Something Wicked This Way Comes

[vector7]

Obama Has Guaranteed Us Another 9/11 Attack
The Advocate

By Herb Denenberg, The Bulletin

Friday, April 24, 2009
President Barack Obama has taken more steps to guarantee another 9/11 attack on America. He did that by forbidding enhanced interrogations that have already prevented a second 9/11 in Los Angeles. But it gets worse.

He issued the interrogation memo but edited out everything that documented how enhanced interrogation works. So he not only guaranteed more terrorist attacks on America but, in a single stroke, also committed a massive fraud by censoring out the effectiveness information. If anyone ought to be investigated for actions that damage America, it is not the Bush administration, but none other than President Obama.

And to further compound the crime, he calls for an investigation of those responsible for enhanced interrogation to be conducted by Attorney General Eric Holder. He’s the chap that, along with former Attorney General Janet Reno, created the wall between the FBI and CIA, which caused our failure to detect the 9/11 plot. Bill O’Reilly was on target when he said Mr. Holder was nothing more than a partisan and an incompetent … who distinguished himself by improperly sanctioning the pardoning of terrorists and a fugitive from justice.

With that kind of activity piling up, it should be obvious to the most casual observer the Obama administration and the mainstream media have teamed up in a combination that is on an almost certain path to destroy America. The Obama administration is letting loose with every kind of radical program, and the mainstream media is providing them with perfect cover, translating the most dangerous radicalism into seemingly mainstream policy. They are selling the presidential fraud that is Mr. Obama. They were responsible for electing him, and are now using their biased journalism to sell his programs.

The Obama moves so far have set us on a course to provide financial disaster, with unsustainable debt already here and back-breaking taxes in our near future. The Obama administration has already started to destroy our security, by displaying incredible weakness, and presenting Barack “The Apologizer and Appeaser” Obama. Most recently, the release of the documents relating to enhanced interrogation informs terrorists, destroys morale at the CIA and sets off a Banana Republic scene of criminalizing political positions and criminalizing lawyers whose opinions the Obama administration disagrees with. President Obama has, in effect, called for a witch hunt and show trial. The total insanity is demonstrated by holding lawyers criminally responsible for their legal advice and legal opinions. This means all of our lawyers are going to jail, but it also means that too many of our politicians have flipped their wigs.

It means our intelligence service will be run by a bunch of lawyers instead of by spies. There will be the kind of intelligence paralysis we initiated in the 1970s that led to our being unprepared for the likes of 9/11.

There is another disconcerting aspect of the famed Obama flip-flop on prosecuting those responsible for the memos on interrogation. President Obama’s prior theme was that we have to look forward and not back. His chief of staff and press secretary both said there would be no prosecution of the CIA personnel who carried out the advice in the interrogation memos and of the lawyers and others responsible for the memos. Then President Obama suddenly changed his mind and passed the matter to Mr. Holder for his disposition. This suggests President Obama is buckling under pressure from left-wing radical pressure groups, the base of the Obama support, who want blood from the Bush administration.

The president is a total leftist and radical, and he is being nudged even further off the looney left cliff by the likes of MoveOn.org, George Soros, and the rest of the most radical elements in American politics. This has turned into criminalizing the previous presidential administration and another senseless distraction from the major issues of our time, like the war on terror and the economy.

Don’t expect Mr. Obama to stand up to his leftist supporters. This is the moral weakling who could not even stand up to the corrupt Chicago political machine when called to do so, and this is the same moral runt who sat quietly in the pews of the church of Rev. Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright for 20 years. And I should add, this is the guy who sat quietly while dictator Daniel Ortega went on for 40 minutes with an anti-American rant. He didn’t have the courage or sense to walk out in protest. Then he said he was glad that dictator Mr. Ortega did not criticize him for things that happened when he was 2 years old. This egomaniac thinks it is about him, when he should know it is about America. He thinks he is in a popularity contest and doesn’t realize he’s the president of the U.S. and the leader of the free world.

The only thing that can stop the march of the Obama administration and the mainstream media from destroying the U.S. is a public uprising that generates irresistible public opinion demanding a change of course. And that brings us to the theme of this column — the mainstream media and its total distortion of the news. This has already led to decisions with disastrous consequences, such as electing a president who wasn’t vetted and whose radical record and associates would probably have assured his electoral defeat — if the public was given the facts, which it wasn’t due to the bias of the mainstream media.

The public has to stop relying on the mainstream media, and get a full picture of the world by getting news and information from other sources as well. The mainstream media gives only one sliver of the news that conforms to its radical leftist bias.

The public has to be aware of that looney-left bias of the mainstream media and act accordingly. For example, when we discuss media bias, we often think of electoral news and a small group of other issues. But the bias is pervasive. The radical left has an agenda, which is adopted and sold by the mainstream media.

Here’s one area of bias you may not have thought of — the Second Amendment and the right of the citizen to bear arms. I’ve never found that matter the subject of extended treatment, even in the alternative media. About the only places you find it discussed are in the publications of the National Rifle Association (NRA). That came home to me when I was reading a copy of the NRA’s magazine Freedom (May 2009).

The NRA’s executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, in a piece called “Standing Guard: A National Threat,” discussed media bias when it comes to the Second Amendment. He showed how the media has placed blame for what’s going on in Mexico on the Second Amendment. For example, he cites an ABC News story that was headlined, “U.S. Guns Arming Mexican Drug Gangs: Second Amendment to Blame!” The story was rigged to blame what’s going on in Mexico on the Second Amendment and presumably guns bought in America. But the pictures that accompanied the ABC story showed pictures of such weapons as M-60 machine guns and other strictly military weapons, which are irrelevant to Second Amendment issues. And it quoted a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms official as saying, “It’s virtually impossible to buy a firearm in Mexico as a private citizen, so this country is where they come [from].”

This story was based on a series of lies as was a cited New York Times article, which claimed “American gun dealers along the border were busily arming the cartels’ murderous gangs…A vast arms bazaar is rampant along the four border states, enabled by porous to non-existent American gun laws…”

Mr. LaPierre shows how the drug cartel routinely pays corrupt Mexican officials as much as $400,000 a month in bribes. With a virtually unlimited supply of money in the hands of the drug cartel, Mr. LaPierre thinks it is strange that they have to rely on American gun dealers to buy their weapons one at a time. He writes: “You would think that some responsible individual in the media would report that with such market power in dollars, the Mexican cartels buy massive quantities of illegal arms on the open, illegal international market. Or that organized crime kingpins with unlimited drug funding obtain military arms through bribes and payoffs internationally.

“No way. The in-the-tank American media is sticking to the spoon-fed notion that some of the richest, most ruthless criminals in the world, who will stop at no act of barbarism or violation of international law, are obtaining firearms from licensed dealers in the U.S. — one weapon background check at a time.”

The mainstream media wants to sell its gun control agenda and the facts and the truth be damned.

Mr. LaPierre makes a convincing case that blaming the Second Amendment for what goes on in Mexico is just one more attempt of the Obama administration to take advantage of a crisis to achieve objectives not otherwise attainable. The objectives here are more restrictions on gun ownership and more impairment of the Second Amendment.

You will recall White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s now famous statement, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”

So the bottom line, writes Mr. LaPierre, is, “Mexico is the crisis and banning our guns is their craven opportunity. We must have a single message to Congress and the media.”

“Seal the borders. Punish the guilty. Use existing federal gun and drug laws to the fullest against violent drug syndicates here and in Mexico.

“Bottom line: At issue is not the absence of law, but the political will to enforce the laws both nations already possess. In the search for solutions to Mexico’s ruthless criminal enterprise, American gun owners will stand resolute for enforcement of the rule of law against drug and gun traffickers.

“But when it comes to our Second Amendment rights, we will yield nothing, nor should we.”

You may or may not agree with Mr. LaPierre, but you should agree that something is wrong with the mainstream media when you have to read National Rifle Association publications to get some discussion of the point of view of gun owners and a point of view other than that of The New York Times and the other leftist, biased mainstream media outlets.

I found reading the NRA publication valuable and informative because it gave me important information and persuasive arguments on matters, which the mainstream media automatically censors out of its publications. On the Second Amendment — as on the war on terror and on solutions to the financial crisis — I think the mainstream media is giving us one-sided information that is bringing us to many dangerous and mistaken conclusions and policies.

Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner, and professor at the Wharton School. He is a longtime Philadelphia journalist and consumer advocate. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of the Sciences. His column appears daily in The Bulletin. You can reach him at advocate@thebulletin.us.

http://www.thebulletin.us/articles/2...4262502360.txt

[vector7]

Barney Frank: Marijuana, Internet Gambling O.K. for Americans, but not ‘Total Freedom’ in Financial Matters

Friday, April 24, 2009
By Matt Cover

House Banking Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) (CNSNews.com)


(CNSNews.com) – Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) told CNSNews.com Thursday that, if it were up to him, Americans would be completely free to smoke marijuana and gamble on the Internet -- but they shouldn’t be allowed “total freedom” in their financial decisions because those risky decisions might adversely affect others.

“I would let people gamble on the Internet,” Frank said. “I would let adults smoke marijuana; I would let adults do a lot of things, if they choose.”

He added: “But allowing them total freedom to take on economic obligations that spill over into the broader society? The individual is not the only one impacted here, when bad decisions get made in the economic sphere, it causes problems.”

CNSNews.com asked Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, to respond to criticism from his Republican counterpart on the committee, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), during a hearing Thursday on the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2009.

Bachus had questioned the bill’s premise--imposing tough new federal regulations on subprime and other “high risk” mortgage lending.

“If you can’t afford it, don’t buy it,” Bachus had said Thursday during a committee hearing on the bill, referring to people who bought adjustable-rate (ARMs) and other expensive mortgages. “You’re substituting the government’s decision for the individual’s decision in whether they can afford it.”

CNSNews.com asked Frank if Bachus was right--whether Frank’s proposal might undercut personal responsibility and the freedom of individuals to make decisions.

“We’re not just talking individual responsibility,” Rep. Frank answered. “We have a world-wide economic crisis now, because of this. If it were purely individual responsibility, OK, that’s why I disagree with the ranking member.”

Frank explained that he believed individuals should be allowed to smoke pot and gamble on the Internet, but “total freedom” in financial decisions might “cause problems.”

Frank said he mentioned gambling because Bachus is an open opponent of Internet gambling. Bachus did not comment to CNSNews.com for this story.

Frank’s bill, H.R. 1728, also came in for criticism from some advocates for low-income borrowers, who say it would place restrictions on banks that would only make things more confusing by adding additional federal regulations on top of existing state laws.

During testimony, Margot Saunders, legal counsel for the National Consumer Law Center, told members of the committee that the bill would circumvent key state laws already in place and make the legal framework too complex for low-income Americans to navigate.

“The bill is complex, convoluted and simply will not accomplish its main goal - to fundamentally change the way mortgages are made in this country,” Saunders said.

“This provision is so onerous and potentially harmful to low-income homeowners saddled with predatory mortgages or struggling to avoid foreclosure that we must oppose this bill, despite its promise of additional funding to legal services offices and some other positive provisions," she added.

The Massachusetts congressman, meanwhile, disputed these points, too, saying that while the bill doesn’t preempt states’ ability to regulate mortgage lenders, it wouldn’t have been necessary had they actually done so.

“This bill has very little preemption in it, Rep. Frank told CNSNews.com. “It leaves the states alone. I will say that had the states done a good job we probably wouldn’t have this crisis and the states have not done a good job on banking.”

The bill, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2009, is sponsored by Reps. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), Mel Watt (D-N.C.) and Frank. It will go for mark up on April 28.

[vector7]

100 Days of Change for the Family

[vector7]

First 100 Dooms Days of the Obama Administration

[vector7]

May 04, 2009 10:24 PM EDT
Obama's 100 Mistakes, Misstatements and Missteps in his First 100 Days

Undermining Our Values

1. Calling for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act on the White House website.
2. Calling on the White House website for the expansion of federal hate crimes to include homosexual behavior.
3. Calling on the White House website for policies like the "Fairness Doctrine" that could silence conservative and Christian talk radio.
4. Repealing limitations on taxpayer-funding of human embryonic stem cell research.
5. Repealing limitations on taxpayer-funding of abortions overseas.
6. Pledging $50 million to the United Nation's Population Fund, which supports China's draconian one-child policy.
7. Proposing new rules to gut conscience clause protections for pro-life doctors and other medical personnel who don't want to be forced to perform abortions or other procedures that violate their values.
8. Proposing increased funding for the nation's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.
9. Calling on the White House website for "a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year," (mandatory volunteerism).
10. Inviting homosexual families to the White House Easter Egg Roll.
11. Allowing his attorney general to call for the reinstatement of Clinton-era restrictions on the Second Amendment.
12. Breaking his promise not to appoint lobbyists to his administration. He hired 17 in his first two weeks.
13. Breaking his promise to sign legislation only after a five-day period of public comments.
14. Asking that the monogram for Jesus Christ be covered up during a televised speech at a Catholic university in which Obama quotes the Sermon on the Mount.

Undermining Our National Security

15. Apologizing for America in Europe and Latin America.
16. Bowing before the Muslim king of Saudi Arabia.
17. Pledging to base America's foreign policy toward Iran on "mutual respect" in a video to the Iranian people and Iran's Holocaust-denying dictator.
18. Returning the bust of Winston Churchill given to George Bush after 9/11 by our British allies.
19. Giving British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the leader of America's most loyal ally, a box of DVDs that don't work in British DVD players.
20. Ordering Guantanamo Bay closed without any idea of where to send the terrorist suspects held there.
21. Suggesting that some of those terrorists now at GITMO may kill again, but may also be released onto U.S. soil and set up with welfare benefits.
22. Caving to communist Cuba by relaxing travel restrictions and remittances for Cuban Americans before any Cuban political prisoners have been released.
23. Shaking hands with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.
24. Sitting silently though a 50-minute anti-American diatribe by Nicaragua's communist president, Daniel Ortega.
25. Releasing Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the suspected of masterminding the 2000 suicide bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.
26. Releasing classified CIA memos outlining our interrogation techniques.
27. Telling our CIA agents not to be discouraged when he acknowledges their "mistakes."
28. Declaring a new openness to "truth commissions" and prosecuting intelligence officials involved in enhanced interrogations of terrorists.
29. Proposing to send a $900 million foreign aid package to Palestinians in Gaza.
30. Asking Congress to relax the law so that some of that money could go to the terrorist organization Hamas.
31. Calling for the U.S. to eliminate its nuclear weapons.
32. Telling Russian President Demitri Medvedev that America's commitment to missile defense is negotiable.
33. Dropping the term "enemy combatants" for GITMO detainees.
34. Dropping the term "terrorism" for "man-made disaster."
35. Dropping the term "Global War on Terror" for "overseas contingency operations."
36. Giving his first interview as president to the Arab language network Al-Arabiya.
37. Telling the Muslim world that his "job" was to communicate "that the Americans are not your enemy," when it's Muslim extremists who have declared war on us.
38. Proposing that military veterans use private insurance for the cost of a service-related injury before they would be eligible for coverage through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Undermining Free Enterprise

39. Signing the trillion-dollar plus so-called "stimulus" bill, which the Congressional Budget Office said would actually hurt long-term economic growth.
40. Saying Caterpillar wouldn't lay off workers if his trillion-dollar stimulus bill passed Congress. Obama signed the bill on Feb. 17th. On March 17th, Caterpillar laid off nearly 2,500 workers.
41. Hosting a "Fiscal Responsibility Summit" one week after signing the trillion-dollar "stimulus" bill.
42. Railing against "outrageous recklessness and greed" of AIG bonuses that were legally protected in the so-called "stimulus" bill he signed four days after it passed, not five as he promised.
43. Breaking his promise on earmark reform by signing the $410 billion "omnibus" spending bill with billions in earmarks.
44. Proposing a $3.6 trillion budget that doubles the national debt in five years and triples it in ten years.
45. Proposing a "carbon cap and trade" scheme that will raise energy taxes by hundreds of billions, even trillions, of dollars.
46. Burning more than 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to fly to Iowa for Earth Day to promote "wind power."
47. Proposing $634 billion in higher taxes for socialized health care.
48. Proposing to raise taxes on small business owners.
49. Saying the White House is open to the idea of taxing employer-sponsored health care benefits as income.
50. Signing a massive expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, calling it "a down payment on my commitment to cover every single American."
51. Establishing the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research to give bureaucrats the power to ration health care and tell your doctors what care you can and cannot have.
52. Signing the 2009 Omnibus Public Land Management Act, which the Sierra Club praised specifically because it "will safeguard millions of acres ... from oil and gas leasing."
53. Suggesting he has found $1.5 trillion in bogus "savings" by not spending money in Iraq that we were not planning to spend years from now.
54. Ordering his Cabinet to "cut" $100 million in spending in 90 days, after proposing nearly $5 trillion in spending in his first 90 days.
55. Proposing to limit tax deductions for home mortgage interest.
56. Proposing to limit tax deductions for charitable donations.
57. Refusing to allow banks to repay TARP money.
58. Bailing out AMTRAK with a 10% increase in its taxpayer subsidies.
59. Bailing out the United Auto Workers Union with billions of taxpayer dollars to GM and Chrysler.
60. Bailing out the United Auto Workers by giving it a majority ownership stake in Chrysler. Yes, the union will own the company.
61. Bailing out Big Labor by issuing an executive order mandating that infrastructure projects paid for with "stimulus" funds must use union labor, guaranteeing higher costs for the taxpayer.
62. Bailing out Big Labor again by repealing regulations requiring the disclosure of how union dues are spent. So much for "transparency."
63. Saying, "The United States government has no interest in running GM," then vowing that the government will back auto warranties.
64. Saying, "The United States government has no interest in running GM," then firing the CEO of General Motors.
65. Allowing states to set their own fuel efficiency and emissions standards, making it harder for struggling auto makers to compete.

Personnel Is Policy

66. Nominating Timothy "The Turbo Tax Evader" Geithner as Treasury Secretary to oversee the IRS.
67. Nominating as attorney general Eric Holder, who urged Bill Clinton to pardon tax evader Marc Rich and 8 FALN terrorists.
68. Nominating David Ogden, a prominent attorney for the pornography industry, to be Deputy Attorney General.
69. Nominating Tom Daschle, who owed more than $140,000 in back taxes, as Health and Human Services Secretary.
70. Nominating Kathleen Sebelius, who is ardently pro-abortion and owed $8,000 in back taxes, to be HHS Secretary.
71. Nominating Janet Napolitano, who said, "crossing the border is not a crime per se," as Homeland Security Secretary.
72. Nominating Steven Chu as Energy Secretary. Last September, Chu said, "Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe," which at that time were roughly $8.00 a gallon.
73. Nominating Ron Kirk, who owed more than $6,000 in back taxes, as Trade Representative.
74. Nominating Bill Richardson, who was embroiled in an ethics scandal, as Secretary of Commerce.
75. Nominating Nancy Killefer, who also owed back taxes, to be the government's "Efficiency Czar."
76. Nominating Rosa Brooks, a leftwing acolyte of George Soros, as an advisor to the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy.
77. Nominating Harold Koh, an ardent supporter of using international law in the interpretation of our Constitution, to be the top legal advisor to the State Department.
78. Nominating Carol Browner, who was a member of the Socialist International, to be "Climate and Energy Czar."
79. Nominating John Holdren, an environmental extremist and advocate of population control, as the White House Science Advisor.
80. Nominating Dawn Johnsen, who is so pro-abortion she once compared pregnancy to slavery, to to direct the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department.
81. Nominating Charles Freeman, an anti-Israel, pro-Arab apologist, to be head of the National Intelligence Council.
82. Nominating Tony West, who represented American Taliban John Walker Lindh and exposed the Bush Administration's terrorist surveillance program, to the Justice Department's Civil Division.
83. Nominating Annette Nazareth to be Deputy Treasury Secretary, who withdrew after a month-long probe into her taxes.
84. Trying to nominate pro-abortion Catholics to be ambassador to the Vatican, a move even John Kerry opposed.
85. Appointing Ellen Moran of the pro-abortion group Emily's List as his White House communications director.
86. Appointing Melody Barnes, a board member of Emily's List and Planned Parenthood, as his director of the Domestic Policy Council.
87. Appointing Harry Knox of the Human Rights Campaign (the largest homosexual rights lobbying group) to the White House's Faith Based Advisory Council.
88. Appointing Adolfo Carrion as Director of White House Office of Urban Affairs, even though he is under investigation for kickbacks in a scandal nearly identical to one that cost GOP Senator Ted Stevens his election.
89. Nominating David Hamilton as his first appointment to a federal appeals court. Judge Hamilton has issued a number of controversial rulings, including prohibiting the Indiana House of Representatives from opening sessions with prayers in the name of Jesus.

Other Obama Outrages

90. Telling congressional Republicans to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh.
91. Coordinating attacks on Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer out of the White House.
92. Hosting weekly parties at the White House, serving up $100-a-pound Waygu beef during what Obama called, "the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression."
93. Laughing it up on 60 Minutes as the country is mired in a recession.
94. Allowing Air Force One to buzz the Statue of Liberty and lower Manhattan, creating panic in New York City.
95. Disparaging Special Olympians on the Tonight Show.
96. Allowing his Department of Homeland Security to issue a report accusing pro-life, smaller government conservatives and returning Iraq/Afghanistan veterans of being "rightwing extremists."
97. Promising to push for comprehensive immigration reform, i.e., amnesty.
98. Killing the school voucher program in the District of Columbia, while sending his two daughters to an elite private school, rather than D.C.'s public schools.
99. Moving the Census out of the Department of Commerce and into the White House.
100. Relying too much on his teleprompter.

[vector7]

Sessions: 'I can vote for a gay nominee for the Supreme Court'

By MANU RAJU | 5/11/09 4:16 PM EDT

Sen. Jeff Sessions says he had no problem supporting an openly gay nominee to the Supreme Court. Photo: John Shinkle

Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said Monday he had no problem supporting an openly gay nominee to the Supreme Court.

“I can vote for a gay nominee – we’ll just have to see,” Sessions (R-Ala.) told reporters Monday afternoon. “That’s just not the test really; the thing that I’m concerned about is high legal quality.”

Sessions’ comments were the most explicit to date on the subject of whether he could support a gay nominee. Sessions, whom the GOP has tapped as their primary voice on the Supreme Court nomination, also wouldn’t say whether a nominee’s support for the controversial Roe v. Wade decision upholding abortion rights would be a disqualifying factor.

“I think the whole record needs to be analyzed on how they approach the law.”

Sessions’ comments came after what appeared to be contradictory statements last week on the issue of a gay nominee. The Alabama Republican told MSNBC that he didn’t think a “person who acknowledges that they have gay tendencies is disqualified per se for the job,” while later telling Fox News that Americans “might feel uneasy about that” and it could be a “big concern.”

On Monday, Sessions said his comments were not meant to be conflicting, and that the real measure of his support will come from a thorough evaluation of the nominee’s record.

“I think the primary thing is that a nominee show fidelity to the law and that they not have any agendas, personal, social, religious or otherwise that would keep them for being faithful to the legal system of America,” Sessions said. “So that would be my fundamental concern.”

Confirmation of Obama’s upcoming nominee is highly likely given Democrats’ large majority in the Senate and on the Judiciary Committee. But Sessions is now the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, and his position will be critical in determining how fierce of a battle the GOP will wage over Obama’s replacement for Justice David Souter.

Sessions meets Wednesday with Obama, Senate leaders and Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) to discuss the vacancy. Sessions declined to say whether he had any objections to the handful of names being discussed as possible nominees.

Asked Monday if Republicans would focus on a nominee’s position on gay marriage, Sessions said, “I think people would want to inquire into that because … it may reflect the degree to which they think that they are not bound by the classical meaning of the constitution that they might want to let their own personal agenda go beyond what the law says.” He added that the issue of gay marriage is being debated in state legislatures across the country – “that’s probably where it should be.”

Sessions said he had no issue if Obama considered gender or ethnic diversity in his choice, but said that Obama should primarily examine whether the nominee could be valuable to the court.

“This is the Supreme Court – we need a great justice,” Sessions said. “A person should be selected who could really make a contribution to that court. And it shouldn’t be seen as a political patronage job. It’s more important than that.”

[vector7]

Source: Napolitano on list for Supreme Court


Associated Press Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington May 6, 2009.

204 commentsby Erin Kelly - May. 13, 2009 12:50 PM
Republic Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - Former Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano's name is on President Barack Obama's short list of potential candidates for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Napolitano, who in January joined the Obama administration as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, served as Arizona's attorney general and as U.S. attorney for the Arizona region before becoming governor.

Other potential nominees on list include California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, and U.S. Appeals Court judges Sonia Sotomayor and Diane Pamela Wood, according to the Associated Press.

Obama is reportedly leaning toward appointing a woman to replace retiring Justice David H. Souter. He is expected to announce his choice soon so confirmation hearings could be held over the summer.

Napolitano would not be the first Arizonan to serve on the court. Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor of Arizona was the first woman on the court.

When Napolitano was nominated for secretary of Homeland Security, Arizona's two Republican senators, John McCain and Jon Kyl, both supported her. They introduced her at her Senate confirmation hearing.

Sources familiar with Obama's deliberations confirmed the names to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because no candidates have been publicly revealed by the White House. One official said Obama is considering other people, too, and that other names may be added.

Most of the people confirmed as under consideration have been mentioned frequently as potential candidates.

Moreno, the sole man on the known group of candidates, is a newer name to emerge. Obama is widely expected to choose a woman for a Supreme Court that has nine members but only one female justice.

[vector7]

Monday, June 15, 2009
Why Obama scares me, too
Exclusive: Chuck Norris shares eye-opening letter rejected by New York Times
Posted: June 15, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
By Chuck Norris

The New York Times missed the opportunity to publish a great op-ed letter to President Obama from Lou Pritchett, a former vice president of Procter & Gamble who worked for that company for 36 years until his retirement in 1989. So I thought I'd give his letter a little press through my syndicated column, and add a few more thoughts of my own.

Mr. Pritchett confirmed via Snopes that he was the author of the "open letter to President Obama": "I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it."

I think you'll readily see why any Left-leaning newspaper won't run it. Here's a copy:
Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America, and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility and "class," always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the "blame America" crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer "wind mills" to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use "extortion" tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Reillys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett
Thank you, Mr. Pritchett, for your love for America, honesty and willingness to risk your reputation by speaking up to this administration.
　
Now let me add a few of my own fears to yours.
President Obama:
You scare me because so many amazing corporate and American leaders like Lou Pritchett say things about you like: 'You scare me.'"

You scare me because, after you initiate more government borrowing and bailouts than all presidents combined, you require Congress to follow a system that is "pay-as-you-go."

You scare me because you really do believe that going into massive amounts of debt can remedy our economy in the long run.

You scare me because you repeatedly still play the blame game with the Bush administration but never blame the Clinton administration, even though it was responsible for the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac subprime fiasco via the proliferation of loans to low income unqualified borrowers.

You scare me because you buy and run banking, automobile and soon health industries with taxpayers' money but refuse to call it socialism.

You scare me because your actions don't reflect the federal governmental constraints and fiscal prudent principles of our Founding Fathers and Constitution.

You scare me because you promise to lead from the center but drive hard and fast to the Left.

You scare me because you claim to be a fighter for minorities and constitutional promises of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, yet what greater minority can be defended than those in the womb, against whom you have already enacted more pro-abortion-related laws than anyone since Roe v. Wade?

You promise to defend the U.S. against all potential enemies, yet you pacify those who harbor terrorists, fight for the rights of combative detainees, and enable the enemies of Israel.

You scare me because you deny America's Judeo-Christian heritage before other countries of the world, espousing "the promise of a secular nation" during an age in which religious revisionism is already on the rise. (Thank God for Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., and others, who are even now trying to preserve America's religious history by proposing the passage of the Spiritual Heritage Bill 397 – call or write your representative today to support it).

You scare me because your media team (including the mainstream media) will seek to label as radical, quarantine socially or in some way penalize any opposing conservative voices (like conservative talk-show hosts, news agencies, columnists or fellow actors like Jon Voight).

You scare me because, as we've all watched over your first 100 days in office, you can get away with all these things mentioned above, and the mainstream media and most of the public will continue to hail you as king.

You scare me because your media team will not address or diminish in any way your deification before the world, epitomized by the editor of Newsweek, who was on MSNBC's Chris Matthews' show and recently stated, "I mean, in a way Obama's standing above the country, above the world. He's sort of God." (How much scarier can it get than representative statements like that in a republic that once stood for equity among political powers and a government "by the people and for the people"?)

America, it's time to awaken from your slumber and quit looking to the government for answers, and start looking to real reputable sources. I recommend starting with Lou Pritchett's 1995 business book, "Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat."

[vector7]

Obama blocks list of visitors to White House

Taking Bush's position, administration denies msnbc.com request for logs

By Bill Dedman
Investigative reporter
msnbc.com
updated 1 hour, 17 minutes ago

The Obama administration is fighting to block access to names of visitors to the White House, taking up the Bush administration argument that a president doesn't have to reveal who comes calling to influence policy decisions.

Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to introduce a new era of transparency to Washington, and despite two rulings by a federal judge that the records are public, the Secret Service has denied msnbc.com's request for the names of all White House visitors from Jan. 20 to the present. It also denied a narrower request by the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sought logs of visits by executives of coal companies.

Updated: CREW says it filed suit Tuesday against the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Secret Service. Here's a copy of CREW's complaint.

"We are deeply disappointed," said CREW attorney Anne L. Weismann, "that the Obama administration is following the same anti-transparency policy as the Bush administration when it comes to White House visitor records. Refusing to let the public know who visits the White House is not the action of a pro-transparency, pro-accountability administration." Groups that advocate open government have argued that it's vital to know the names of White House visitors, who may have an outsized influence on policy matters.

The visitor logs have been released in only a few isolated cases, most notably records of visits by lobbyist Jack Abramoff to the Bush White House, and in the "filegate" investigation of the Clinton White House.

Only the Bush and Obama administrations are known to have made an argument in court that the visitor logs should be private.

The Obama administration is arguing that the White House visitor logs are presidential records — not Secret Service agency records, which would be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The administration ought to be able to hold secret meetings in the White House, "such as an elected official interviewing for an administration position or an ambassador coming for a discussion on issues that would affect international negotiations," said Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt.

These same arguments, made by the Bush administration, were rejected twice by a federal judge. The visitor logs are created by the Secret Service and maintained by the Secret Service, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled in 2007 and again this January. CREW had requested records of visits to the Bush White House, as well as the residence of Vice President Dick Cheney, by leaders of Religious Right organizations.

The Bush administration appealed Lamberth's decision, and the Obama administration has continued to press that appeal.

"It is the government's position," the Secret Service wrote last week to msnbc.com in denying access to the visitor logs, "that the vast majority, if not all, of the records ... are not agency records subject to the FOIA. Rather, these records are records governed by the Presidential Records Act" and "remain under the exclusive legal custody and control of the White Office and the Office of the Vice President. After the resolution of this litigation, we will respond further to your request if necessary."
The visitor records are kept in two databases:

• Worker and Visitor Entry System (WAVES). This Secret Service database includes information submitted to the Secret Service about individuals who have a planned visit to the White House. This information includes the name of the pass holder submitting the request, the date of the request, the time and location of the planned visit and the nature of the visit or the person to be visited. This information may be updated with the actual date and time of entry and exit. Msnbc.com also requested lists submitted to the Secret Service of groups or delegations of visitors with planned visits to the White House.
• Access Control Records System (ACES). This Secret Service database includes information generated when a pass holder, worker or visitor swipes a permanent or temporary pass over an electronic reader at entrances or exits. This information includes the name of the visitor, the badge number, the post or location, and the date and time of entry or exit.

No private information requested
Msnbc.com excluded from its request any private information on the White House visitors. It asked that the Secret Service delete from the logs any dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and home addresses (other than city and state).

In addition, msnbc.com asked the Secret Service to exclude information on security precautions and the results of background checks on prospective visitors.

The Bush White House had taken several steps to close off access to the visitor logs, steps repeatedly rejected by the federal judge.
In May 2006, the Bush White House signed a memorandum of understanding with the Secret Service, declaring that the logs are agency records, under White House control.

In October 2006, CREW sought records of visits by nine religious leaders: James Dobson, Gary L. Bauer, Wendy Wright, Louis P. Sheldon, Andrea Lafferty, Paul Weyrich, Tony Perkins, Donald Wildmon and Jerry Falwell.

The Bush position was rejected in December 2007 by Judge Lamberth, a former federal prosecutor who was appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan. Lamberth gave the White House 20 days to hand over the public records. But CREW did not get the visitor logs.

In September 2008, Homeland Security said that it did not plan to release the visitor logs, claiming that the visitor logs were protected by the presidential communication privilege in the law.

Judge Lamberth ruled again, denying that claim on Jan. 9. The judge wrote that a simple list of visitors is not a communication at all, because it includes no details on the topics discussed during a meeting, and therefore is not protected by a presidential communication privilege.
The Bush administration appealed on Jan. 14, a week before the end of President Bush's term of office.

In late January and again in May, the Obama administration had opportunities to change course, when it filed papers in the appeals court, but stuck with the Bush position.

[vector7]

Sunday, July 05, 2009
Dinner with Obama, a parable

Once upon a time, I was invited to the White House for a private dinner with the President. I am a respected businessman, with a factory that produces memory chips for computers and portable electronics. There was some talk that my industry was being scrutinized by the administration, but I paid it no mind. I live in a free country. There's nothing that the government can do to me if I've broken no laws. My wealth was earned honestly, and an invitation to dinner with an American President is an honor.

I checked my coat, was greeted by the Chief of Staff, and joined the President in a yellow dining room. We sat across from each other at a table draped in white linen. The Great Seal was embossed on the china. Uniformed staff served our
dinner.

The meal was served, and I was startled when my waiter suddenly reached out, plucked a dinner roll off my plate, and began nibbling it as he walked back to the kitchen.

"Sorry about that," said the President.. "Andrew is very hungry."

"I don't appreciate..." I began, but as I looked into the calm brown eyes across from me, I felt immediately guilty and petty. It was just a dinner roll. "Of course," I concluded, and reached for my glass. Before I could, however, another waiter reached forward, took the glass away and swallowed the wine in a single
gulp.

"And his brother Eric is very thirsty." said the President.

I didn't say anything. The President is testing my compassion, I thought. I will play along. I don't want to seem unkind.

My plate was whisked away before I had tasted a bite.

"Eric's children are also quite hungry."

With a lurch, I crashed to the floor. My chair had been pulled out from under me. I stood, brushing myself off angrily, and watched as it was carried from the room.

"And their grandmother can't stand for long."

I excused myself, smiling outwardly, but inside feeling like a fool. Obviously I had been invited to the White House to be sport for some game. I reached for my coat, to find that it had been taken. I turned back to the President.

"Their grandfather doesn't like the cold."

I wanted to shout- that was my coat! But again, I looked at the placid smiling face of my host and decided I was being a poor sport. I spread my hands helplessly and chuckled. Then I felt my hip pocket and realized my wallet was gone. I excused myself and walked to a phone on an elegant side table. I learned shortly that my credit cards had been maxed out, my bank accounts emptied, my retirement and equity portfolios had vanished, and my wife had been thrown out of our home. Apparently, the waiters and their families were moving in. The President hadn't moved or spoken as I learned all this, but finally I lowered the phone into its cradle and turned to face him.

"Andrew's whole family has made bad financial decisions. They haven't planned for retirement, and they need a house. They recently defaulted on a subprime mortgage. I told them they could have your home. They need it more than you do."

My hands were shaking. I felt faint. I stumbled back to the table and knelt on the floor. The President cheerfully cut his meat, ate his steak and drank his wine. I lowered my eyes and stared at the small grey circles on the tablecloth that were water drops.

"By the way," He added, "I have just signed an Executive Order nationalizing your factories. I'm firing you as head of your business. I'll be operating the firm now for the benefit of all mankind. There's a whole bunch of Erics and Andrews out there and they can't come to you for jobs groveling like beggars."

I looked up. The President dropped his spoon into the empty ramekin which had been his creme brulee. He drained the last drops of his wine. As the table was cleared, he lit a cigarette and leaned back in his chair. He stared at me. I clung to the edge of the table as if were a ledge and I were a man hanging over an abyss. I thought of the years behind me, of the life I had lived. The life I had earned with a lifetime of work, risk and struggle. Why was I punished? How had I allowed it to be taken? What game had I played and lost? I looked across the table and noticed with some surprise that there was no game board between us.

What had I done wrong?

As if answering the unspoken thought, the President suddenly cocked his head, locked his empty eyes to mine, and bared a million teeth, chuckling wryly as he folded his hands.



"You should have stopped me at the dinner roll," he said.

Healthcare is next.

[vector7]

Health Care Bill Will Fund State Vaccine Teams to Conduct ‘Interventions’ in Private Homes

CNSNews.com ^ | July 16, 2009 | Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief
Posted on Thursday, July 16, 2009 5:21:51 AM by Man50D

There is a knock at the front door. Peeking through the window, a mother sees a man and a woman, both in uniform. They are agents of health-care reform.

“Excuse me, ma’am,” says the man. “Our records show that your eleven-year-old daughter has not been immunized for genital warts.”
“And your four-year-old still needs the chicken-pox vaccine,” says the woman.

“He will not be allowed to start kindergarten unless he gets that shot, you know,” says the man—smiling from ear to ear.

“So, can we please come in?” asks the woman. “We have the vaccines right here,” she says, lifting up a black medical bag. “We can give your kids the shots right now.”

“We are from the government,” says the man, “and we’re here to help.”
Is this a scene from the over-heated imagination of an addlepated conspiracy theorist? Or is it something akin to what is actually envisioned by the health-care reform bill approved this week by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee.

The committee’s official summary of the bill says: “Authorizes a demonstration program to improve immunization coverage. Under this program, CDC will provide grants to states to improve immunization coverage of children, adolescents, and adults through the use of evidence-based interventions. States may use funds to implement interventions that are recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force, such as reminders or recalls for patients or providers, or home visits.”

Home visits? What exactly is the state going to do when it sends people to “implement interventions” in private homes designed “to improve immunization coverage of children”?

The draft of the bill posted on the committee Web site provides more details.

Title III of the bill is entitled, “Improving the Health of the American People.” It includes four subtitles. They are: “Subtitle A: Modernizing Disease Prevention of Public Health Systems,” “Subtitle B: Increasing Access to Clinical Preventive Services,” “Subtitle C: Creating Healthier Communities,” and “Subtitle D: Support for Prevention and Public Health Information.”

The program authorizing home “interventions” to promote immunizations falls under “Subtitle C: Creating Healthier Communities.”

This subtitle directs the secretary of health and human services to “establish a demonstration program to award grants to states to improve the provision of recommended immunizations for children, adolescents, and adults through the use of evidence-based, population-based interventions for high-risk populations.”

The bill lists eight specific ways that states may use federal grant money to carry out immunization-promoting “interventions.” Method “E” calls for “home visits” which can include “provision of immunizations.”

Says the draft bill: “Funds received under a grant under this subsection shall be used to implement interventions that are recommended by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (as established by the secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) or other evidence-based interventions, including—“(A) providing immunization reminders or recalls for target populations of clients, patients, and consumers; (B) educating targeted populations and health care providers concerning immunizations in combination with one or more other interventions; (C) reducing out-of-pocket costs for families for vaccines and their administration; (D) carrying out immunization-promoting strategies for participants or clients of public programs, including assessments of immunization status, referrals to health care providers, education, provision of on-site immunizations, or incentives for immunization;(E) providing for home visits that promote immunization through education, assessments of need, referrals, provision of immunizations, or other services; (F) providing reminders or recalls for immunization providers;(G) conducting assessments of, and providing feedback to, immunization providers; or (H) any combination of one or more interventions described in this paragraph.”

Many vaccines routinely administered to children in the United States are utterly uncontroversial. But in recent years there have been controversies about the chicken pox vaccine and the vaccine for HPV, which causes genital warts, which can cause cervical cancer.

On March 15, 2007, Bloomberg news summarized a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which discovered that the chicken pox vaccine does not provide permanent protection against chicken pox, leaving children who have been immunized vulnerable to getting ill with the virus later in life when it can cause a more serious bout of the disease.

“Merck & Co.'s chickenpox vaccine weakens as children age, possibly leaving them vulnerable to a more serious infection as adults, a U.S.-sponsored study in California found,” reported Bloomberg. “The power of the vaccine, Varivax, the only one available in the United States against chickenpox, starts to fade after five years, according to the study in today's New England Journal of Medicine. The results suggest that children should get a second dose, which advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended in June.”
Bloomberg quoted the study as saying, "Waning immunity is of particular public health interest because it may result in increased susceptibility later in life, when the risk of severe complications may be greater than that in childhood.”

In March of this year, the Washington Post reported about the controversy sparked when the Merck pharmaceutical company campaigned to have states mandate that school girls receive Gardasil, its vaccine against HPV.

“Merck also began an ambitious marketing campaign and lobbying push to persuade states to add the vaccine to the list of those required for children to attend school,” reported the Post. “But the company eventually abandoned the strategy in the face of an intense backlash from critics who argued that the decision should be left to parents. Although many states considered such mandates, so far only Virginia and the District have imposed one, and [a Merck official] said the company has no plans to pursue that strategy again."

The Post's report noted that at least some experts questioned the wisdom of promoting use of the vaccine when its long term impact is still unknown.

“Federal health officials, Merck and others say they are confident that the vaccine is safe," reported the Post. "But some experts said they are concerned that there is insufficient evidence about how long Gardasil's protection will last, whether serious side effects will emerge and whether the relatively modest benefits for boys are worth even the small risks associated with any vaccine."

[vector7]

Why President Obama is in a hurry to get health care passed
July 27, 2009

I thought you would be interested in the article by Ben Stein printed below. As Mr. Stein says, our freedoms are on the line. Call your Representative today and tell him or her that you oppose the Obama health care bill.

The House will be voting on this bill probably early this week. So your call now is very important. The number is 202-224-3121. That is the Capitol Switchboard. Ask to speak with your Representative and you will be put through. If you don't know your Representative, give your Zip Code and they will connect you.
Sincerely,


Donald E. Wildmon,
Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

The American Spectator
July 24, 2009
By Ben Stein

We've Figured Him Out

Why is President Barack Obama in such a hurry to get his socialized medicine bill passed?

Because he and his cunning circle realize some basic truths:
The American people in their unimaginable kindness and trust voted for a pig in a poke in 2008. They wanted so much to believe Barack Obama was somehow better and different from other ultra-leftists that they simply took him on faith.

They ignored his anti-white writings in his books. They ignored his quiet acceptance of hysterical anti-American diatribes by his minister, Jeremiah Wright.

They ignored his refusal to explain years at a time of his life as a student. They ignored his ultra-left record as a "community organizer," Illinois state legislator, and Senator.

The American people ignored his total zero of an academic record as a student and teacher, his complete lack of scholarship when he was being touted as a scholar.

Now, the American people are starting to wake up to the truth. Barack Obama is a super likeable super leftist, not a fan of this country, way, way too cozy with the terrorist leaders in the Middle East, way beyond naïveté, all the way into active destruction of our interests and our allies and our future.

The American people have already awakened to the truth that the stimulus bill -- a great idea in theory -- was really an immense bribe to Democrat interest groups, and in no way an effort to help all Americans.
Now, Americans are waking up to the truth that ObamaCare basically means that every time you are sick or injured, you will have a clerk from the Department of Motor Vehicles telling your doctor what he can and cannot do.

The American people already know that Mr. Obama's plan to lower health costs while expanding coverage and bureaucracy is a myth, a promise of something that never was and never will be -- a bureaucracy lowering costs in a free society. Either the costs go up or the free society goes away.

These are perilous times. Mrs. Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State, has given Iran the go-ahead to have nuclear weapons, an unqualified betrayal of the nation. Now, we face a devastating loss of freedom at home in health care. It will be joined by controls on our lives to "protect us" from global warming, itself largely a fraud if believed to be caused by man.

Mr. Obama knows Americans are getting wise and will stop him if he delays at all in taking away our freedoms.

There is his urgency and our opportunity. Once freedom is lost, America is lost. Wake up, beloved America.

Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu. He writes "Ben Stein's Diary" for every issue of The American Spectator.

[vector7]

She took no prisoners.

Video: Michelle discusses Obama’s “racial opportunism” on … the Today show

posted at 10:12 am on July 29, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view

Video

Here’s that intriguing morning appearance I teased in Monday’s Hannity post. A bunch of you thought I was talking about “The View,” which broke my heart because how awesomely awesome would that have been?

Ah well.

Enjoy Lauer affecting shock at the idea that a guy who tried to prove his “authenticity” by spending 20 years in Reverend Wright’s Church of the Perpetual Grievance, who once famously accused Team McCain of having a problem with the fact that he doesn’t look like the other presidents on U.S. currency, and who was known to reference “Malcolm X” while addressing black audiences on the campaign trail might possibly be guilty of racial opportunism. Although, in The One’s defense, what kind of progressive would he be if he wasn’t?

Best part: The boss lighting into Michelle Obama for her history of cronyism, much to Matt’s horror. Be sure to watch to the very end or you’ll miss the look on his face as he wraps the segment. I’m guessing she wasn’t booked at his insistence.

[eversman]

THAT WAS AWESOME! i love it when liberal idiots who dont know what the hell they are talking about get the facts rammed up their ass, publicly no less. that was awesome! nothing like a very public "F U very Much" to put a smug, arrogant prick like Matt Lauer in his place.

Man, i played that 6 times over because i liked it so much! great post!


ev

[Toad]

I had to play that twice to believe what I really saw.

BOOM-SHAKA!

[Ryan Ruck]

I love Michelle Malkin!

Too bad she is spoken for...

By the way... IN YOUR FACE LAUER!

Malkin -><-Lauer

[vector7]

TV host Glenn Beck sparks fury by branding Obama racist for a SECOND time

By Jacqui Goddard
Last updated at 4:24 PM on 30th July 2009

• Comments (21)
• Add to My Stories

Right-wing talk show host Glenn Beck took 24 hours to consider the storm he sparked by branding President Obama a racist - then said it again.

Beck took time out on his nationally syndicated radio show to defend his comments, made in connection with the arrest of black Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. by a white police officer.

The Fox Network star told his listeners: 'I said yesterday on Fox News & Friends that the president is a racist; I think he has race issues.

'Don't know if he hates whites but there is something going on with the president'Well, I stand by that - I deem him a racist, really, by his own standard of racism - the standard of the left.'

While the Obama White House refused to comment on the accusation, Beck sparked anger from a few liberal commentators and inspired a few jokes on late night TV.

Scroll to the bottom to see Glenn Beck on Fox News


Enlarge
Accusation: Glenn Beck has accused President Obama of having 'a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture'


Enlarge
Not commenting: President Obama initially accused police of acting 'stupidly' in arresting the black university professor

Pundits on the centre-left MSNBC channel's Joe Scarborough show dismissed Beck's outburst as attention seeking.

Some bloggers pointed out that Beck makes $30million a year from stirring up controversy - and the Obama racist row is money in the bank for him.

Meanwhile, Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert highlighted the way Beck contradicted himself within 75 seconds.

Beck first claimed Mr Obana has a 'deep-seated hatred for white people', then added: 'I'm not saying that Obama doesn't like white people.'

Colbert told his audience: 'That's not saying Obama doesn't like white people, he's saying he has a deep-seated hatred of them.

'Like how Beck likes arguing but has a deep-seated hatred for logic.'

Beck's intervention came in the wake of the row over the arrest Gates earlier this month as he tried to break into his own home after the front door jammed.

Mr Obama initially accused the police of acting 'stupidly' in arresting the Harvard scholar, a personal friend. But he backed down after the white officer involved, Sergeant James Crowley, defended his actions and was backed by his superiors.

Professor Gates was arrested for 'loud and tumultuous behaviour' after shouting at the officer and questioning whether he had been singled out 'because I'm a black man in America'.

With the 'Gatesgate' affair overshadowing Mr Obama's political agenda during one of the toughest weeks of his presidency, he has invited both the professor and the policeman for a conciliatory beer in the White House garden.

Mr Beck, 45, noted for his table-thumping monologues and a sometimes outspoken position on racial affairs, told 'Fox and Friends' morning show: 'This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy who over and over and over again has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture'.

He was challenged by Fox host Brian Kilmeade who pointed out that most of the people who work for Mr Obama are white and added: 'So you can't say he doesn't like white people'.

Beck replied: 'I'm not saying that he doesn't like white people, I'm saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist.'


Enlarge
Barack Obama would not comment on Glenn Beck yesterday...


Enlarge
... but the president did show off his basketball skills while hosting WNBA champs Detroit Shock...


Enlarge
... passing a ball behind his back then over his shoulder, without looking, to aide Reggie Love

In another development, the neighbour who called the police has broken her silence at an emotional press conference.

Lucie Whalen, 40, spoke out after the tape of the call was released and showed that she never said the suspected burglar was black. This contradicted Mr Obama's earlier claim the Professor Gates had been a victim of racial profiling.

A tearful Miss Whalen said she had been publicly vilified as a racist after a police report wrongly noted that she told officers the 'burglar' was black.

She said: 'I was a target of scorn and ridicule because of things I never said. Now the tapes are out, I hope people can see that I tried to be careful and honest with my words.'

Enlarge
Controversial: Henry Louis Gates Jr is arrested at his home in Cambridge, Massachussetts, last week

Enlarge
Arrest: The police booking photo of scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr
Her lawyer said the whole saga stemmed from the 'overreaction of three men' - the professor, the police officer and the president - and that Whalen was the one who deserved a beer at the White House.

The Gates affair is the first race controversy Mr Obama has faced since he came to power vowing to govern across racial divides. It has provided an unwelcome distraction from his work on trying to reform the U.S. healthcare system.

With his ratings plunging in recent days, amid waning confidence in his handling of the country's economic woes, it appears the president's honeymoon period is over.

[vector7]

Hillary Clinton admits the CFR gives the Orders

[vector7]

Glenn Beck Exposes Cars.gov Computer Information Grab


'Cash for Clunkers' program: Big Brother is watching!

August 1, 4:46 PM


21 comments
ShareThis
RSS

Email
Print




Can the government legally take over your computer? The quick answer is YES! Big brother........one world government........the book of Revelation? This incident gives them all more meaning!

Watch the video below.
Reminiscent of George Orwell's book titled 1984, this situation is kind of frightening if you have given any thought about visiting any government websites.

The amazing thing about this is that this story relates to the U.S. Government "Cash for Clunkers" program. If you feel comfortable surfing to ANY U.S. Government website after viewing this video, I will be surprised.

Yes, it's Glenn Beck on FoxNews, but get over it and don't take this lightly. If it's happening on this Government website, then, on just how many others does it happen?

[eversman]

I love Michelle Malkin!

Too bad she is spoken for...

By the way... IN YOUR FACE LAUER!

Malkin -><-Lauer

Yeah, watchin that cute girl shove it right up his @$$ was awesome. priceless, he is too stupid and was too stunned to even respond. What a dunce. of course ive always called Lauer an @$$clown.


ev