There was an error in this gadget

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Evangelicals Left Off National Cathedral 9/11 Program

A weekend of religious-themed observances at Washington National Cathedral marking the tenth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks will include a Buddhist nun and an Imam, but not an evangelical Christian, leading the head of the Southern Baptist Convention to ask President Obama to reconsider attending the event.

“A Call to Compassion” will include an interfaith prayer vigil on Sept. 11. It will feature the dean of the Cathedral, the Bishop of Washington, a rabbi, Buddhist nun and incarnate lama, a Hindu priest, the president of the Islamic Society of North America and a Muslim musician.

However, Southern Baptists, representing the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, were not invited to participate – and neither were leaders from any evangelical Christian organization.

“It’s not surprising,” said Frank Page, president of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee. “There is a tragic intolerance toward Protestants and particularly toward evangelicals and I wish the president would refuse to speak unless it was more representative.”

Richard Weinberg, the Cathedral’s director of communications, confirmed that Southern Baptists were not extended an invitation to participate.

Turkey Suspends All Trade, Military Ties with Israel

Monday, September 5, 2011

Obama’s Jobs Speech: The Audacity of Weakness

Michael Barone
Obama ham-handedly tries to bigfoot Boehner, and gets kneecapped.

I can’t remember a more stunning rebuke of a president by a congressional leader than House speaker John Boehner’s refusal to agree to Pres. Barack Obama’s demand — er, request — that he summon a joint session of Congress to hear the president’s latest speech on the economy at 8 p.m. EDT on Wednesday, September 7.

Obama’s request was regarded as a clever move by some wiseguys in the Left blogosphere, because that was the exact time of a long-scheduled Republican presidential candidates’ debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. Take that, you guys!

But Boehner smoothly responded that with Congress reconvening late that afternoon, the security sweep necessary for a presidential visit would be impossible, and invited the president to speak Thursday. White House officials quickly agreed, scheduling the speech at 7 p.m. EDT to avoid overlap with the first game of the National Football League season.

Not such a big deal, some people are saying. I disagree. I think it illustrates several of the weaknesses of this presidency.

One is a lack of regard for the Constitution. Congress is a separate branch of government, set up by Article 1 of the Constitution, which is not about the executive branch as Joe Biden said in the 2008 vice-presidential debate. (Media outfits that dispatched dozens of investigative reporters to Alaska were apparently incapable of discovering this obvious error.)

Before last week, presidents and congressional leaders always agreed privately on scheduling presidential addresses to joint sessions before any public announcement was made. But it appears that no such agreement was made here, just a brusque announcement that had to be retracted.

Another weakness on display was contempt for public opinion. White House press secretary Jay Carney said it was just “coincidental” that the president wanted to speak at the same time as the debate. It was just “one debate of many that’s on one channel of many.”

But those with memories that go back beyond last week may recall that in May 2009, Obama scrambled to find a venue for a speech at exactly the same time as former vice president Dick Cheney was scheduled to speak at the American Enterprise Institute on detainee-questioning issues. Cheney coolly watched Obama on television and then delivered his own speech.

Ham-handedly trying to bigfoot the opposition is a habit with this president, not a coincidence.

A third Obama weakness is his propensity to charge his political opponents with playing politics when he is doing exactly that himself. In previewing this latest jobs-and-the-economy speech, Carney said that Obama will make the case “that politics is broken and that politics is getting in the way of the very necessary things we need to do.”

This from the president who has brushed aside one bipartisan initiative after another, from the health-care initiative of Sens. Ron Wyden and Bob Bennett to the recommendations of his own deficit commission, headed by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson.

Instead, he has taken a purely partisan course on one issue after another — and heaped blame on Republicans. He invited House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan to his speech at George Washington University and then lambasted him harshly.

Sarah Palin in New Hampshire

Earlier today, former Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin spoke at a Tea Party rally in New Hampshire.

The video feed was choppy at times but her message is loud and clear. - Reggie

And there is this...

Sunday, September 4, 2011

They're All in This Together

Asked during the 2008 presidential campaign about his relationship with the left-wing radical Bill Ayers, Barack Obama replied that Ayers was just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood." He implied that to even bring that questionable relationship out of the shadows was a mean-spirited, guilt-by-association political tactic. Ayers, Obama went on, had done something deplorable "forty years ago when I was six or seven years old."

Otherwise, Obama insisted, Ayers was a paragon of virtue: a respectable fixture in mainstream Chicago, a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, on a foundation board focused on education that included "Republicans, bankers, lawyers." Ayers had even worked for, and was a good friend of, Mayor Richard M. Daley. The Obama campaign at once launched a crusade to distance Obama from Ayers. It went so far as to actually defend the man who had implicated himself in terror bombings in his own 2001 memoir, Fugitive Days.

In fact, Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn​, were radical Marxist revolutionaries in the Vietnam War era. They were founders of the Weather Underground​, a violent terrorist arm of Students for a Democratic Society. Both were eventually indicted in federal court, and Dohrn by the State of Illinois. Rather than face a trial they jumped bail and disappeared into the underground in 1970. After they resurfaced 11 years later, both were admitted into the halls of academia. Ayers became a Distinguished Professor of Education and a Senior University Scholar at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Incredibly, Dohrn became a law professor at Northwestern.

The American Spectator has developed information that demonstrates, without any doubt, that Ayers and Dohrn have spent a lifetime advocating and practicing the strategies and tactics of Marxism. That includes the violent overthrow of the United States government. It also involves treasonous cooperation with revolutionary Communist governments in China, North Vietnam, and Cuba during the 1960s and '70s and, until the fall of the Eastern Bloc, governments in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. But unlike many of their compatriots from those days of violence and turmoil, Ayers and Dohrn are completely unrepentant about their past activities. To this day, they continue to support destruction of the American free enterprise system and its replacement with a Marxist utopia.

What, then, is the relationship between these two hard-core leftist revolutionaries and the president of the United States, and why is it important?

It is important, first, because Obama, along with Ayers and Dohrn, went to great lengths to mislead voters during the fall of 2008. They "just lived in the same neighborhood" and had little contact, they pretended. On the contrary, The American Spectator's investigation has concluded that Obama and his campaign staff, with the help of the mainstream media, lied outright about his relationship with Ayers. It has also concluded that Ayers lied about it as well. The Ayers-Obama association is far deeper, longer, and more significant than was ever acknowledged during the campaign.

The relationship is important, second, because Ayers and Dohrn are not reformed former radicals who have abandoned their old habits. Indeed, they are unrepentant, violent radicals who may have adopted new tactics to upend the United States and what it stands for, but whose goals remain just what they were in 1970.

Furthermore, the relationship is important because of the policies and issues that both Ayers and, to a lesser degree, Dohrn worked on with Obama during the 20 years preceding his election to the presidency. These include education reform, juvenile justice, ACORN, and community organizing, among others. Taken together, they demonstrate the extent to which these hard-core left-wingers influenced today's president of the United States.

Finally, it is important because of Ayers's relationship, through his powerful businessman father, with Chicago's Daley family, who happen to be among the most ardent Obama supporters and promoters. As Chicago's state's attorney, Richard M. Daley presided over the plea bargain for Dohrn when she surfaced from the underground. He later continued to support Ayers and Dohrn during his long tenure as mayor of Chicago from 1989 to 2011. Daley even launched an unapologetic defense of Ayers when the relationship with Obama was exposed during the 2008 campaign.

BILL AYERS is a limousine revolutionary. He was born into a wealthy Chicago family, raised in the leafy western Chicago suburbs, educated at the best schools, and benefited from connections and privilege wherever he turned. His father, Thomas Ayers, was CEO and president of Commonwealth Edison, Chicago's electric utility company, and sat on several influential boards, including those of the Chicago Tribune, Northwestern University, and the Chicago Symphony. In 1966, Mayor Richard J. Daley enlisted Thomas Ayers, a close friend, to head negotiations with Dr. Martin Luther King for a city-wide open housing agreement. Tom Ayers was so successful at talking out of both sides of his mouth that King claimed victory while, according to local press accounts, Daley could claim he was able to "preserve the segregationist status quo."

After a couple of mediocre years in a suburban public high school, Bill Ayers transferred to Lake Forest Academy, an upscale prep school for boys on suburban Chicago's north shore. (I attended the same school, before Ayers's arrival). He then went on to the University of Michigan in 1963, where he liked to consider himself a jock because he roomed with the Wolverines' star running back. He spent a summer working for Leo Burnett, Chicago's largest ad agency, a job arranged by his father. But he soon joined protests and demonstrations. He was arrested and spent 10 days in jail for trying to disrupt the Ann Arbor draft board. Shortly thereafter he joined Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and was well on his way to becoming a Marxist and self-styled radical revolutionary.

Bernardine Dohrn seemed made for Ayers; one has to wonder if God doesn't find the perfect mate even for people who don't believe in Him. A native of Milwaukee, Dohrn spent her first two years of college at Miami University of Ohio, but transferred to the University of Chicago after she was blackballed at the Delta Delta Delta sorority because she was half-Jewish. She graduated from the University of Chicago law school. But instead of taking the bar exam, she became an organizer for the National Lawyers Guild, a group identified by the FBI as a Communist front. She also became active in SDS.

As she rose to prominence in SDS, Dohrn and Mark Rudd​, leader of the SDS at Columbia, split off from SDS in 1969. For them, SDS was too passive in its radicalism and opposition to the Vietnam War. They believed a more militant group, one that would preach violent class hatred and worldwide revolution, was needed. They called themselves the Weathermen after the Bob Dylan line, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

Dohrn was unique in far-left circles: no wire-rims, no stringy hair, and no sackcloth. Peter Collier and David Horowitz, in their 1989 book Destructive Generation, write that when Dohrn arrived in New York City in 1967, "with her tight miniskirt and knee-high Italian leather boots, she created an instant sensation among males in Movement circles." Even SDS president Greg Calvert was astonished. "I'll never forget the first time I saw Bernardine," he said. "She was wearing an orange sweater and a purple skirt, and while everyone else had on Stop the War buttons, hers said Cunnilingus is Cool, Fellatio is Fun. She had a boyfriend…but like others buoyed by the new air of sexual freedom, she had relationships with men who interested her." J. Edgar Hoover later nicknamed her "La Pasionaria of the Lunatic Left."

DOHRN WAS ALWAYS one of SDS's most radical and outspoken leaders. When she ran for SDS "Interorganizational Secretary" in 1968, she was asked whether she was a socialist. When she answered that she was a revolutionary communist, she won by a landslide. In order to assure everybody of her bona fides, she announced that "what we're about is being crazy motherf---ers and scaring the s--t out of honky America."

Erasing Jews from Jerusalem

American Thinker
Our friends at the invaluable Palestinian Media Watch ( have been diligently following the latest in the Palestinian policy of historical revisionism: erasing Jewish connection to the Temple Mount -- ginning up energy for the big day at the U.N.

To take but two examples of the "spurious" Jewish attachment to their "alleged" Temple, try this one from Al-Hayat Al-Jadida on August 9.  August 9 is Tisha B'Av, the commemoration of the destruction of the First and Second Temples:
Since Monday morning, groups of extremist Jews have been roaming the courtyards of Al-Aqsa mosque one after the other, under heavy police protection, on the occasion of the so-called "destruction of the Temple"....This Sunday, the occupation's police handed the shop owners in the Market of the Cotton Merchants...which leads to the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, an order forcing them to close their shops on Monday order to facilitate the arrival of the settlers to the Market, for the sake of holding special Talmudic rituals on the occasion of the destruction of the alleged Temple.
 Or, from the same Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, on July 1, by its columnist on religious affairs:
The great and exalted Allah commanded the angel Gabriel to place Muhammad upon the riding beast Al-Buraq, which was a cross between horse and donkey. The night journey was both physical and spiritual....Once he reached the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the angel Gabriel removed Muhammad from upon Al-Buraq's back, and then he tied the beast to the Al-Buraq rock, which was called the 'Al-Buraq Wall.' The Jews changed its name to the 'Wailing Wall,' because the Jews are always trying to change Arabic names into Hebrew names....
As PMW notes, "the 'night journey' mentioned in the Qur'an is dated to 621 CE.  The mosque was built on the Temple Mount by the son of Ummayed Caliph Abd Al-Malik 84 years later in 705 CE."
And as to the land of Israel:
The Zionists must acknowledge publicly, in front of the world, that the Jews have no connection to the Palestinian Arab land, upon whose ruins arose the colonialist settler Zionist plan that settles and expels, represented by the Israeli apartheid state.  That which occurred two thousand years ago (i.e. the Jewish/Israeli presence in the land)...represents in the book of history nothing more than invention and falsification and a coarse and crude form of colonialism
There is much more at the website, including the claim that the Israelis stole "our clothing, our keffiyeh, our falafel, and our humus."

And furthermore, because the Palestinians are tired of looking out on "sin and filth (Jews' praying at Western Wall) ... we are drawing our new maps.  When they [Israelis] disappear from the picture, like a forgotten chapter of our city's history, we will build it anew[.]"

And there is this...

Tim Groseclose—Media Bias

YouTube description: A distinguished political scientist, Tim Groseclose is the Marvin Hoffenberg Professor of American Politics at the University of California at Los Angeles. Professor Groseclose has also taught at Caltech, Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, Ohio State University and Harvard. His new book is Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind.

For years, conservatives have been saying, "The media are biased." For just as many years, liberals have been saying, "Oh, yeah? Prove it." Now Tim Groseclose has proven it. Drawing on years of research and statistical analysis laid out in Left Turn, Groseclose explains how he measures the political leanings of ordinary Americans, the level of bias in any chosen media company, and how this media bias powerfully affects elections. He concludes by offering ways of combating media bias and explaining the role the Internet plays in exposing this bias.

Excessive Criminal Laws Trap Honest American Businessman

YouTube description: | Florida seafood importer Abner "Abbie" Schoenwetter spent years in a U.S. federal prison for supposedly violating the laws of Honduras... even though the Honduran government proved he was innocent. In an appalling miscarriage of justice, Schoenwetter lost his thriving business and years with his family. This shocking true story warns of the U.S. government creating new criminal laws that affect every American -- a problem known as overcriminalization.

How the NYPD Gets Jihad Right

In a world of wishful thinkers, Commissioner Kelly is a realist.

‘Every conspiracy against Islam and scheming against Islam and the Muslims — its source is America.”

“Jihad is Jihad. There is no such thing as commerce, industry, and science in jihad. This is calling things other than by its [sic] own name. If Allah says, ‘Do jihad,’ it means do jihad with the sword, with the cannon, with the grenades, and with the missile. This is Jihad. Jihad against Allah’s enemies for Allah’s cause and his word.”

“Why do we fear the word ‘terrorist’? If the terrorist is the person who defends his right, so we are terrorists. . . . The Koran mentions the words ‘to strike terror,’ therefore we don’t fear to be described with ‘terrorism.’ . . . We are ordered to prepare whatever we can of power to terrorize the enemies of Islam.”

This rhetoric was not at all unusual. It was the sort of thing you’d hear on any given Friday at mosques in Brooklyn or Jersey City. Nor is there anything ostensibly criminal about it, at least according to the hash the Supreme Court has made of the First Amendment.

That wasn’t the case in the speaker’s native Egypt. There, Omar Abdel Rahman had been notorious for such fiery Friday sermons. There, the imam known as “the Blind Sheikh,” a renowned scholar of Islamic jurisprudence, had been jailed several times for inciting Muslims — urging that they kill regime officials for allying with America and for failing to implement sharia, Islam’s legal system.

But not here, not in the land of free expression: In the United States, the authorities regarded Abdel Rahman as a respected community leader. The federal government put out its welcome mat despite his appearance on its terrorist watch lists. Federal authorities never consulted the police force responsible for protecting the New Yorkers he would attack; they just issued him a green card to work as a “religious teacher” and sent him on his way.

It was Ray Kelly, one of the great police commissioners in American history, who finally arranged to place the blind sheikh in handcuffs. This was during the summer of 1993, when Kelly was in his first go-round as NYPD commissioner.

The sheikh was holed up in a favorite New York City mosque, surrounded by his followers — at least those of them who were not already in prison or on the lam for multiple bombing plots. As I recounted in Willful Blindness, when Attorney General Janet Reno green-lighted the arrest that we prosecutors had been seeking for weeks, it was Kelly and his savvy city cops who defused the potentially explosive situation. The NYPD spoke to people in the community, the sheikh was coaxed out of the mosque, and federal immigration agents took him into custody without incident. This was no small thing: In the two decades since, dozens of innocent people have been killed by zealots demanding his release.

What I most remember about that day is Kelly’s quiet confidence, instilling calm in a room full of NYPD cops, FBI agents, and immigration officers — not to mention a thirtysomething government lawyer who happened to be on hand. A panicky supervisor from INS (called ICE now) groused that the sheikh’s arrest — initially on immigration charges — would have to wait until he could get clearance from his office. I was speechless. After all, the attorney general had already made her decision — why would we now have to wait on a midlevel bureaucrat? Because, it turned out, INS had sent the wrong bureaucrat to the meeting, the New York supervisor instead of the guy from across the river who was in charge of the INS end of the investigation. “You don’t understand,” the supervisor muttered as he reached for a phone, “the case belongs to New Jersey.”

“Yeah,” countered Commissioner Kelly, “but the streets belong to me.”

Kelly is now in his second tour of duty as commish, and New Yorkers are extraordinarily fortunate that their streets have belonged to him for most of the decade since September 11, 2001, when nearly 3,000 of our fellow citizens were murdered. You mightn’t think so, however, if all you had to go on was the hatchet-job published by the Associated Press last week.

By the AP’s lights, Kelly is running a rogue domestic-spying operation. To the contrary, the commissioner has crafted an unparalleled counterterrorism strategy. Ever mindful of civil rights and respectful of Islamic culture — just as the police must be respectful of the variegated cultures in the Big Apple’s ethnic goulash — Kelly has kept the world’s No. 1 terrorist target safe from mass-casualty attacks. He has managed this despite 13 known attempts — and who knows how many others that cannot be spoken of without compromising intelligence sources.

Saturday, September 3, 2011

Sarah Palin at 'Restoring America' Rally

Sarah Palin spoke at the 'Restoring America' Tea Party rally in Iowa earlier today.

When she walked on stage, the crowd began to chant, "Run, Sarah, run!" and they chanted it again after she had finished her remarks. No, she didn't announce her candidacy for POTUS but she did outline her plan to fix our economy. Her speech sounded and looked like a campaign stump speech and I don't pretend to know or understand why Palin hasn't proclaimed her intent to be a candidate.

After her forty minute speech, she descended the stairs and walked the rope line for forty-five minutes. She's a natural with the crowd and one could sense their affection for her as she walked down the line talking to them, standing for pictures and signing just about anything they put in front of her.

In 2008, during the Presidential campaign, Sarah Palin came to my town and I was one of 10,000 people there to see her that day. When the event coordinators sent me up into the stands my friend, Bruce, made sure I was on the main floor instead. I was in the front row of the rope line that day almost directly in front of the podium where she delivered her remarks. When she had finished speaking, she walked the rope line and when I shook her hand I said, "Tell John McCain he needs to fight." She replied, "I will." Well, McCain never did fight for the presidency nor for our country in 2008. He never fought against Obama either but Palin did.

Regular readers of this blog know that I am a huge fan of Palin and I want her to be the candidate to run against Obama. She has said that by the end of September she will make the decision as to whether or not to run in 2012. When she finished walking the rope line in Iowa today she walked up the stage steps, waved at the crowd, turned her back to walk backstage and the crowd started to chant, "Run, Sarah, run!"


Big Government has an excellent review of her speech here.

Pictures below are from the article about this speech in the UK Daily Mail.

Friday, September 2, 2011

Afterburner: The Truth Is Out There

Is Opposition to Gay Marriage “Bigotry?”

And there is this...

Dumb Texans, boring businessmen, crazy Christians: Lazy media stereotypes of the 2012 GOP field

S.E. Cupp
by S.E. Cupp

According to some historians, conservative statesman Edmund Burke was the first to coin the term "fourth estate" when referring to the media, in 1787 during a parliamentary debate. Upon the opening up of the House of Commons of Great Britain to the press gallery, he said: "Yonder sits the Fourth Estate, and they are more important than them all."

And the infamous media ego was born. Apparently, the generous compliment went straight to their heads.

Just a century later, the press had become so corrupt, so powerful in parliamentary Britain that Oscar Wilde revisited Burke's famous quote to lament: "Somebody - was it Burke? - called journalism the fourth estate. That was true at the time no doubt. But at the present moment it is the only estate. It has eaten up the other three."

Little has changed. Not only have the media become inordinately powerful - especially in presidential politics - but also depressingly lazy. In the year leading up to the 2012 presidential election, the largely liberal media are crafting narratives around the GOP candidates that are hackneyed, predictable and based almost entirely on uninventive stereotypes.

In fact, regardless of whom the candidates were, we could have written the story lines about them long before they got in the race.

I could have told you, for instance, that the narrative surrounding the Texas Republican was going to be, "Is he dumb?" And sure enough, on Politico's front page Monday, the headline read, "Is Rick Perry Dumb?" It is only one of many.

I also could have told you that the narrative surrounding the female candidate was going to be, "Is she weak?" And sure enough, for at least a couple of weeks, the press worried if occasional migraines would make Michele Bachmann a weak-kneed President. did a hard-hitting investigation inviting a number of doctors to speculate about her headaches. "Expert says they could be 'huge problem,' " the piece warned. Anyone have smelling salts?

Mitt Romney has suffered three lazy story lines: "Is the businessman boring?" "Does the millionaire have too much money?" "Are Mormons weird?" To the Mormon issue, in a June broadcast of "Meet the Press," David Gregory asked Rick Santorum, whom he called the "Christian conservative" candidate, what he thought of Romney's Mormonism. Now how is that relevant?

For Tim Pawlenty, the best the liberal media could do was to wonder if the former Minnesota governor was too "Minnesota nice."

Of course, for the moderate, Jon Huntsman, the near-constant declaration from the press is, "Isn't the moderate awesome?" Just ask John McCain, another moderate, former Republican presidential candidate, if being the darling of the liberal press is a good thing.

Obama's Uncle is Called a Fugitive

I'm beginning to wonder how many relatives President Obama has in this country illegally. Seriously, have we ever had a president that we know so little about? - Reggie

Said to ignore '92 deportation order

FRAMINGHAM - The uncle of President Obama arrested here last week on drunken driving and other charges has been a fugitive from deportation since 1992, according to two federal law enforcement officials with knowledge of the case.

Onyango Obama, who is from Kenya and is known as the president's Uncle Omar on his father's side, had lived a quiet life in Massachusetts until last Wednesday, when police said the car he was driving darted in front of a police cruiser, nearly causing the officer to hit his car.

The federal officials, who spoke about Obama's immigration status on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak about the case, said Obama had been told to leave in 1992, but he did not go.

Obama is the second relative of the president to have defied a deportation order, reigniting debate over illegal immigration and raising questions about how a man who had lived in the United States illegally for years had managed to secure a job, a Massachusetts driver's license, and apparently, a federal Social Security number, without being detected by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

"There are hundreds of thousands of people who have been ordered deported and just ran off and nobody's looking for them," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors strict controls on immigration.

Onyango Obama's sister, Zeituni Onyango, also faced deportation before a Boston immigration judge granted her asylum last year. She, too, had avoided the spotlight, living in public housing in South Boston despite a deportation order. Her immigration status was leaked to the media days before her nephew's historic election in 2008.

In contrast, Obama kept to himself in a modest house in Framingham. He worked in a small liquor store on Route 126 where locals stop in for a six-pack of beer, a bottle of wine, or scratch tickets.

"He was a great worker," said Parimal Patel, the owner of Conti Liquors, where Obama worked for the past five years. "We're in total shock. I wish I had known, I would have asked him to call the president and have him come down for some publicity."

Obama last week pleaded not guilty in Framingham District Court to multiple charges, including driving under the influence, failing to yield, and negligent operation, said court documents and the Associated Press. He is being held on an immigration detainer in the Plymouth County House of Correction.

Justice's New War Against Lenders

The Obama administration repeats mistakes of the past by intimidating banks into lending to minority borrowers at below-market rates in the name of combating discrimination.

Talk about not learning from past mistakes: A government department is again intimidating banks into lending to minority borrowers at below-market rates, all in the name of combating "discrimination." Welcome to the next housing mess.

The 1990s may have brought us supercharged politicized lending, but Eric Holder's Department of Justice is taking the game to an entirely new level, and then some. The weapon is a "fair lending" unit created in early 2010, led by special counsel Eric Halperin and overseen by Civil Rights Division head Thomas Perez.

A sampling of Mr. Perez's thinking, from April 2010 congressional testimony: "The foreclosure crisis has touched virtually every community in this country, but it disproportionately touches communities of color, in particular African-Americans and Latinos." And: "[C]ross burnings are the most overt form of discrimination and bigotry. Lending discrimination is some of the most subtle. It's what I call discrimination with a smile."

Even for the Obama administration's antidiscrimination cops, this is a shocker: A political appointee who's supposed to neutrally enforce the law loosely equates bankers with Klu Klux Klan thugs. But let's move from what may be Mr. Perez's personal bias, and focus on the broader brush strokes of the Justice Department—which seem designed to paint bankers into a corner.

Lenders who discriminate on the basis of race and those who make decisions on the basis of credit scores are two entirely different animals. The former our society doesn't permit, for moral reasons; the latter we encourage because it's fundamental to capitalism. A lender will go bust if he can't distinguish between a risky loan and a good loan. Poor people aren't well-served by getting loans they can't afford.

White House Furious over Speech Delay

First of all, I need to say that Politico is a left leaning site and it is one of the known propaganda arms of the White House so the stories on there will almost always paint Republicans in a bad light.

Secondly, if you aren't aware of the background to this story I have posted links to the story of Obama's original request to Speaker Boehner about a joint session of Congress and the Speaker's response.

You also need to know that even though President Obama sees himself as having all power and all authority in this country, he does not. Our Founding Fathers set up three branches of government in our Constitution and those branches are separate, but equal. Speaker Boehner is the lawful leader of the House of Representatives and in that position he has final authority about what happens in that institution. The fact that Obama decided to speak before a joint session on September 7th is irrelevant because the Speaker of the House has the final say in the matter.

Finally, these negotiations always go on in private and all parties are in agreement about the date, time, place, etc., before any announcement is made to the public. However, the arrogance of this president and his staff didn't allow that to happen. Instead, Obama set the date, time and place, announced it to the public and was stunned when Speaker Boehner suggested the next night instead.

We have a president that believes himself to be a dictator. Our country is being destroyed bit by bit and like I have said in the past, I believe the worst is yet to come.


It seemed like a trivial matter: On Wednesday, House Republicans forced the president to delay his speech to a joint session of Congress by one day.

Who cares? The White House cares. Very much.

“It is a big deal that the House said ‘no’ to the president from our end,” a White House source with intimate knowledge of what took place between the House and the president told me Thursday. “This confirms what we all know: They will do anything in the House to muck us up.”

On Wednesday, the White House staff did not know exactly what President Barack Obama was going to say in his major jobs speech, but it knew exactly where and when he was going to say it.

The location would be before a joint session of Congress in the august marble-clad chamber of the House of Representatives. And the speech would be next Wednesday night, when the House returned from vacation, and there would be maximum TV viewership.

The speech would be dignified, sober and important. But the planning turned out to be a mess, a mess that illuminates just how hyper-partisan politics have become on Capitol Hill at exactly the time Obama is calling for bipartisanship.

The White House was well aware the president’s speech would conflict with a planned Republican debate sponsored by POLITICO and NBC to be held at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif. The debate would be broadcast live by MSNBC and live-streamed by POLITICO. CNBC and Telemundo will re-air the broadcast.

Yet the White House did not see this as an obstacle. “With all due respect, the POLITICO-MSNBC debate was one that was going on a cable station,” the White House source said. “It was not sacrosanct. We knew they would push it back and then there would be a GOP debate totally trashing the president. So it wasn’t all an upside for us.”

And, at first, things seemed to fall into place.

At about 10 or 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, White House chief of staff Bill Daley called House Speaker John Boehner and asked that a joint session of Congress be assembled the following Wednesday night. The White House viewed Boehner as a political opponent, but not an enemy and the call was cordial, even pro forma considering such a request had never before been refused.

And, according to the White House source, Boehner said “okay” to Daley’s request for the Wednesday evening date. (Asked for comment, Boehner’s press secretary, Brendan Buck, said he had nothing to add to his statement of Wednesday that read in part: “No one in the speaker’s office - not the speaker, not any staff - signed off on the date the White House announced today.”)

Then things quickly unraveled. It turned out not everyone was as sanguine as Boehner with the notion that a Democratic president was going to step on a Republican debate.

At 11:55 a.m. Wednesday, the White House tweeted the news about the joint session. “And then Rush Limbaugh beat Boehner up,” the source said.

The conservative talk show personality was in his familiar state of high dudgeon. “This is a pure campaign speech and to give it the imprimatur of a speech before a joint session of Congress, there’s no way, he doesn’t deserve that,” Limbaugh said. “Boehner’s got to say no. Now, whether he will, I have no clue.”

Background stories...

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Obama and the Burden of Exceptionalism

Post-'60s liberals, with the president as their standard bearer, seek to make a virtue of decline.

If I've heard it once, I've heard it a hundred times: President Obama is destroying the country. Some say this destructiveness is intended; most say it is inadvertent, an outgrowth of inexperience, ideological wrong-headedness and an oddly undefined character. Indeed, on the matter of Mr. Obama's character, today's left now sounds like the right of three years ago. They have begun to see through the man and are surprised at how little is there.

Yet there is something more than inexperience or lack of character that defines this presidency: Mr. Obama came of age in a bubble of post-'60s liberalism that conditioned him to be an adversary of American exceptionalism. In this liberalism America's exceptional status in the world follows from a bargain with the devil—an indulgence in militarism, racism, sexism, corporate greed, and environmental disregard as the means to a broad economic, military, and even cultural supremacy in the world. And therefore America's greatness is as much the fruit of evil as of a devotion to freedom.

Mr. Obama did not explicitly run on an anti-exceptionalism platform. Yet once he was elected it became clear that his idea of how and where to apply presidential power was shaped precisely by this brand of liberalism. There was his devotion to big government, his passion for redistribution, and his scolding and scapegoating of Wall Street—as if his mandate was somehow to overcome, or at least subdue, American capitalism itself.

Anti-exceptionalism has clearly shaped his "leading from behind" profile abroad—an offer of self-effacement to offset the presumed American evil of swaggering cowboyism. Once in office his "hope and change" campaign slogan came to look like the "hope" of overcoming American exceptionalism and "change" away from it.

So, in Mr. Obama, America gained a president with ambivalence, if not some antipathy, toward the singular greatness of the nation he had been elected to lead.

Glenn Beck Interviews Gibson Guitar CEO

from this morning

Gibson Guitars CEO on DOJ bullies: “[S]macks of something from an Orwell novel”

Gibson's Les Paul guitar
By Michelle Malkin • September 1, 2011 10:08 AM

Two significant items to add to the Gibson Guitars vs. Obama DOJ story that we noted on Friday.

Since the WSJ first reported on the famed instrument-maker’s battle with the feds over rare wood used in its guitars last week, people across the country have rallied to Gibson’s side. The company’s CEO, Henry Juszkiewicz has publicized his legal plight –and the heavy-handed, botched enforcement tactics of a Justice Department bent on mis-applying foreign laws to American workers.

1) Andrew Lawton and Landmark Report note that Juszkiewicz has donated to GOP candidates, while one of his leading competitors “is a long-time Democratic supporter, with $35,400 in contributions to Democratic candidates and the DNC over the past couple of election cycles.”

2) Stacy McCain has the transcript and Ben Howe at RedState also spotlights Juszkiewicz’s recent KMJ interview in which the CEO revealed that the feds asserted in a court pleading that Gibson would be better off shipping their manufacturing labor overseas to Madagascar (be sure to click on the link to listen to the interview). Howe adds:
So the government attacked them in the first place by citing obscure regulations that probably weren’t violated about importation of wood. Now they are suggesting that all these problems would go away if they simply exported their labor.
Had it simply been said in passing by an agent, one could write it off as a lone sarcastic agent, trying to push buttons. But the fact that they actually wrote it in the pleading is a level of hubris that goes well beyond over zealous law enforcement officials and passes straight into what can easily be translated as an out of control and corrupt targeting of an American corporation.
When President Obama gives his jobs speech next week, let’s hope he has an answer for why our government would want to force and coerce corporations to send jobs overseas.
While his overzealous lawyers bully American employers, Obama whines about American jobs.

To see the first story Republic Heritage posted about this tyrannical raid, click here.

Can Obama Win Reelection?

Author David Limbaugh on president's chances in 2012, GOP candidates

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Affirmative Action for Unattractive People?

It's obvious Fox doesn't take this seriously since they put the guy on with Megyn Kelly. More and more I believe people in this country are losing their minds. - Reggie

Should so-called 'ugly' people receive discrimination protection?

Yes, It Is a Ponzi Scheme

In fact, Social Security is a bit worse than that.

Texas governor Rick Perry is being criticized for calling Social Security a “Ponzi scheme.” Even Mitt Romney is reportedly preparing to attack him for holding such a radical view. But if anything, Perry was being too kind.

The original Ponzi scheme was the brainchild of Charles Ponzi. Starting in 1916, the poor but enterprising Italian immigrant convinced people to allow him to invest their money. However, Ponzi never actually made any investments. He simply took the money he was given by later investors and gave it to his early investors, providing those early investors with a handsome profit. He then used these satisfied early investors as advertisements to get more investors. Unfortunately, in order to keep paying previous investors, Ponzi had to continue finding more and more new investors. Eventually, he couldn’t expand the number of new investors fast enough, and the scheme collapsed. Ponzi was convicted of fraud and sent to prison.

Social Security, on the other hand, forces people to invest in it through a mandatory payroll tax. A small portion of that money is used to buy special-issue Treasury bonds that the government will eventually have to repay, but the vast majority of the money you pay in Social Security taxes is not invested in anything. Instead, the money you pay into the system is used to pay benefits to those “early investors” who are retired today. When you retire, you will have to rely on the next generation of workers behind you to pay the taxes that will finance your benefits.

As with Ponzi’s scheme, this turns out to be a very good deal for those who got in early. The very first Social Security recipient, Ida Mae Fuller of Vermont, paid just $44 in Social Security taxes, but the long-lived Mrs. Fuller collected $20,993 in benefits. Such high returns were possible because there were many workers paying into the system and only a few retirees taking benefits out of it. In 1950, for instance, there were 16 workers supporting every retiree. Today, there are just over three. By around 2030, we will be down to just two.

As with Ponzi’s scheme, when the number of new contributors dries up, it will become impossible to continue to pay the promised benefits. Those early windfall returns are long gone. When today’s young workers retire, they will receive returns far below what private investments could provide. Many will be lucky to break even.

Eventually the pyramid crumbles.

Warren Buffett, Hypocrite

This one’s truly, uh ... rich: Billionaire Warren Buffett says folks like him should have to pay more taxes -- but it turns out his firm, Berkshire Hathaway, hasn’t paid what it’s already owed for years.

That’s right: As Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson notes, the company openly admits that it owes back taxes since as long ago as 2002.

“We anticipate that we will resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for the 2002 through 2004 tax years ... within the next 12 months,” the firm’s annual report says.

It also cites outstanding tax issues for 2005 through 2009.

Obvious question: If Buffett really thinks he and his “mega-rich friends” should pay higher taxes, why doesn’t his firm fork over what it already owes under current rates?

Likely answer: He cares more about shilling for President Obama -- who’s practically made socking “millionaires and billionaires” his re-election theme song -- than about kicking in more himself.

Buffett’s free to back Obama, of course.

And if his firm wants to keep its tax bill low, well, that’s its right, too.

But it would be nice if this “pro-tax-hike” tycoon were a bit more honest about it.