences in people, ideas and opinions. ~

~ We foster an environment of respect for each individual, even where differences exist by eliminating prejudice and discrimination through education and interaction with others. ~

In other words, DePelosi did everything short of hiring Elton John to come sing "Can you feel the love tonight" before the entire faculty senate.

It is important for every conservative to read that compact (and to forward this column) because it reveals fundamental truths about how the liberal operates in response to a potential loss of political power – or even the prospect of losing a simple argument. Some of those truths are worth highlighting:

The phrase "you’re being uncivil" always means that the liberal is experiencing anger at his, her, or its inability counter an intelligent political move or political argument. When the liberal begins to hate the speaker, he, she, or it refers to the argument as "hate speech."

The phrase "you’re being uncivil" is most frequently employed by the least polite and least socially skilled (e.g. Nancy Pelosi) party in a given conflict.

The appropriate conservative response to an accusation of incivility is to: a) identify the exact words, phrases, and ideas that provoked the accusation of incivility, and b) increase their frequency of use by at least 50% in all subsequent confrontations with the accusing liberal.

And, finally, (it should go without saying) never apologize in response to an accusation of incivility at the hands of a liberal.

Recently, a student came by to complain that he had gone to one of DePelosi’s "open forums" designed to allow students to ask questions of the Speaker, I mean, Chancellor. He wanted to ask a question but was not allowed to. Instead, students were asked to write down their questions on a sheet of paper. An assistant to the chancellor then filtered all the questions and read the easier ones to the Chancellor, thereby avoiding any direct exchanges with the students (read: constituents).

That scene mirrors the way our politicians view us today. They are increasingly afraid of us because they are increasingly aware that we do not approve of what they are doing to us. But our approval is, in their eyes, increasingly irrelevant. And they try to shut us out of the process by ignoring difficult questions.

I really don’t respect Chancellor DePelosi because she has not earned it by showing she can debate with people a third of her age. Nor do I respect Speaker Pelosi since she is unwilling to allow transparency during the legislative process.

Respect cannot be legislated any more than it can be framed and nailed on a wall. Respect must be earned. Then, and only then, can we talk about civility.

Read more >>

Being a Democrat Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry.and Mean It

By Doug Patton

George W. Bush was said to be a walking gaffe machine. Late night comedians had eight years of fertile ground for material about the former president’s fumbling vocabulary. Indeed, books, calendars and other materials were published touting "Bushisms." But if loose lips sink ships, Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could take down a carrier division. Like Biden, Reid has a penchant for uttering inanities and not even realizing how stupid he sounds.

The soon-to-be-former senator from Nevada has compared those who oppose his health care boondoggle to supporters of slavery. Remember that one?

In 2007, while America’s sons and daughters were in harm’s way, fighting and bleeding and dying for our country in Iraq, Reid told us that the surge had failed and that the war was lost.

He once called the President of the United States (Bush, of course) a "loser" to a classroom of students. This year, he called Tea Party people "evil-mongers."

He told the Reno Gazette-Journal that Ted Kennedy’s death "is going to help" Democrats pass health care.

And at the dedication of the new Capitol Visitors Center, he expressed appreciation for the fact that now he and his colleagues wouldn’t have to "smell the tourists" filling the Capitol on hot summer days in Washington.

Now a new book, "Game Change," by Mark Halperin, quotes Senator Foot-in-mouth as saying during the 2008 presidential campaign that Barack Obama could win because he is "light-skinned" and has "no negro dialect — unless he wants to." All of which, as George Will has pointed out, is true, but it is about as politically incorrect as anything to come out of the mouth of a Democrat politician since West Virginia Senator and former KKK leader Robert Byrd used the words "white niggers" in a rambling, all-too-candid interview a few years ago.

But then, being a Democrat means you never have to say you’re sorry…and mean it. And if you do say you’re sorry, it is usually one of those "I’m sorry if I offended anyone" apologies. (I guess that means that if no one was offended, then there is no need to apologize — even if what was said was wrong and deeply offensive.)

All of us remember what happened to Trent Lott when he held the Senate majority leader’s job a few years ago. Poor Trent made the mistake of standing up and saying something nice about retiring Senator Strom Thurmond on the occasion of Thurmond’s 100th birthday. As I recall, Lott said that lot of people feel the country would have been better off if then-Dixiecrat Thurmond had won the 1948 presidential election. Remember all hell breaking loose? One could hear the harrumphing of virtually all Democrats (one of whom was a little-known Illinois state senator named Barack Obama) and the wimpy gasping of far too many Republicans as Lott’s career went swirling around and down the toilet.

Of course, Strom Thurmond stood for a lot more than segregation, even in 1948, but that didn’t matter. Trent Lott was pilloried and forced to resign his position as majority leader.

Three Republicans are vying for their nomination to run against Harry Reid, and polls show that Reid would lose to any of his potential opponents if the election were held today. Based on current polling of GOP voters, Reid’s likely opponent in next November’s election will be former Nevada GOP Chairwoman Sue Lowden. Lowden says that even before this latest revelation, Reid had become an embarrassment to most Nevadans. Reid responds by saying, of Lowden, that he will "vaporize her." Lowden, sporting the sense of humor that has gotten her this far, quips, "Tell him to start with my hips!"

The irony is that Harry Reid is being accused of making racist statements toward Barack Obama, but it is Reid who has fallen in line to carry the water for the president, and it is Obama who is in the position of calling the shots. Obama says he has forgiven Reid and wants to put the whole thing behind them. I guess Democrats are only capable of being offended by things said by Republicans.

Doug Patton is a former speechwriter and public policy advisor who now works as a freelance writer. His weekly columns appear in newspapers across the country and on various Internet websites, including Human Events Online and GOPUSA.com, where is a senior writer and state editor.

Read more >>

Obama's 666 International Police Order

Without any fanfare, President Obama has signed an Executive Order that undermines our national sovereignty to benefit a foreign police organization

By TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty

On December 16, 2009, President Obama secretly signed an Executive Order 12425 (EO) that gives Interpol unprecedented access in America to pursue and prosecute “criminals.” We may as well have given Interpol a badge with 666 on it.

The EO exempts Interpol (International Criminal Police Organization) from being accountable to our own law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI.

Interpol is an international police organization that investigates crime and refers defendants for trial in foreign lands. The Interpol website describes its purpose as follows:

… it facilitates cross-border police co-operation, and supports and assists all organizations, authorities and services whose mission is to prevent or combat international crime.

INTERPOL aims to facilitate international police co-operation even where diplomatic relations do not exist between particular countries. Action is taken within the limits of existing laws in different countries and in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Nearly 200 countries work with Interpol, including some of the most ruthless Communist and Islamic tyrannies on earth.

The Obama EO removes the protections put into place by President Ronald Reagan in 1983 to protect Americans from being pursued by a foreign law enforcement agency within our borders. With this Obama EO, Interpol will operate outside of the constraints of the U.S. Constitution.

The current Secretary General of Interpol is Ronald Noble. He is an American who oversaw the Treasury Department’s review of the 1993 raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. That massacre left nearly 80 people dead. Interpol has a history of being staffed by numerous Nazis from 1930 even into the 1970s.

Interpol’s new powers within the U.S. could be used to enforce arrest warrants for Americans who are charged with “war crimes” – including former Bush officials who prosecuted the war on Islamic terrorism. This could include American soldiers as well. Last year, TVC warned that Democrats were going to attempt to try President Bush for “war crimes.”

Interpol could refer individuals for arrest and facilitate their extradition to foreign courts for trial. One internationalist goal within the Obama Administration is to have America come under the authority of the International Criminal Court (ICC) headquartered in Brussels, Belgium.  (In February, 2009, the Obama Administration began signaling that it was open to having America come under the authority of the ICC.)  Former President George W. Bush made certain America did not come under ICC authority.

This is not just a theoretical possibility. Interpol went after 25 Israeli government officials at the request of the terrorist state of Iran. Interpol actually issued arrest warrants for 15 Israeli over their Gaza offensive several years ago.

While the Obama Administration is seeking to give terrorists constitutional rights in American prisons, he is working to strip Americans of those constitutional rights by giving Interpol police powers within our borders – powers that can be used to violate the protections of American soldiers and Bush officials who prosecuted a war against Islamic terrorism.

What Does Snopes Say?

Snopes is a web site devoted to debunking urban legends that are circulated on the Internet. One of the more recent postings is about the Interpol issue. Snopes has reacted to a memo about Obama’s Executive Order (EO) circulating on the net that is clearly a fake. The memo quotes the EO and then adds additional comments not in EO 12425. It then ends the memo with “Barack Obama” as though he had signed the entire statement. While the memo is not true, the threat from Obama’s Interpol EO order does create a real and present danger.

What Are Conservatives Saying?

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was on “The O’Reilly Factor” on January 4 and discussed the Interpol issue. He noted: “Freedom of information acts don't apply. All the constraints that you as a citizen could use against an American police force, based on a recent Obama signed executive order, give Interpol – which has relationships with Syria, Libya, with Iran – it gives them all sorts of extra legality in the United States in a way that has never, ever before been offered to Interpol.”

Mark Tapscott, editorial page editor for the conservative Washington Examineris deeply concerned about the Interpol Executive Order:

If there is nothing newsworthy involved [about the Interpol story], then why won't the White House answer these basic questions regarding the EO?

* Every other international organization granted such exemptions deals with mundane issues like fish - the International Pacific Halibut Commission - or disaster aid - the Red Cross. But Interpol is a law enforcement operation. Why does President Obama think it appropriate to give such exemptions to an international law enforcement operation, and what does he want Interpol to do here in the U.S. in the future with the exemptions that it cannot do now without the exemptions?

* Does the search and seizure exemption extend to the activities and documents created by U.S. Department of Justice employees working with and for Interpol in New York and Washington, D.C.? If these employees and activities were already exempt from coverage of the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), why have FOIA requests concerning them been previously answered?

These are serious questions that the White House ought have no hesitation about answering, if indeed "there is nothing newsworthy here."   

 Andy McCarthy (formerly a federal prosecutor in the New York City blind sheik case) with National Review is also alarmed about the Interpol Executive Order. He has written:

Interpol works closely with international tribunals (such as the International Criminal Court — which the United States has refused to join because of its sovereignty surrendering provisions, though top Obama officials want us in it). It also works closely with foreign courts and law-enforcement authorities (such as those in Europe that are investigating former Bush administration officials for purported war crimes — i.e., for actions taken in America's defense).

Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize.

What Can Be Done?

The President has authority to issue Executive Orders, but these EOs can be nullified by Congress through legislation. An EO that violates a congressional law is illegal and must be rescinded. In addition, courts have determined that EOs are unconstitutional and have struck them down.

A lawsuit could result in the Obama Interpol EO being declared unconstitutional. The House and Senate could pass legislation ordering the repeal of the EO, but this would have to be signed into law by President Obama who wants international control over America.

The elections in November 2010, could change the balance of power in the House and Senate and give constitutionalists power once again to block liberal legislation – and to send a strong message to Obama that national sovereignty is not something to be given away to Interpol or the International Criminal Court – nor through climate change treaties or cap and tax schemes being pushed by liberals in Congress.

---

Additional Resources:
Obama Executive Order Cedes US Sovereignty, Citizen Rights to Interpol
Why Does Interpol Need Immunity from American Law? - Andy McCarthy - The Corner on National Review Online
Obama gives Interpol free hand in U.S. | Washington Examiner
Obama May Place U.S. Under International Criminal Court - HUMAN EVENTS
Executive Orders and Presidential Directives
The Use And Abuse Of Presidential Executive Orders
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1070021.html

Read more >>

Transparently NON Transparent

Editors Note: In my humble opinion, the ONLY reason to go to such extreme measures to be NON-TRANSPARENT on the health care legislation is simply they do not want you to know what they are doing until it is TO LATE. If they have NOTHING to HIDE then they simply would NOT BE HIDING things. Simple enough logic, yes?

C-SPAN Challenges Congress to Open Health Care Talks to TV Coverage

The head of C-SPAN has implored Congress to open up the last leg of health care reform negotiations to the public, as top Democrats lay plans to hash out the final product among themselves.

C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb wrote to leaders in the House and Senate Dec. 30 urging them to open "all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings," to televised coverage on his network.

"The C-SPAN networks will commit the necessary resources to covering all of the sessions LIVE and in their entirety," he wrote.

In a Tuesday afternoon press conference on health legislation negotiations, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appeared to object to the premise behind the request.

"There has never been a more open process for any legislation in anyone who’s served here’s experience," she said.

However, Republican leaders sided with C-SPAN's calls for transparency.

"As House Republican leader, I can confidently state that all House Republicans strongly endorse your proposal and stand ready to work with you to make it a reality," Minority Leader John Boehner wrote in response to the letter. "Hard-working families won't stand for having the future of their health care decided behind closed doors. These secret deliberations are a breeding ground for more of the kickbacks, shady deals and special-interest provisions that have become business as usual in Washington."

Democratic leaders could bypass the traditional conference committee process, in which lawmakers from both parties and chambers meet to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of a bill. Top Democrats in the House, Senate and White House were meeting Tuesday evening to figure out the final product in three-way talks before sending it back to both chambers for a final vote.

"We don't even know yet whether there's going to be a conference," Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen said responding to a question about the C-SPAN request. "It's not clear whether or not that's going to happen yet."

This format would seem ideal for closed-door meetings, which congressional Democrats have used many times to figure out sensitive provisions in the health care bill -- though President Obama pledged during the campaign to open up health care talks to C-SPAN's cameras.

"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are," Obama said at a debate against Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles on Jan. 31, 2008.

Asked about the request to Congress, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he hadn't seen the letter.

"I know the president is going to begin discussions today on health care to iron out differences between the House and Senate bills," he said.

Lamb urged Congress in his letter to fling open the doors in the final stretch of the negotiations.

"President Obama, Senate and House leaders, many of your rank-and-file members, and the nation's editorial pages have all talked about the value of transparent discussions on reforming the nation's health care system," he wrote. "Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation between the chambers, we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American."

Lamb said his network would use "the latest technology" to be "as unobtrusive as possible" during the talks.

---

WHITE HOUSE HAS ALLOWED ONLY 'ONE HOUR' OF HEALTHCARE COVERAGE

---

COUNT THE LIES: OBAMA VOWED 8 X TO TELEVISE HEALTHCARE

---

Pelosi tells C-SPAN: 'There has never been a more open process'

By Eric Zimmermann and Michael O'Brien

C-SPAN wrote a letter to congressional leaders Tuesday asking that TV cameras be allowed to film negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate versions of healthcare reform legislation.

But Pelosi said Congress has already been transparent throughout the process.

"There has never been a more open process for any legislation," Pelosi said at a press conference.

Pelosi also hinted that holding informal negotiations--likely without TV cameras--might be the most practical way to push the legislation through.

"We will do what is necessary to pass the bill," Pelosi said.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), assistant to the Speaker, said the healthcare bill had been "subjected to unprecedented level of public scrutiny."

Pressed on whether C-SPAN cameras would be allowed in negotiations, Van Hollen hedged.

"We don't even know if there's going to be a conference committee," he said, alluding to the likelihood that Democrats will reconcile the two bills behind closed doors.

---

Hiding health bills behind closed doors

Democrats keep government care secrets away from the public

It may be a new year, but congressional Democrats are planning the same old sorts of sleazy tactics in their bid to take over America's health care system. Congressional Republicans, especially in the Senate, should not let them get away with it. Transparency and ethics should be Republican rallying cries, and obstruction on those grounds should be a point of pride.

By now it's almost trite to complain that President Obama repeatedly has broken his campaign pledge to "broadcast [health care] negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are." That doesn't make the complaint invalid. For legislation that could so profoundly and personally affect the daily lives of every American, Congress and the White House should be more transparent and more accessible than ever before. Instead, the process has been secretive and sordid throughout.

The House passed its version of the bill on a Saturday night. The Senate held its key procedural vote at 1 in the morning, and then provided a lump of coal in our stockings by forcing full passage of its bill on Christmas Eve. The House leadership banned consideration of all but one amendment not offered by leadership itself - forbidding debate on more than 150 of them - then provided just 24 hours for members to study the bill's final text. The Senate leadership inserted so many tawdry last-minute items that analysts are still finding jokers in the deck 11 days later.

All these shenanigans have driven approval for the government health care bills even lower in public polls than the strong majorities that already opposed them a month ago. Yet that hasn't fazed congressional leaders. Now comes word from multiple sources that not only will Congress refuse to televise the usual Conference Committee to reconcile the two chambers' versions of the bill, but it won't allow a formal conference at all. Instead, a chosen few negotiators will concoct the final version out of sight, without formal rules governing the process and without a single Republican at the table.

Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, candidly told a Jan. 3 home-state Democratic gathering that the sleight-of-hand is intended to enable his colleagues to avoid any more tough votes until the one on final passage. David Dayen of the liberal Web site Firedoglake reported from the meeting that, "this will not be a traditional conference committee, Waxman said, because the motions to select and instruct conferees in the Senate 'would need 60 votes [in the Senate] all over again.'"

(Corrected paragraph:) Back in October, Rep. Vern Buchanan, Florida Republican, offered this simple resolution: "Resolved, that it is the sense of the House of Representatives that any conference committee or other meetings held to determine the final content of sweeping national health care legislation be held in full public view and not behind closed doors."

If congressional leaders do not abide this simple request, Republicans should bring the whole Senate to a halt. Senate rules provide for so many procedural obstacles, if a determined minority wants to exercise them, that the entire body could be tied up in knots for weeks on end. In the name of open and accountable government, that's what senators should do if the public interest continues to be trampled.

---

2006 Flashback: Pelosi Says Dems Will Have Most Honest & Ethical Congress

Read more >>

Planned Parenthood's abortion quotas exposed

Ex-director: We'd have client goal every month

By Chelsea Schilling

A former director of a Texas Planned Parenthood branch who resigned after she watched an ultrasound-guided abortion told WND the clinic was pushing employees to strive for abortion quotas to boost profits.

"There are definitely client goals," former clinic director Abby Johnson said. "We'd have a goal every month for abortion clients and for family planning clients."

Johnson, 29, said the Bryan, Texas, Planned Parenthood clinic performed surgical abortions every other Saturday, but it began expanding access to abortion to increase earnings.

"One of the ways they were able to up the number of patients that they saw was they started doing the RU-486 chemical abortions all throughout the week," she said.

I'm not sure what they're scared of. When I first got the restraining order, I was so surprised. My initial response was, what do they think I know? What are they feeling guilty about?

RU-486 chemical abortions kill the lining of the uterus, cutting off oxygen and nutrients, resulting in the death of an unborn baby. Johnson said the chemical abortion costs the same as an early first-trimester abortion: between $505 and $695 for each procedure.

She told WND the clinic was experiencing financial difficulties due to the economic downturn.

"Abortion is the most lucrative part of Planned Parenthood's operations," she said. "Even though they're two separate corporations, all of the money goes into one pot. With the family planning corporation really suffering, they depend on the abortion corporation to balance their budget, help get them out of the hole and help make income for the company."

She continued, "They really wanted to increase the number of abortions so that they could increase their income."

Now Planned Parenthood has retaliated against Johnson, filing a restraining order against her because the clinic fears she may leak confidential information.

The Brazos Valley Coalition for Life, a pro-life group that recently moved its headquarters several hundred feet away from the clinic, is named on the temporary restraining order as well. The injunction temporarily prevents her from releasing information until after a hearing scheduled for Nov. 10 in the 85th District Court.

Planned Parenthood claimed in court documents that Johnson copied private personnel files and other documents before she quit her position Oct. 6. The abortion provider's lawyers expressed concern that Johnson would disclose client medical records, doctor information and clinic security procedures. The restraining order contends Planned Parenthood would be irreparably harmed by an information leak.

However, Johnson told WND, "I don't have any confidential documents, so I'm not sharing anything because I don't have anything. I have no patient information. I'd never do anything to compromise patient safety or confidentiality. For them to even make that type of statement is so offensive."

Planned Parenthood of Southeast Houston released the following statement Oct. 30: "We regret being forced to turn to the courts to protect the safety and confidentiality of our clients and staff, however, in this instance, it is absolutely necessary."

Johnson said she's not sure why Planned Parenthood is so concerned.

Planned Parenthood is an organization that really runs on fear. If somebody crosses them, they are quick to threaten that person. I've worked for them for a long time and seen them threaten lawsuits multiple times

"Planned Parenthood is an organization that really runs on fear. If somebody crosses them, they are quick to threaten that person. I've worked for them for a long time and seen them threaten lawsuits multiple times," she said. "I'm not sure what they're scared of. When I first got the restraining order, I was so surprised. My initial response was, what do they think I know? What are they feeling guilty about?"

Asked whether she believes Planned Parenthood is concerned that information about its quotas will become public, Johnson responded, "Probably, yeah. I think they're just scared of the whole thing."

She said she believes the injunction is simply a scare tactic meant to keep her quiet.

"Clearly, that kind of backfired," she said.

Johnson explained that she resigned after she saw an ultrasound-guided abortion in which an unborn baby was vacuumed out of a woman's uterus.

"Ultrasound-guided abortions are not typically done in Planned Parenthood abortion centers because they're more time consuming, and that's just not something that centers like that do," she said. "I'd never seen one of those done before. For whatever reason, the physician had called me back to assist with the procedure. When I saw that, that was really when my heart was changed."

Johnson, who was employed at the clinic for eight years and served as a director for two years, said the issue of abortion was "unsettling" for her the whole time she worked with Planned Parenthood. She said she kept "pushing down the guilt" and felt spiritually unsettled.

"There's no religion and there's no spirituality in an abortion clinic. There can't be," she said. "Whatever side you are on, pro-life or pro-choice, it is what it is – and that's taking a human life."

Read more >>