Obama Appointees Face Hearings
The Developing Saga of Timothy Geithner
Poor Bill Richardson. He isn’t Tim Geithner.
Bill Richardson, you see, didn’t make it to Confirmation Wonderland, that special U.S. Senate place intended to certify a President’s choices for certain high level administration jobs are of sufficient ability and character to serve in those jobs.
Bill Richardson, lifelong political hack and current Governor of New Mexico, ran for President in the long-forgotten 2008 Democratic Party primaries. After a while, he withdrew and endorsed Barack Obama over his longtime patrons, the Clintons. In the legal version of pay-to-play politics, Obama then nominated Richardson to be Secretary of Commerce.
On the way to confirmation, Richardson forgot to tell the Obama transition folks that his administration is being investigated for pay-to-play politics of the illegal kind, with a federal grand jury looking into no-bid contracts awarded to a significant campaign contributor. Richardson withdrew his nomination. Editorials bemoaning the loss were scarce.
Tim Geithner, who has been nominated by Obama to save the country, perhaps even the world, from financial ruin as Secretary of the Treasury, is a different story.
Geithner is a lifelong numbers nerd who is currently President of the New York Federal Reserve. As such, he has been one of the principal figures in the billions of dollars of Wall Street bailouts, mostly secret, that have succeeded in embarrassing the wives of financial institution executives into now shopping in secret, and not much else.
As Treasury Secretary-designate, Mr. Geithner has been one of the principal figures in arguing for more bailout money and a new “economic stimulus” package, both to give and spend ever so many more hundreds of billions of taxpayer money that the treasury does not have and will not soon get.
Those would be taxpayers, current and decades into the future, who have or will actually pay all their taxes on time and as required by law. Until quite recently, Mr. Geithner was not in that group.
As is now being widely reported, with new details emerging daily, from 2001 through 2004 Mr. Geithner was employed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF does not withhold taxes from paychecks, but they are expected to be paid nonetheless, as if the employees are self-employed. Further, the IMF goes to some lengths to make sure employees understand their tax obligation and, in fact, sign forms that acknowledge their tax obligation. In addition, the IMF provides employees with an allowance above salary to cover tax payments, a fairly standard practice for international organizations and corporations with employees subject to the differing tax regimes of their home countries.
Mr. Geithner took the money and signed the forms, but did not pay the required taxes for the years that he was employed by IMF.
In 2006, Mr. Geithner was audited by the IRS for tax years 2003 and 2004. The audit discovered the tax delinquency for those two years, and Geithner paid $16,732 in back taxes and interest. But what of 2001 and 2002, when Geithner was employed by IMF under the same circumstances? Did he immediately pay what he then had to have known he owed, even though the IRS didn’t audit those two years?
He did not. In fact, Mr. Geithner did not pay an additional $25, 970 in delinquent taxes and interest until after Obama had selected him as Treasury Secretary.
But wait. There’s more. For several years, Mr. Geithner listed expenses for overnight camps for his children in determining his dependent care tax credit. Even after an accountant subsequently told him that such expenses are not deductible, he did not immediately file amended returns for the years in which the expenses were claimed, adding thousands more to his tax delinquency.
All of this (plus the retention of a housekeeper whose work visa expired during her employment with Geithner) is being portrayed as a series of embarrassing, unfortunate mistakes that should not disqualify Geithner or deprive Obama of the superhuman Treasury Secretary he needs at this time of dire national economic crisis.
As Jackie Calmes wrote in a New York Times article on the issue, “If Timothy F. Geithner were a bank, he might well be considered ‘too big to fail.’”
Geithner’s confirmation hearing has now been postponed until January 21, the day after Inauguration, and even that delay is being bemoaned as a great imposition on the new administration.
Unless there is great and abiding public outrage over an acknowledged tax delinquent being given authority over Treasury, the IRS and hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money, Confirmation Wonderland will undoubtedly proceed apace, with “change you can believe in” changing before your eyes into political business as usual.
Friday, January 16, 2009
NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert
NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 16, No. 2 1/16/09
As the inauguration of Barack Obama approaches, the men and women he has nominated are starting to face questions in their Senate confirmation hearings. In a number of cases, this includes some high-profile appointees who will have a significant impact on the Obama administration's policies on firearms rights.
Chief among these is Attorney General designate Eric Holder, who has a long history of opposition to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. There are already significant concerns about Holder's nomination. "I have many serious questions about Mr. Holder's nomination," said Senator David Vitter (R-La.). "At the top of the list are his anti-Second Amendment right positions. He's clearly advocated near universal licensing and registration, and he joined and filed an amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller U.S. Supreme Court case arguing that the Second Amendment was not an individual right. That's deeply disturbing."
NRA has also opposed Holder's confirmation, and strongly believes he will actively work to restrict gun owners' rights. (See the letter to Senators Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter from NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox here.)
Brady Sends Obama Its Pre-Inauguration Wish List: No one, including the Brady Campaign, seriously believes that Barack Obama was elected president because of this support for gun control. But Brady is pretending that it provided Obama the margin of victory in November, and has provided him with a very long list of gun bans and other restrictions that it expects from him in return.
NRA Settles San Francisco Housing Authority Gun Ban Lawsuit: A federal lawsuit filed by NRA to challenge a San Francisco Housing Authority ban on firearms in public housing has been settled. NRA sued the housing authority following last summer's historic U.S. Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that found that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
U.S Forest Service Considering Use of Motorized Vehicles to Retrieve Game in the Kaibab National Forrest! The U.S. Forest Service has released a Travel Management Project (TMP) for the Tusayan Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest. Three management alternatives for motorized use of roads and trails are presented, including the use of motorized vehicles to retrieve game.
Elk Management Plan for Theodore Roosevelt National Park Released for Public Comment! Until recently, the National Park Service has used park staff or contract sharpshooters to reduce populations of elk and deer within national parks to achieve herd levels that the habitat can support. As a result of NRA's advocacy for the use of hunters to assist in such operations, the Service is now obligated to consider the use of "skilled volunteers" (e.g. hunters).
The Founder's Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms, by Stephen P. Halbrook--Donate to NRA-ILA and Get Your Copy Now! Stephen Halbrook's The Founders' Second Amendment is the first book-length account of the origins of the Second Amendment, based on the Founders' own statements as found in newspapers, correspondence, debates, and resolutions. Mr. Halbrook investigates the period from 1768 to 1826, from the last years of British rule and the American Revolution through the adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the passing of the Founders' generation. From the British seizure of guns in Boston to the Founders' own use of guns in their private lives, his book offers the most comprehensive analysis ever of the arguments behind the drafting and adoption of the Second Amendment, and the intentions of the men who created it.
To contribute to NRA-ILA and receive your copy of this remarkable book, please click here.
Help Defend Your Gun Rights One Easy Click At A Time: We now have a revolutionary yet simple tool that will allow you to stay connected to NRA-ILA and raise valuable contributions to defend our Second Amendment rights without spending a dime! It's the NRA-ILA Toolbar, and you can make a difference by downloading and using it.
Grassroots Minute Video: To view the most recent "Grassroots Minute" video, please click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EANLaQFuiIg .
STATE ROUNDUP (please click to see any updates on states not listed below.)
ATTENTION HUNTERS: Please Attend Safari Club International's Wildlife Law Seminar on Saturday, January 24! For those who are planning to attend Safari Club International's Annual Convention in Reno, Nevada, at the end of this month, please be advised of a seminar that will be given on Saturday, January 24. Entitled, "Wildlife Law: Issues and Controversies Regarding Wildlife Management and Use," this seminar should be of particular relevance to hunters who are interested in the laws affecting the shipment of firearms and trophies across state and international borders, as well as those interested in current issues affecting the management of wildlife. The seminar will be held from 8:45 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., on Saturday, January 24, at the Atlantis Casino Resort Spa, located at 3800 S. Virginia Street, in Reno. Admittance is $129, which includes the seminar, written materials, and single, same day admission to SCI Hunter's Convention. Registration will close on Monday, January 12. For more information and to complete a registration form, please click here. To learn about SCI membership and their convention, please visit www.safariclub.com.
ARIZONA: U.S Forest Service Considering Use of Motorized Vehicles to Retrieve Game in the Kaibab National Forrest! The U.S. Forest Service has released a Travel Management Project (TMP) for the Tusayan Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest. Three management alternatives for motorized use of roads and trails are presented, including the use of motorized vehicles to retrieve game. Alternative 1 is the No Action alternative. It would allow the use of any type of motorized vehicle to retrieve legally harvested big game. The No Action alternative is what is allowed currently. Alternative 2, the Service's recommended management plan, would allow cross-country motorized big game retrieval for elk during all elk seasons. Hunters would be allowed to take one vehicle up to one mile cross-country from a designated road to retrieve their legally harvested elk. Alternative 3 is the same for motorized big game retrieval as Alternative 2. Public comments are being accepted until Friday, January 30 and need to be addressed to: Forest Supervisor, Kaibab National Forest, 800 S. Sixth Street, Williams, AZ 86046 or emailed to: comments-southwestern-kaibab@fs.fed.us. For further information, please call (928) 635-8200. The TMP is available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/kai. Two public meetings are scheduled from 5 to 7 p.m. on Tuesday, January 13 at the Coconino Community College, Lone Tree Campass, at 2800 S. Lone Tree Rd., Flagstaff and Thursday, January 15 at the Tusayan Ranger District Office, located at 100 Lincoln Log Loop (off Highway 64 south of the Grand Canyon National Park entrance, Grand Canyon (Tusayan). It is important for hunters, whether or not they have hunted in the Tusayan Ranger District, to provide comment on the TMP. Roads and trails are being restricted for motorized use by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, which means that hunters' use of vehicles to retrieve game can be severely restricted or eliminated. NRA is actively involved in ensuring that motorized use restrictions do not restrict hunters' access to federal public lands. We need your help in providing comments to these federal agencies when TMP's are released for public comment, such as the Tusayan TMP.
ARKANSAS: General Assembly Convenes with Important Legislation Already Introduced! The Arkansas General Assembly convened this week, and NRA is already working hard with pro-gun and pro-hunting lawmakers to protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and sportsmen. State Senator Steve Faris (D-27), one of the most ardent pro-gun legislators in the General Assembly, has reintroduced the NRA-backed Right to Hunt and Fish Constitutional Amendment, SJR 3. Senator Faris has been working with NRA for several sessions to pass this critical amendment to the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, which would ensure that the right to hunt (as well as fish) will be protected for future generations. SJR 3 is the culmination of years of hard work by Senator Faris and NRA, and we are committed to passing this amendment this year. Of course, we will be working on other areas to advance our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, including efforts to expand where Right-to-Carry permit holders may carry or transport their firearms, and we will be sure to keep the pro-gun community in Arkansas alerted to what they can do to help. In the meantime, please contact your State Senator and State Representative and respectfully urge them to support SJR 3. Contact information for your State Legislators can be found by clicking here.
COLORADO: Important Castle Doctrine Reform Bill to be Considered on Wednesday, January 20! On Wednesday, January 20, the Colorado Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee will vote on Senate Bill 8, a bill sponsored by State Senator Ted Harvey (R-30). This legislation seeks to expand Colorado's Castle Doctrine law. SB 8 would amend Colorado's current version of the Castle Doctrine to ensure that all citizens have a right to use force, including deadly force, against a violent attacker, not only within their own dwellings, but their places of business as well. SB 8 is critically important as it expands Coloradans' right to self-defense and protects victims from frivolous civil lawsuits by criminals or their family. Please contact the members of the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee TODAY and respectfully urge them to vote for SB 8. Contact information can be found by clicking here.
MARYLAND: Maryland's Rich Hunting Tradition Under Fire in Howard County! On Wednesday, January 21 members of the Howard County Council will meet to discuss CB1-2009; new hunting regulations that will effectively ban all firearm and muzzleloader hunting within Howard County. The measure would double to 300 yards the minimum distance for shooting near a building. The minimum remains 150 yards for those at least 10 feet off the ground in a stand and shooting downward. The state statutory minimum for all hunting is 150 yards. In addition, shooting within 100 yards of a public road is prohibited. These two provisions together will prohibit many forms of hunting on thousands of acres of traditional hunting lands throughout the county. Incredibly, the measure would also make it unlawful for a hunter to shoot in the direction of a building or camp if the distance to the building or camp is within the "maximum range" of the firearm or muzzleloader (arguably up to two miles for standard hunting loads depending on who's doing the math). This radical and subjective provision will ban virtually all firearms and muzzleloader hunting within the county. If a provision like this were in effect nationwide, hunting would be restricted to only the most remote locations in America. This proposal is an unfortunate knee-jerk reaction to an isolated incident that occurred in the county. The fact is that hunting remains one of the safest forms of recreation in the country according to the National Safety Council. This proposal will be discussed at a public hearing on Wednesday, January 21 at 7:30 p.m. in the Howard County Board of Education Building's Board Room located at 10910 Route 108 in Ellicott City. Please attend this public hearing and voice your opposition to this attack on Maryland's hunting heritage. If you are unable to attend, please contact the members of the County Council TODAY and respectfully urge them to OPPOSE this anti-hunting measure. Contact information can be found by clicking here.
Yet Another Bloomberg Anti-Gun Mayor in Hot Water! On Friday, January 9, Mayor Sheila Dixon (D) of Baltimore was indicted following a three-year investigation.
Mayor Dixon, a member of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's anti-gun gang "Mayors Against Illegal Guns," allegedly did not report lavish luxuries such as fur coats and trips given to her by a local developer. She is also accused of stealing at least $2,000 worth of gift cards, purchasing an Xbox 360, PlayStation 2, digital camcorder, and other electronics, for her own personal use. The gift cards were donated to the city for needy families. Mayor Dixon now joins the ranks of beleaguered anti-gun politicians like Governor Rod Blagojevich (D) and Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (D) of Detroit. Perhaps these characters should focus on abiding by the law themselves instead of persecuting law-abiding citizens.
MISSISSIPPI: Two Pro-Gun Bills Need Your Help! State Senator Merle Flowers (R-19) has introduced two NRA-backed bills so far this session, both of which have been referred to the Senate Judiciary B Committee. In 2006 after Hurricane Katrina, the Mississippi Legislature amended the state's firearms preemption law to prevent cities and counties from interfering with the lawful transportation and possession of firearms in one's home, vehicle, or place of business during a state of emergency or natural disaster. This year, Senator Flowers has introduced SB 2036, which amends the state's emergency powers laws to create additional Second Amendment protections for law-abiding citizens during a future crisis. Senator Flowers has also filed SB 2306, which repeals a prohibition in the state's Right-to-Carry law on permit holders possessing handguns in state and municipal parks. Without this legislation, permit holders in Mississippi and reciprocal states would be allowed to carry a concealed firearm in national parks under the recent rule change adopted by the Department of the Interior but not allowed to carry in state or municipal parks. Please contact the members of the Senate Judiciary B Committee and your State Senator TODAY and respectfully urge them to support both SB 2036 and SB 2306! Contact information for the Senate Judiciary B Committee can be found below by clicking here. Please click here to find contact information for your State Senator.
NEW YORK: Big Victory for Sportsmen: Reynolds Game Farm to Remain Open! Following pressure from upset hunters, and facing legal action, Governor David Paterson (D) and Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Chair Pete Grannis have decided that the Reynolds Pheasant Preserve, a last-of-its-kind pheasant-breeding operation open since 1927, will remain open. Last month's announcement that the farm would close set off a chain of events culminating in a suit filed by the New York Rifle and Pistol Association, the National Rifle Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and the Conservation Alliance of New York. The groups requested and were granted a restraining order to halt the destruction of the pheasants until it could be determined whether they were paid for with monies derived from excise taxes collected from firearm and ammunition sales. Please call Governor Paterson and thank him for reconsidering the farm's fate. You can contact the Governor by phone at (518) 474-8390.
NORTH CAROLINA: Anti-Gun Zealot Targeting Ammunition! For several years, anti-gun activist Reverend Melvin Whitley has been promoting a "Bullet Ownership Bill," which would require anyone who wishes to purchase ammunition to first acquire a permit. While his efforts have yet to gain any traction, this year Whitley is hoping the Durham City Council will add his bill to its agenda of legislative proposals submitted to the North Carolina General Assembly. Attacks on ammunition are popular among the gun-ban crowd these days, because they see them as an opportunity to get around the Supreme Court's Heller decision, affirming that the Second Amendment guarantees our individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Just as law-abiding citizens have the right to own firearms, they have the right to own the ammunition for those arms. In the wake of the Heller decision, states should be looking at ways to strengthen the rights protected under the Second Amendment, not weaken them, as Whitley's proposal would do. Please contact members of the Durham City Council and respectfully urge them to reject Rev. Whitley's attack on the Second Amendment and law-abiding gun owners. For a listing of council members and contact information, please visit http://www.durhamnc.gov/council/pdf/council_guide.pdf. In addition, please contact your State Representative and State Senator and respectfully urge them to oppose any efforts to place added restrictions on the rights of law-abiding citizens. To find contact information on your State Representative and Senator, please click here.
Dramatically Expanded Hunting Opportunities Proposed in North Carolina! The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has opened for public comment proposed regulatory changes to the fishing, hunting, and trapping seasons for 2009-2010. The Commission should be commended for offering what is an unprecedented expansion of hunting opportunities in the Tar Heel State. It is essential that sportsmen submit public comments in support of the proposed changes in order to ensure that they are enacted for the coming season. All of the proposed changes can be found by visiting http://www.ncwildlife.org and selecting "2009 Proposed Regulations & Public Hearing Schedule." NRA encourages its members and the hunting community to submit comments supporting the efforts to expand hunting opportunities proposed by the NCWRC. Comments may be conveniently submitted online by going to www.ncwildlife.org and selecting the link to "Submit Comments Online," or by going directly to the comments page at http://www.ncwildlife.org/ProposedRegulations/Main.aspx. Comments will be accepted until Sunday, February 1, 2009. There is also a schedule for public hearings, beginning Monday, January 5, 2009, that can be found when you select "2009 Proposed Regulations & Public Hearing Schedule." NRA encourages members and hunters to attend these hearings to show their support for the NCWRC proposals. The importance of supportive public comments in this process cannot be overestimated. Remember that the anti-hunting radicals will be submitting comments in opposition to the expanded opportunities!
NORTH DAKOTA: Elk Management Plan for Theodore Roosevelt National Park Released for Public Comment! Until recently, the National Park Service has used park staff or contract sharpshooters to reduce populations of elk and deer within national parks to achieve herd levels that the habitat can support. As a result of NRA's advocacy for the use of hunters to assist in such operations, the Service is now obligated to consider the use of skilled volunteers (e.g. hunters). The Elk Reduction Plan for Rocky Mountain National Park, CO is the first such plan to include skilled volunteers. The Theodore Roosevelt National Park (TRNP) plan, which is open for public comment until Sunday, March 15, presents 6 action alternatives. Under Alternative B, skilled volunteers would become part of a pool of available personnel that could assist in the culling operations. Under Alternative E, the Service would look at ways to enhance elk hunting opportunities outside the park, in cooperation with the North Dakota Game & Fish Department, the U.S. Forest Service, and adjacent landowners. Public meetings will be held although specific dates and locations have not been announced. The draft plan is available at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/thro. You may submit your comments using the above website or mail your comments to Superintendent Valerie Naylor, TRNP, Box 7, Medora, ND 58645-0007. Hunters are considered the first conservationists and have been a valuable asset to wildlife managers in keeping wildlife in balance with its habitat and other natural resources. We encourage you to comment on the draft plan and support the use of hunters at TRNP, as well as supporting efforts by the Service and the state of North Dakota to enhance hunting opportunities outside the park.
OREGON: Stand-Up and Make Your Voices Heard in the Marion County Sheriff's On-line Questionnaire About Right-to-Carry Privacy! In recent months, newspapers across the state of Oregon have been urging local sheriffs to release the identity of individuals who have been issued Concealed Handgun Licenses within their respective counties. Due to a 2008 circuit court ruling, many counties are finding ways to accommodate both law-abiding gun owners and the media. In some counties, CHL holders are now given the option to allow the disclosure of private information to the public. In response to this growing issue, Marion County Sheriff Russ Isham has formed a website that would enable Concealed Handgun License Holders to respond to a brief survey regarding CHL confidentiality. In order preserve your privacy, we strongly urge you to please visit http://www.co.marion.or.us/SO/Operations/concealed.htm to complete your on-line questionnaire TODAY. If you have any questions regarding this issue or the questionnaire please contact the Marion County Sheriff's office at (503) 566-6991.
SOUTH CAROLINA: General Assembly Reconvenes in Columbia The South Carolina General Assembly convened this week, and NRA anticipates a busy year of promoting our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Pro-gun State Representative Dan Cooper (R-10) has already introduced H 3003, which seeks to make numerous changes to the laws regulating the carrying of firearms in South Carolina. This bill already has more than 30 co-sponsors. NRA is still in the process of analyzing this legislation, but we will work closely with Representative Cooper to ensure his legislation advances our cause. We will also work with allies in the South Carolina House and Senate to make other improvements that will benefit law-abiding gun owners, and we will be sure to alert the South Carolina pro-gun community to new developments and calls to action. While no major threats to the Second Amendment are currently on the horizon, that could change quickly.
There has been some confusion regarding legislation that was introduced last session. S 1259 was a bill introduced last year that sought to require all handgun and "assault weapon" ammunition in South Carolina be "encoded" and registered. This legislation died last year, and similar legislation has NOT been introduced this session. If anything similar to S 1259 is introduced this year, we will be sure to send out an alert. At this time, however, there is no need to contact South Carolina legislators about ammunition "encoding" legislation.
VIRGINIA: Virginia Crime Commission Releases New Recommendation! On Tuesday, January 13, the Virginia Crime Commission met to discuss and vote on regulating the sale of firearms at gun shows and the private transfer of firearms between Virginia citizens. State Senator Janet Howell (D-32) proposed that the Virginia Crime Commission recommend a bill that would end the private transfer and sale of firearms between individuals, including family members, without a background check. Similar legislation was defeated last year in the Virginia House and Senate, and this recommendation was defeated by the Virginia State Crime Commission. A recommendation by State Senator Kenneth Stolle (R-8) proposed language that would assess a fee, paid by gun-show promoters to the Commonwealth, that would cover the cost of the Virginia State Police to monitor and attend gun shows when necessary. While Senator Stolle's recommendation in itself is not legislation, it is likely that gun owners will see similar language proposed in the coming legislative session. Please contact your State Legislators and respectfully urge them to oppose any legislation that attacks or erodes our Second Amendment freedoms. Contact information for your State Legislators can be found by clicking here.
www.NRAILA.org
Write Your Representative
Write The Media
Get Involved Locally
Register To Vote
Contribute
As the inauguration of Barack Obama approaches, the men and women he has nominated are starting to face questions in their Senate confirmation hearings. In a number of cases, this includes some high-profile appointees who will have a significant impact on the Obama administration's policies on firearms rights.
Chief among these is Attorney General designate Eric Holder, who has a long history of opposition to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. There are already significant concerns about Holder's nomination. "I have many serious questions about Mr. Holder's nomination," said Senator David Vitter (R-La.). "At the top of the list are his anti-Second Amendment right positions. He's clearly advocated near universal licensing and registration, and he joined and filed an amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller U.S. Supreme Court case arguing that the Second Amendment was not an individual right. That's deeply disturbing."
NRA has also opposed Holder's confirmation, and strongly believes he will actively work to restrict gun owners' rights. (See the letter to Senators Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter from NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox here.)
Brady Sends Obama Its Pre-Inauguration Wish List: No one, including the Brady Campaign, seriously believes that Barack Obama was elected president because of this support for gun control. But Brady is pretending that it provided Obama the margin of victory in November, and has provided him with a very long list of gun bans and other restrictions that it expects from him in return.
NRA Settles San Francisco Housing Authority Gun Ban Lawsuit: A federal lawsuit filed by NRA to challenge a San Francisco Housing Authority ban on firearms in public housing has been settled. NRA sued the housing authority following last summer's historic U.S. Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that found that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
U.S Forest Service Considering Use of Motorized Vehicles to Retrieve Game in the Kaibab National Forrest! The U.S. Forest Service has released a Travel Management Project (TMP) for the Tusayan Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest. Three management alternatives for motorized use of roads and trails are presented, including the use of motorized vehicles to retrieve game.
Elk Management Plan for Theodore Roosevelt National Park Released for Public Comment! Until recently, the National Park Service has used park staff or contract sharpshooters to reduce populations of elk and deer within national parks to achieve herd levels that the habitat can support. As a result of NRA's advocacy for the use of hunters to assist in such operations, the Service is now obligated to consider the use of "skilled volunteers" (e.g. hunters).
The Founder's Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms, by Stephen P. Halbrook--Donate to NRA-ILA and Get Your Copy Now! Stephen Halbrook's The Founders' Second Amendment is the first book-length account of the origins of the Second Amendment, based on the Founders' own statements as found in newspapers, correspondence, debates, and resolutions. Mr. Halbrook investigates the period from 1768 to 1826, from the last years of British rule and the American Revolution through the adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the passing of the Founders' generation. From the British seizure of guns in Boston to the Founders' own use of guns in their private lives, his book offers the most comprehensive analysis ever of the arguments behind the drafting and adoption of the Second Amendment, and the intentions of the men who created it.
To contribute to NRA-ILA and receive your copy of this remarkable book, please click here.
Help Defend Your Gun Rights One Easy Click At A Time: We now have a revolutionary yet simple tool that will allow you to stay connected to NRA-ILA and raise valuable contributions to defend our Second Amendment rights without spending a dime! It's the NRA-ILA Toolbar, and you can make a difference by downloading and using it.
Grassroots Minute Video: To view the most recent "Grassroots Minute" video, please click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EANLaQFuiIg .
STATE ROUNDUP (please click to see any updates on states not listed below.)
ATTENTION HUNTERS: Please Attend Safari Club International's Wildlife Law Seminar on Saturday, January 24! For those who are planning to attend Safari Club International's Annual Convention in Reno, Nevada, at the end of this month, please be advised of a seminar that will be given on Saturday, January 24. Entitled, "Wildlife Law: Issues and Controversies Regarding Wildlife Management and Use," this seminar should be of particular relevance to hunters who are interested in the laws affecting the shipment of firearms and trophies across state and international borders, as well as those interested in current issues affecting the management of wildlife. The seminar will be held from 8:45 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., on Saturday, January 24, at the Atlantis Casino Resort Spa, located at 3800 S. Virginia Street, in Reno. Admittance is $129, which includes the seminar, written materials, and single, same day admission to SCI Hunter's Convention. Registration will close on Monday, January 12. For more information and to complete a registration form, please click here. To learn about SCI membership and their convention, please visit www.safariclub.com.
ARIZONA: U.S Forest Service Considering Use of Motorized Vehicles to Retrieve Game in the Kaibab National Forrest! The U.S. Forest Service has released a Travel Management Project (TMP) for the Tusayan Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest. Three management alternatives for motorized use of roads and trails are presented, including the use of motorized vehicles to retrieve game. Alternative 1 is the No Action alternative. It would allow the use of any type of motorized vehicle to retrieve legally harvested big game. The No Action alternative is what is allowed currently. Alternative 2, the Service's recommended management plan, would allow cross-country motorized big game retrieval for elk during all elk seasons. Hunters would be allowed to take one vehicle up to one mile cross-country from a designated road to retrieve their legally harvested elk. Alternative 3 is the same for motorized big game retrieval as Alternative 2. Public comments are being accepted until Friday, January 30 and need to be addressed to: Forest Supervisor, Kaibab National Forest, 800 S. Sixth Street, Williams, AZ 86046 or emailed to: comments-southwestern-kaibab@fs.fed.us. For further information, please call (928) 635-8200. The TMP is available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/kai. Two public meetings are scheduled from 5 to 7 p.m. on Tuesday, January 13 at the Coconino Community College, Lone Tree Campass, at 2800 S. Lone Tree Rd., Flagstaff and Thursday, January 15 at the Tusayan Ranger District Office, located at 100 Lincoln Log Loop (off Highway 64 south of the Grand Canyon National Park entrance, Grand Canyon (Tusayan). It is important for hunters, whether or not they have hunted in the Tusayan Ranger District, to provide comment on the TMP. Roads and trails are being restricted for motorized use by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, which means that hunters' use of vehicles to retrieve game can be severely restricted or eliminated. NRA is actively involved in ensuring that motorized use restrictions do not restrict hunters' access to federal public lands. We need your help in providing comments to these federal agencies when TMP's are released for public comment, such as the Tusayan TMP.
ARKANSAS: General Assembly Convenes with Important Legislation Already Introduced! The Arkansas General Assembly convened this week, and NRA is already working hard with pro-gun and pro-hunting lawmakers to protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and sportsmen. State Senator Steve Faris (D-27), one of the most ardent pro-gun legislators in the General Assembly, has reintroduced the NRA-backed Right to Hunt and Fish Constitutional Amendment, SJR 3. Senator Faris has been working with NRA for several sessions to pass this critical amendment to the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, which would ensure that the right to hunt (as well as fish) will be protected for future generations. SJR 3 is the culmination of years of hard work by Senator Faris and NRA, and we are committed to passing this amendment this year. Of course, we will be working on other areas to advance our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, including efforts to expand where Right-to-Carry permit holders may carry or transport their firearms, and we will be sure to keep the pro-gun community in Arkansas alerted to what they can do to help. In the meantime, please contact your State Senator and State Representative and respectfully urge them to support SJR 3. Contact information for your State Legislators can be found by clicking here.
COLORADO: Important Castle Doctrine Reform Bill to be Considered on Wednesday, January 20! On Wednesday, January 20, the Colorado Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee will vote on Senate Bill 8, a bill sponsored by State Senator Ted Harvey (R-30). This legislation seeks to expand Colorado's Castle Doctrine law. SB 8 would amend Colorado's current version of the Castle Doctrine to ensure that all citizens have a right to use force, including deadly force, against a violent attacker, not only within their own dwellings, but their places of business as well. SB 8 is critically important as it expands Coloradans' right to self-defense and protects victims from frivolous civil lawsuits by criminals or their family. Please contact the members of the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee TODAY and respectfully urge them to vote for SB 8. Contact information can be found by clicking here.
MARYLAND: Maryland's Rich Hunting Tradition Under Fire in Howard County! On Wednesday, January 21 members of the Howard County Council will meet to discuss CB1-2009; new hunting regulations that will effectively ban all firearm and muzzleloader hunting within Howard County. The measure would double to 300 yards the minimum distance for shooting near a building. The minimum remains 150 yards for those at least 10 feet off the ground in a stand and shooting downward. The state statutory minimum for all hunting is 150 yards. In addition, shooting within 100 yards of a public road is prohibited. These two provisions together will prohibit many forms of hunting on thousands of acres of traditional hunting lands throughout the county. Incredibly, the measure would also make it unlawful for a hunter to shoot in the direction of a building or camp if the distance to the building or camp is within the "maximum range" of the firearm or muzzleloader (arguably up to two miles for standard hunting loads depending on who's doing the math). This radical and subjective provision will ban virtually all firearms and muzzleloader hunting within the county. If a provision like this were in effect nationwide, hunting would be restricted to only the most remote locations in America. This proposal is an unfortunate knee-jerk reaction to an isolated incident that occurred in the county. The fact is that hunting remains one of the safest forms of recreation in the country according to the National Safety Council. This proposal will be discussed at a public hearing on Wednesday, January 21 at 7:30 p.m. in the Howard County Board of Education Building's Board Room located at 10910 Route 108 in Ellicott City. Please attend this public hearing and voice your opposition to this attack on Maryland's hunting heritage. If you are unable to attend, please contact the members of the County Council TODAY and respectfully urge them to OPPOSE this anti-hunting measure. Contact information can be found by clicking here.
Yet Another Bloomberg Anti-Gun Mayor in Hot Water! On Friday, January 9, Mayor Sheila Dixon (D) of Baltimore was indicted following a three-year investigation.
Mayor Dixon, a member of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's anti-gun gang "Mayors Against Illegal Guns," allegedly did not report lavish luxuries such as fur coats and trips given to her by a local developer. She is also accused of stealing at least $2,000 worth of gift cards, purchasing an Xbox 360, PlayStation 2, digital camcorder, and other electronics, for her own personal use. The gift cards were donated to the city for needy families. Mayor Dixon now joins the ranks of beleaguered anti-gun politicians like Governor Rod Blagojevich (D) and Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (D) of Detroit. Perhaps these characters should focus on abiding by the law themselves instead of persecuting law-abiding citizens.
MISSISSIPPI: Two Pro-Gun Bills Need Your Help! State Senator Merle Flowers (R-19) has introduced two NRA-backed bills so far this session, both of which have been referred to the Senate Judiciary B Committee. In 2006 after Hurricane Katrina, the Mississippi Legislature amended the state's firearms preemption law to prevent cities and counties from interfering with the lawful transportation and possession of firearms in one's home, vehicle, or place of business during a state of emergency or natural disaster. This year, Senator Flowers has introduced SB 2036, which amends the state's emergency powers laws to create additional Second Amendment protections for law-abiding citizens during a future crisis. Senator Flowers has also filed SB 2306, which repeals a prohibition in the state's Right-to-Carry law on permit holders possessing handguns in state and municipal parks. Without this legislation, permit holders in Mississippi and reciprocal states would be allowed to carry a concealed firearm in national parks under the recent rule change adopted by the Department of the Interior but not allowed to carry in state or municipal parks. Please contact the members of the Senate Judiciary B Committee and your State Senator TODAY and respectfully urge them to support both SB 2036 and SB 2306! Contact information for the Senate Judiciary B Committee can be found below by clicking here. Please click here to find contact information for your State Senator.
NEW YORK: Big Victory for Sportsmen: Reynolds Game Farm to Remain Open! Following pressure from upset hunters, and facing legal action, Governor David Paterson (D) and Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Chair Pete Grannis have decided that the Reynolds Pheasant Preserve, a last-of-its-kind pheasant-breeding operation open since 1927, will remain open. Last month's announcement that the farm would close set off a chain of events culminating in a suit filed by the New York Rifle and Pistol Association, the National Rifle Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and the Conservation Alliance of New York. The groups requested and were granted a restraining order to halt the destruction of the pheasants until it could be determined whether they were paid for with monies derived from excise taxes collected from firearm and ammunition sales. Please call Governor Paterson and thank him for reconsidering the farm's fate. You can contact the Governor by phone at (518) 474-8390.
NORTH CAROLINA: Anti-Gun Zealot Targeting Ammunition! For several years, anti-gun activist Reverend Melvin Whitley has been promoting a "Bullet Ownership Bill," which would require anyone who wishes to purchase ammunition to first acquire a permit. While his efforts have yet to gain any traction, this year Whitley is hoping the Durham City Council will add his bill to its agenda of legislative proposals submitted to the North Carolina General Assembly. Attacks on ammunition are popular among the gun-ban crowd these days, because they see them as an opportunity to get around the Supreme Court's Heller decision, affirming that the Second Amendment guarantees our individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Just as law-abiding citizens have the right to own firearms, they have the right to own the ammunition for those arms. In the wake of the Heller decision, states should be looking at ways to strengthen the rights protected under the Second Amendment, not weaken them, as Whitley's proposal would do. Please contact members of the Durham City Council and respectfully urge them to reject Rev. Whitley's attack on the Second Amendment and law-abiding gun owners. For a listing of council members and contact information, please visit http://www.durhamnc.gov/council/pdf/council_guide.pdf. In addition, please contact your State Representative and State Senator and respectfully urge them to oppose any efforts to place added restrictions on the rights of law-abiding citizens. To find contact information on your State Representative and Senator, please click here.
Dramatically Expanded Hunting Opportunities Proposed in North Carolina! The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has opened for public comment proposed regulatory changes to the fishing, hunting, and trapping seasons for 2009-2010. The Commission should be commended for offering what is an unprecedented expansion of hunting opportunities in the Tar Heel State. It is essential that sportsmen submit public comments in support of the proposed changes in order to ensure that they are enacted for the coming season. All of the proposed changes can be found by visiting http://www.ncwildlife.org and selecting "2009 Proposed Regulations & Public Hearing Schedule." NRA encourages its members and the hunting community to submit comments supporting the efforts to expand hunting opportunities proposed by the NCWRC. Comments may be conveniently submitted online by going to www.ncwildlife.org and selecting the link to "Submit Comments Online," or by going directly to the comments page at http://www.ncwildlife.org/ProposedRegulations/Main.aspx. Comments will be accepted until Sunday, February 1, 2009. There is also a schedule for public hearings, beginning Monday, January 5, 2009, that can be found when you select "2009 Proposed Regulations & Public Hearing Schedule." NRA encourages members and hunters to attend these hearings to show their support for the NCWRC proposals. The importance of supportive public comments in this process cannot be overestimated. Remember that the anti-hunting radicals will be submitting comments in opposition to the expanded opportunities!
NORTH DAKOTA: Elk Management Plan for Theodore Roosevelt National Park Released for Public Comment! Until recently, the National Park Service has used park staff or contract sharpshooters to reduce populations of elk and deer within national parks to achieve herd levels that the habitat can support. As a result of NRA's advocacy for the use of hunters to assist in such operations, the Service is now obligated to consider the use of skilled volunteers (e.g. hunters). The Elk Reduction Plan for Rocky Mountain National Park, CO is the first such plan to include skilled volunteers. The Theodore Roosevelt National Park (TRNP) plan, which is open for public comment until Sunday, March 15, presents 6 action alternatives. Under Alternative B, skilled volunteers would become part of a pool of available personnel that could assist in the culling operations. Under Alternative E, the Service would look at ways to enhance elk hunting opportunities outside the park, in cooperation with the North Dakota Game & Fish Department, the U.S. Forest Service, and adjacent landowners. Public meetings will be held although specific dates and locations have not been announced. The draft plan is available at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/thro. You may submit your comments using the above website or mail your comments to Superintendent Valerie Naylor, TRNP, Box 7, Medora, ND 58645-0007. Hunters are considered the first conservationists and have been a valuable asset to wildlife managers in keeping wildlife in balance with its habitat and other natural resources. We encourage you to comment on the draft plan and support the use of hunters at TRNP, as well as supporting efforts by the Service and the state of North Dakota to enhance hunting opportunities outside the park.
OREGON: Stand-Up and Make Your Voices Heard in the Marion County Sheriff's On-line Questionnaire About Right-to-Carry Privacy! In recent months, newspapers across the state of Oregon have been urging local sheriffs to release the identity of individuals who have been issued Concealed Handgun Licenses within their respective counties. Due to a 2008 circuit court ruling, many counties are finding ways to accommodate both law-abiding gun owners and the media. In some counties, CHL holders are now given the option to allow the disclosure of private information to the public. In response to this growing issue, Marion County Sheriff Russ Isham has formed a website that would enable Concealed Handgun License Holders to respond to a brief survey regarding CHL confidentiality. In order preserve your privacy, we strongly urge you to please visit http://www.co.marion.or.us/SO/Operations/concealed.htm to complete your on-line questionnaire TODAY. If you have any questions regarding this issue or the questionnaire please contact the Marion County Sheriff's office at (503) 566-6991.
SOUTH CAROLINA: General Assembly Reconvenes in Columbia The South Carolina General Assembly convened this week, and NRA anticipates a busy year of promoting our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Pro-gun State Representative Dan Cooper (R-10) has already introduced H 3003, which seeks to make numerous changes to the laws regulating the carrying of firearms in South Carolina. This bill already has more than 30 co-sponsors. NRA is still in the process of analyzing this legislation, but we will work closely with Representative Cooper to ensure his legislation advances our cause. We will also work with allies in the South Carolina House and Senate to make other improvements that will benefit law-abiding gun owners, and we will be sure to alert the South Carolina pro-gun community to new developments and calls to action. While no major threats to the Second Amendment are currently on the horizon, that could change quickly.
There has been some confusion regarding legislation that was introduced last session. S 1259 was a bill introduced last year that sought to require all handgun and "assault weapon" ammunition in South Carolina be "encoded" and registered. This legislation died last year, and similar legislation has NOT been introduced this session. If anything similar to S 1259 is introduced this year, we will be sure to send out an alert. At this time, however, there is no need to contact South Carolina legislators about ammunition "encoding" legislation.
VIRGINIA: Virginia Crime Commission Releases New Recommendation! On Tuesday, January 13, the Virginia Crime Commission met to discuss and vote on regulating the sale of firearms at gun shows and the private transfer of firearms between Virginia citizens. State Senator Janet Howell (D-32) proposed that the Virginia Crime Commission recommend a bill that would end the private transfer and sale of firearms between individuals, including family members, without a background check. Similar legislation was defeated last year in the Virginia House and Senate, and this recommendation was defeated by the Virginia State Crime Commission. A recommendation by State Senator Kenneth Stolle (R-8) proposed language that would assess a fee, paid by gun-show promoters to the Commonwealth, that would cover the cost of the Virginia State Police to monitor and attend gun shows when necessary. While Senator Stolle's recommendation in itself is not legislation, it is likely that gun owners will see similar language proposed in the coming legislative session. Please contact your State Legislators and respectfully urge them to oppose any legislation that attacks or erodes our Second Amendment freedoms. Contact information for your State Legislators can be found by clicking here.
www.NRAILA.org
Write Your Representative
Write The Media
Get Involved Locally
Register To Vote
Contribute
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Fannie, Freddie And Now, Hannie
Fannie, Freddie And Now, Hannie
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, January 15, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Subprime Crisis: The media have pounded President Bush for a wave of Hispanic home foreclosures. But it was Democrats who launched a drive to loosen credit for Hispanics — many of them illegals.
Democrats and their advocacy groups also prodded Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy the high-risk NINJA (no income, no job, no assets) loans they'd pressured banks to make to Hispanic immigrants. Now immigrants are defaulting on subprime mortgages in droves, adding to the toxic debt that is poisoning the financial industry.
Yes, Bush was "eager," as the Washington Post described it, to put more Hispanic families into their own homes, even setting a goal of higher minority homeownership soon after taking office.
But Bush didn't pressure lenders to adopt sloppy underwriting standards. Nor did he encourage Fannie and Freddie to underwrite subprime loans to meet quotas for minority lending.
That was done under the previous administration. The groundwork for disaster was laid by Clinton and his social engineers — in this case, former HUD chief Henry Cisneros, now a major lobbyist for Latino homeownership.
During the Bush years, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus fanned the flames of the crisis. Led by Democratic Rep. Joe Baca, whose California district is 60% Hispanic, the caucus teamed up with a lobbyist group that Cisneros advises — as well as La Raza and other inner-city agitators — to pressure Fannie and Freddie into making risky subprime loans to Hispanic immigrants that required neither income nor asset documentation.
By 2006, before the bubble burst, Hispanics had taken out 40% of all subprime loans. Now these chickens are coming home to roost. The mortgage giants, internal memos show, warned that although the loans were popular with Hispanic borrowers, they had much higher delinquency rates of 8% to 13%.
The loans were aggressively pushed by a Hispanic lobbying group advised by Cisneros, who originally set the minority lending quotas at Fannie and Freddie. Even as foreclosures mounted, the Washington-based National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals, known as NAHREP, lobbied lenders, as well as Freddie and Fannie, to ease down-payment and credit standards for immigrants.
"NAHREP maintains that California, Texas and other states with large numbers of immigrants could see a dramatic jump in homeownership if a greater number of major lenders adopted alternative credit-scoring systems," the group said in a 2007 report that included a foreword written by Cisneros, urging the closing of the homeownership gap between Latinos and whites.
Giving new meaning to chutzpah, NAHREP and the caucus now blame subprime lenders for the flood of Hispanic foreclosures, claiming Hispanics fell prey to their "predatory lending practices."
Not so fast. According to a recent Federal Reserve report, the problem centers on bad credit. Hispanics and African-Americans, on average, "have lower credit scores than non-Hispanic whites and Asians," it found. They also have higher default rates on mortgages — and not just higher-cost subprime mortgages, but all types of loans, the Fed noted.
Hispanics defaulted for the simple reason that they were less likely to qualify to own a home in the first place. Least-qualified were illegal immigrants, but that didn't faze NAHREP and the Hispanic caucus on Capitol Hill. They actually encouraged lending to aliens.
No Social Security? No problem. NAHREP pushed the use of ITINs — individual tax information numbers — along with the Mexican-issued Matricula Consular cards in lieu of Social Security numbers.
By law, banks don't have to check immigration status, and after heavy lobbying by Hispanic housing advocates, they made loans to illegals — lots of them. By some estimates, millions of undocumented workers became undocumented borrowers almost overnight.
Until recently, ITIN mortgages couldn't be sold on the secondary market, as Fannie and Freddie wouldn't touch them as a matter of policy. So with the support of NAHREP and the Hispanic caucus, "Hannie Mae" was created — the Hispanic National Mortgage Association, based in San Diego. And it began buying ITIN mortgages from lenders, helping them spread the risk.
Now Hannie Mae itself risks defaulting on more than $200 million in loans it has acquired. These politically correct casas were built on sinking sand, and now we're all having to foot the bill.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, January 15, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Subprime Crisis: The media have pounded President Bush for a wave of Hispanic home foreclosures. But it was Democrats who launched a drive to loosen credit for Hispanics — many of them illegals.
Democrats and their advocacy groups also prodded Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy the high-risk NINJA (no income, no job, no assets) loans they'd pressured banks to make to Hispanic immigrants. Now immigrants are defaulting on subprime mortgages in droves, adding to the toxic debt that is poisoning the financial industry.
Yes, Bush was "eager," as the Washington Post described it, to put more Hispanic families into their own homes, even setting a goal of higher minority homeownership soon after taking office.
But Bush didn't pressure lenders to adopt sloppy underwriting standards. Nor did he encourage Fannie and Freddie to underwrite subprime loans to meet quotas for minority lending.
That was done under the previous administration. The groundwork for disaster was laid by Clinton and his social engineers — in this case, former HUD chief Henry Cisneros, now a major lobbyist for Latino homeownership.
During the Bush years, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus fanned the flames of the crisis. Led by Democratic Rep. Joe Baca, whose California district is 60% Hispanic, the caucus teamed up with a lobbyist group that Cisneros advises — as well as La Raza and other inner-city agitators — to pressure Fannie and Freddie into making risky subprime loans to Hispanic immigrants that required neither income nor asset documentation.
By 2006, before the bubble burst, Hispanics had taken out 40% of all subprime loans. Now these chickens are coming home to roost. The mortgage giants, internal memos show, warned that although the loans were popular with Hispanic borrowers, they had much higher delinquency rates of 8% to 13%.
The loans were aggressively pushed by a Hispanic lobbying group advised by Cisneros, who originally set the minority lending quotas at Fannie and Freddie. Even as foreclosures mounted, the Washington-based National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals, known as NAHREP, lobbied lenders, as well as Freddie and Fannie, to ease down-payment and credit standards for immigrants.
"NAHREP maintains that California, Texas and other states with large numbers of immigrants could see a dramatic jump in homeownership if a greater number of major lenders adopted alternative credit-scoring systems," the group said in a 2007 report that included a foreword written by Cisneros, urging the closing of the homeownership gap between Latinos and whites.
Giving new meaning to chutzpah, NAHREP and the caucus now blame subprime lenders for the flood of Hispanic foreclosures, claiming Hispanics fell prey to their "predatory lending practices."
Not so fast. According to a recent Federal Reserve report, the problem centers on bad credit. Hispanics and African-Americans, on average, "have lower credit scores than non-Hispanic whites and Asians," it found. They also have higher default rates on mortgages — and not just higher-cost subprime mortgages, but all types of loans, the Fed noted.
Hispanics defaulted for the simple reason that they were less likely to qualify to own a home in the first place. Least-qualified were illegal immigrants, but that didn't faze NAHREP and the Hispanic caucus on Capitol Hill. They actually encouraged lending to aliens.
No Social Security? No problem. NAHREP pushed the use of ITINs — individual tax information numbers — along with the Mexican-issued Matricula Consular cards in lieu of Social Security numbers.
By law, banks don't have to check immigration status, and after heavy lobbying by Hispanic housing advocates, they made loans to illegals — lots of them. By some estimates, millions of undocumented workers became undocumented borrowers almost overnight.
Until recently, ITIN mortgages couldn't be sold on the secondary market, as Fannie and Freddie wouldn't touch them as a matter of policy. So with the support of NAHREP and the Hispanic caucus, "Hannie Mae" was created — the Hispanic National Mortgage Association, based in San Diego. And it began buying ITIN mortgages from lenders, helping them spread the risk.
Now Hannie Mae itself risks defaulting on more than $200 million in loans it has acquired. These politically correct casas were built on sinking sand, and now we're all having to foot the bill.
BUSH URGED TO PARDON BORDER PATROLMEN
BUSH URGED TO PARDON BORDER PATROLMEN
Congressmen Ask Prosecutor of Ramos, Compean to Sway Bush on Clemency
Thursday, January 15, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
President George W. Bush (AP Photo)Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) – House members who want the release of two ex-Border Patrol agents sentenced to more than a decade in prison for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler tried a new tactic to push for clemency in the final days of the Bush administration.
On Wednesday, they called on U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, the federal prosecutor who Bush called a “dear friend,” to recommend that Bush grant commutation.
“I believe the reason the president dug his heels in is because he wants to stand by his man,” Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) told CNSNews.com. “Well, his man believes these sentences are totally out of line.”
Sutton has staunchly defended the prosecution and conviction of former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean for shooting illegal alien and drug smuggler Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila in the buttocks as he fled arrest in February 2005. They were convicted in 2006 and sentenced to 11 and 12 years, respectively.
In November, Sutton – who worked for Bush when the president was governor of Texas -- expressed confidence in the prosecution when he told CNSNews.com, “The only question, I think a legitimate question is, ‘Is the punishment too harsh?’ I have always said the punishment in this case was too harsh.”
In several other interviews, Sutton said the sentence might have been harsh, but blamed that on the mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years for firing a weapon during the commission of a crime. Border agent defenders fault Sutton’s office for bringing the weapons charge.
Sutton has also called it a “righteous” prosecution. He has said that Ramos and Compean did not know Aldrete-Davila was smuggling drugs at the time they shot him. He also insists that Aldrete-Davila was unarmed. Ramos and Compean said during the trial they saw a shiny object in his hand that they thought was a gun.
The prosecution of the border agents sparked outrage on Capitol Hill as numerous Republicans and some Democrats called on Bush to either pardon or commute their sentences.
“This is a disproportionate sentence,” said Rep. William Delahunt (D-Mass), adding that the average sentence for manslaughter is three years. “The prosecutor in this case said these were harsh sentences. This is the president’s final opportunity to demonstrate compassion. This is his final opportunity to do it, and I hope he does do it.”
Shana Jones, a spokesperson from Sutton’s office, said Sutton would not comment on the matter.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto told CNSNews.com that the White House is not commenting on any clemency cases now.
Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) said, “even if you assume” the prosecution was proper, the firearms law that carried the mandatory 10-year-minimum sentence was not intended to apply to law enforcement officers.
“There was almost a lynch mob mentality to get these agents,” Bilbray said. “The time served is enough.”
Bilbray added that most Americans would not mind living next to Ramos and Compean.
“What benefit does it do for the American people for these men to remain in prison for over a decade?” Bilbray said.
Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) recalled that he received a Christmas card from the former border agents’ families. To him, it was a reminder that the wives and children spent another holiday season without their fathers.
“Mr. President, you have a few days left,” Jones said. “You are a man of faith. I urge you to get down on your knees and ask the Lord if you should commute the sentences of these men, because I believe he would tell you yes.”
Congressmen Ask Prosecutor of Ramos, Compean to Sway Bush on Clemency
Thursday, January 15, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
President George W. Bush (AP Photo)Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) – House members who want the release of two ex-Border Patrol agents sentenced to more than a decade in prison for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler tried a new tactic to push for clemency in the final days of the Bush administration.
On Wednesday, they called on U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, the federal prosecutor who Bush called a “dear friend,” to recommend that Bush grant commutation.
“I believe the reason the president dug his heels in is because he wants to stand by his man,” Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) told CNSNews.com. “Well, his man believes these sentences are totally out of line.”
Sutton has staunchly defended the prosecution and conviction of former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean for shooting illegal alien and drug smuggler Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila in the buttocks as he fled arrest in February 2005. They were convicted in 2006 and sentenced to 11 and 12 years, respectively.
In November, Sutton – who worked for Bush when the president was governor of Texas -- expressed confidence in the prosecution when he told CNSNews.com, “The only question, I think a legitimate question is, ‘Is the punishment too harsh?’ I have always said the punishment in this case was too harsh.”
In several other interviews, Sutton said the sentence might have been harsh, but blamed that on the mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years for firing a weapon during the commission of a crime. Border agent defenders fault Sutton’s office for bringing the weapons charge.
Sutton has also called it a “righteous” prosecution. He has said that Ramos and Compean did not know Aldrete-Davila was smuggling drugs at the time they shot him. He also insists that Aldrete-Davila was unarmed. Ramos and Compean said during the trial they saw a shiny object in his hand that they thought was a gun.
The prosecution of the border agents sparked outrage on Capitol Hill as numerous Republicans and some Democrats called on Bush to either pardon or commute their sentences.
“This is a disproportionate sentence,” said Rep. William Delahunt (D-Mass), adding that the average sentence for manslaughter is three years. “The prosecutor in this case said these were harsh sentences. This is the president’s final opportunity to demonstrate compassion. This is his final opportunity to do it, and I hope he does do it.”
Shana Jones, a spokesperson from Sutton’s office, said Sutton would not comment on the matter.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto told CNSNews.com that the White House is not commenting on any clemency cases now.
Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) said, “even if you assume” the prosecution was proper, the firearms law that carried the mandatory 10-year-minimum sentence was not intended to apply to law enforcement officers.
“There was almost a lynch mob mentality to get these agents,” Bilbray said. “The time served is enough.”
Bilbray added that most Americans would not mind living next to Ramos and Compean.
“What benefit does it do for the American people for these men to remain in prison for over a decade?” Bilbray said.
Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) recalled that he received a Christmas card from the former border agents’ families. To him, it was a reminder that the wives and children spent another holiday season without their fathers.
“Mr. President, you have a few days left,” Jones said. “You are a man of faith. I urge you to get down on your knees and ask the Lord if you should commute the sentences of these men, because I believe he would tell you yes.”
Republicans Go Easy on Hillary
Republicans Go Easy on Hillary in First Day of Confirmation Hearings
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
By Josiah Ryan, Staff Writer
Secretary of State-designate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., accompanied by her daughter Chelsea Clinton, listens to introductory remarks on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2009, during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)(CNSNews.com) - Republicans did not engage in any tough, sustained attacks against President-elect Barack Obama’s nominee for secretary of the state, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), during the first day of her confirmation hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday.
Since Clinton was nominated by Obama on Dec. 1, journalists and Republicans have raised concerns about a possible conflict of interest among Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, The William J. Clinton Foundation – named after her husband and former president – and numerous foreign governments that have donated tens of millions of dollars to the foundation since its inception in 1997.
Further, disclosure of Bill Clinton's finances "shows that the family, through its personal finances and those of Bill's nonprofits, has received tens of millions from the royal families in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Dubai, Oman, Brunei and Abu Dhabi," reported author and former Clinton adviser Dick Morris.
"While these funds were nominally paid to Bill Clinton, they inure to the benefit of his wife, as well. Never have we had a secretary of state who has profited so handsomely from foreign governments," Morris added.
Nonetheless, sources in the Republican leadership told CNSNews.com that many senators in their caucus were holding back from criticizing Hillary Clinton to save political capital for Thursday’s confirmation hearing of Obama’s controversial designee for attorney general, Eric Holder.
“I share the President-elect’s view that the activities of the Clinton foundation should not be a barrier to Senator Clinton’s service,” ranking Republican Dick Lugar (Ind.) said in Monday’s hearing.
Lugar also called for a quick confirmation of Clinton and said he planned to vote for her, but he also requested that the Clintons provide more information about the foundation’s finances, including immediate disclosure of gifts over $50,000.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), who many expected to be Clinton’s harshest critic in the hearing, did not attack Clinton.
“Despite the news accounts that say I am the one who is going to ask you the hard questions about possible conflicts, I have no questions about your integrity,” said DeMint. “Enough said, as far as I am concerned."
The most aggressive line of questioning during the day-long hearing came from Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who told CNSNews.com before he took the dais that he “still had problems” with possible conflicts of interest between Clinton and her husband’s foundation.
In the hearing, Vitter demanded that the Clintons provide more financial disclosures before the full Senate vote occurs, which would confirm her as secretary of state.
Clinton responded by promising that she would do everything in her power to prevent conflicts of interest while serving as secretary of state.
“No matter what we do there will be those who raise conflicts, but I can absolutely guarantee you that I will do everything in my power so that the good work of the foundation continues without it affecting me or my service,” said Clinton.
“My husband doesn’t take a salary. He has no financial interest. I don’t take a salary. I have not financial interests,” she added.
Meanwhile, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) said he thought Hillary Clinton’s relationship with the foundation would enhance her ability to do the job.
“This senator thinks that your husband's Clinton Global Initiative is an extremely positive thing to have in a relationship with the secretary of state,” said Nelson. “It only lends additional credibility.”
The U.S. Constitution requires that the executive branch obtain the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate when appointing high level officers such as members of the cabinet.
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-1 of 1 Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer Loading...
ontime at 01:44 PM - January 14, 2009
Must we suffer through this charade of back slapping and frivolity on the dias, in public at the cost of the tax payer? The "Crooked As A Dog's Hind Leg" club is in session and they are rubbing your nose in it. Do as I say is the motto.... Did you not notice just how vehemetly the RINO Republican side voiced their objections to the Clinton love fest?
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
By Josiah Ryan, Staff Writer
Secretary of State-designate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., accompanied by her daughter Chelsea Clinton, listens to introductory remarks on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2009, during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)(CNSNews.com) - Republicans did not engage in any tough, sustained attacks against President-elect Barack Obama’s nominee for secretary of the state, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), during the first day of her confirmation hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday.
Since Clinton was nominated by Obama on Dec. 1, journalists and Republicans have raised concerns about a possible conflict of interest among Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, The William J. Clinton Foundation – named after her husband and former president – and numerous foreign governments that have donated tens of millions of dollars to the foundation since its inception in 1997.
Further, disclosure of Bill Clinton's finances "shows that the family, through its personal finances and those of Bill's nonprofits, has received tens of millions from the royal families in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Dubai, Oman, Brunei and Abu Dhabi," reported author and former Clinton adviser Dick Morris.
"While these funds were nominally paid to Bill Clinton, they inure to the benefit of his wife, as well. Never have we had a secretary of state who has profited so handsomely from foreign governments," Morris added.
Nonetheless, sources in the Republican leadership told CNSNews.com that many senators in their caucus were holding back from criticizing Hillary Clinton to save political capital for Thursday’s confirmation hearing of Obama’s controversial designee for attorney general, Eric Holder.
“I share the President-elect’s view that the activities of the Clinton foundation should not be a barrier to Senator Clinton’s service,” ranking Republican Dick Lugar (Ind.) said in Monday’s hearing.
Lugar also called for a quick confirmation of Clinton and said he planned to vote for her, but he also requested that the Clintons provide more information about the foundation’s finances, including immediate disclosure of gifts over $50,000.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), who many expected to be Clinton’s harshest critic in the hearing, did not attack Clinton.
“Despite the news accounts that say I am the one who is going to ask you the hard questions about possible conflicts, I have no questions about your integrity,” said DeMint. “Enough said, as far as I am concerned."
The most aggressive line of questioning during the day-long hearing came from Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who told CNSNews.com before he took the dais that he “still had problems” with possible conflicts of interest between Clinton and her husband’s foundation.
In the hearing, Vitter demanded that the Clintons provide more financial disclosures before the full Senate vote occurs, which would confirm her as secretary of state.
Clinton responded by promising that she would do everything in her power to prevent conflicts of interest while serving as secretary of state.
“No matter what we do there will be those who raise conflicts, but I can absolutely guarantee you that I will do everything in my power so that the good work of the foundation continues without it affecting me or my service,” said Clinton.
“My husband doesn’t take a salary. He has no financial interest. I don’t take a salary. I have not financial interests,” she added.
Meanwhile, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) said he thought Hillary Clinton’s relationship with the foundation would enhance her ability to do the job.
“This senator thinks that your husband's Clinton Global Initiative is an extremely positive thing to have in a relationship with the secretary of state,” said Nelson. “It only lends additional credibility.”
The U.S. Constitution requires that the executive branch obtain the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate when appointing high level officers such as members of the cabinet.
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-1 of 1 Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer Loading...
ontime at 01:44 PM - January 14, 2009
Must we suffer through this charade of back slapping and frivolity on the dias, in public at the cost of the tax payer? The "Crooked As A Dog's Hind Leg" club is in session and they are rubbing your nose in it. Do as I say is the motto.... Did you not notice just how vehemetly the RINO Republican side voiced their objections to the Clinton love fest?
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Al Franken Asks Court 'Certify Me'
Al Franken Asks Court 'Certify Me' Sen. Kyl Warns Don't Seat Him
Tuesday, January 13, 2009 5:25 PM
By: Rick Pedraza Article Font Size
Arizona Sen. John Kyl warned his fellow Democratic senators Tuesday against trying to seat Al Franken as Minnesota’s next junior senator.
Kyl, the senate’s minority whip, says the legal process surrounding Franken’s appointment will take no less than a month before being resolved, Politico reports, meaning the Senate may consist of only 99 members well into February.
Kyl says the reason the Minnesota Senate election remains unresolved is because of Norm Coleman’s arguments before the Minnesota courts contending that newly discovered ballots, missing ballots, wrongly rejected absentee ballots and double counting of votes have occurred during the election process.
“Clearly there’s something wrong here and it has to be resolved by court,” Kyl tells Politico. “There are no stipulations for when proceedings must be completed. Estimations are that it could take a month or more.”
Meanwhile, after having his request to be certified denied, Franken filed a petition Tuesday with the Minnesota Supreme Court to force Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie to issue the signed certificate so that he can represent Minnesota in the U.S. Senate before the lawsuit filed by Republican Norm Coleman is settled.
Sen. Kyl also took the opportunity Tuesday to take a shot at Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for saying Coleman won’t return to the Senate.
“Unfortunately, the majority leader and his staff have publicly stated they will try to seat Al Franken while the contest is under way,” Kyl said. “If it [the election contest] is done in the proper way, then hopefully everyone will be satisfied with the result … and we will seat the appropriate candidate.”
Tuesday, January 13, 2009 5:25 PM
By: Rick Pedraza Article Font Size
Arizona Sen. John Kyl warned his fellow Democratic senators Tuesday against trying to seat Al Franken as Minnesota’s next junior senator.
Kyl, the senate’s minority whip, says the legal process surrounding Franken’s appointment will take no less than a month before being resolved, Politico reports, meaning the Senate may consist of only 99 members well into February.
Kyl says the reason the Minnesota Senate election remains unresolved is because of Norm Coleman’s arguments before the Minnesota courts contending that newly discovered ballots, missing ballots, wrongly rejected absentee ballots and double counting of votes have occurred during the election process.
“Clearly there’s something wrong here and it has to be resolved by court,” Kyl tells Politico. “There are no stipulations for when proceedings must be completed. Estimations are that it could take a month or more.”
Meanwhile, after having his request to be certified denied, Franken filed a petition Tuesday with the Minnesota Supreme Court to force Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie to issue the signed certificate so that he can represent Minnesota in the U.S. Senate before the lawsuit filed by Republican Norm Coleman is settled.
Sen. Kyl also took the opportunity Tuesday to take a shot at Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for saying Coleman won’t return to the Senate.
“Unfortunately, the majority leader and his staff have publicly stated they will try to seat Al Franken while the contest is under way,” Kyl said. “If it [the election contest] is done in the proper way, then hopefully everyone will be satisfied with the result … and we will seat the appropriate candidate.”
Bailout 'Most Outrageous Vote'
ANOTHER VOICE FROM THE WILDERNESS THAT WILL BE TOTALLY IGNORED DETRIMENT OF OUR WAY OF LIFE. FREEDOM IS IN JEOPARDY, DAVE
Inhofe: Bailout 'Most Outrageous Vote' in U.S. History
Tuesday, January 13, 2009 6:33 PM
By: Jim Meyers
U.S. Sen. James Inhofe tells Newsmax that Congress’ approval of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout is the “most outrageous vote in American history.”
The Oklahoma Republican also said he doesn’t believe taxpayers will see the bailout funds paid back as promised.
Newsmax’s Ashley Martella noted that at the request of President-elect Barack Obama, President George W. Bush is asking Congress to appropriate the second half of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), and asked the senator why he voted against TARP.
[Editor's Note: Watch the Sen. James Inhofe video - Go Here Now]
“First of all I was somewhat of a leader of the opposition way back in October, in mid-October,” Inhofe responded.
“I think history will treat that vote as the most outrageous vote in American history, where 75 percent of the House and Senate voted to give an unelected bureaucrat an unprecedented amount of money – the largest amount in American history to be actually voted on at one time, with no strings attached, no guidelines, no oversight.
“Now that was bad enough and then … President Bush came out with his statement [asking for the appropriation], which really disappointed me. I was still trying to get what we call S64 and that would have made the members of Congress responsible for passing or not passing this recommendation from Obama.
“Now what has happened is that President Bush has said, I guess he called up Obama, and said: What’s your wish list?
“We’ve already introduced our resolution of disapproval … I think it will pass the House and it could pass the Senate, although I think Harry Reid would not even allow a vote on it just to save the embarrassment to the new president, Obama, because all he has to do is veto the resolution of disapproval and then” the votes are there to override the veto.
“So it’s a fait accompli,” he added. “It is done. We’re going to have another $350 billion to add to the first $350 billion.
“And I think there are a lot of smart economists who have said that nothing really good happened with the first $350 billion.”
Martella asked: “Wasn’t [Treasury Secretary Henry] Paulson supposed to account for the way he spent the money?”
Inhofe answered: “He was supposed to account for it. Even worse than that, he promised how it was going to be spent. He was going to buy damaged assets. That’s what he was going to do.
“Fifteen minutes after he got his hands on the money, he forgot all about that and never bought any damaged assets and instead bailed out various banks…
“A lot of Republicans are saying, well that money’s not gone, he bought preferred stock and it’s going to be paid back with interest.
“Well that would be awfully nice, but I don’t think that’s going to happen.”
Sen. Inhofe also used the word “outrageous” in characterizing Obama’s reported intention of shutting down the terrorist holding facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by executive order.
“I’ve been down there probably more than anyone else has,” he said, “and I have yet to be down there where the prisoners weren’t treated better, in terms of living conditions, than our own troops.
“I think we need it, and I wish that Obama, when talking about closing Guantanamo, would say: All right, where are we going to put those people?”
Inhofe: Bailout 'Most Outrageous Vote' in U.S. History
Tuesday, January 13, 2009 6:33 PM
By: Jim Meyers
U.S. Sen. James Inhofe tells Newsmax that Congress’ approval of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout is the “most outrageous vote in American history.”
The Oklahoma Republican also said he doesn’t believe taxpayers will see the bailout funds paid back as promised.
Newsmax’s Ashley Martella noted that at the request of President-elect Barack Obama, President George W. Bush is asking Congress to appropriate the second half of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), and asked the senator why he voted against TARP.
[Editor's Note: Watch the Sen. James Inhofe video - Go Here Now]
“First of all I was somewhat of a leader of the opposition way back in October, in mid-October,” Inhofe responded.
“I think history will treat that vote as the most outrageous vote in American history, where 75 percent of the House and Senate voted to give an unelected bureaucrat an unprecedented amount of money – the largest amount in American history to be actually voted on at one time, with no strings attached, no guidelines, no oversight.
“Now that was bad enough and then … President Bush came out with his statement [asking for the appropriation], which really disappointed me. I was still trying to get what we call S64 and that would have made the members of Congress responsible for passing or not passing this recommendation from Obama.
“Now what has happened is that President Bush has said, I guess he called up Obama, and said: What’s your wish list?
“We’ve already introduced our resolution of disapproval … I think it will pass the House and it could pass the Senate, although I think Harry Reid would not even allow a vote on it just to save the embarrassment to the new president, Obama, because all he has to do is veto the resolution of disapproval and then” the votes are there to override the veto.
“So it’s a fait accompli,” he added. “It is done. We’re going to have another $350 billion to add to the first $350 billion.
“And I think there are a lot of smart economists who have said that nothing really good happened with the first $350 billion.”
Martella asked: “Wasn’t [Treasury Secretary Henry] Paulson supposed to account for the way he spent the money?”
Inhofe answered: “He was supposed to account for it. Even worse than that, he promised how it was going to be spent. He was going to buy damaged assets. That’s what he was going to do.
“Fifteen minutes after he got his hands on the money, he forgot all about that and never bought any damaged assets and instead bailed out various banks…
“A lot of Republicans are saying, well that money’s not gone, he bought preferred stock and it’s going to be paid back with interest.
“Well that would be awfully nice, but I don’t think that’s going to happen.”
Sen. Inhofe also used the word “outrageous” in characterizing Obama’s reported intention of shutting down the terrorist holding facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by executive order.
“I’ve been down there probably more than anyone else has,” he said, “and I have yet to be down there where the prisoners weren’t treated better, in terms of living conditions, than our own troops.
“I think we need it, and I wish that Obama, when talking about closing Guantanamo, would say: All right, where are we going to put those people?”
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Gitmo Gone
Gitmo Gone
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, January 13, 2009 4:20 PM PT
War On Terror: On Jan. 20, 1981, Ronald Reagan welcomed the return of American hostages in victory. On Jan. 20, 2009, Barack Obama will welcome the closing of Guantanamo in appeasement. Yes, change has come.
For anti-war liberals, closing the prisoner of war camp at Guantanamo has long been a cause celebre, one the president-elect warmly embraced.
On ABC's "This Week," he gave supporters pause when he suggested actually closing the facility within his first 100 days would be a "challenge." At least one Obama transition team adviser reassured them on Monday not to worry.
An executive order to close the camp could be issued as early as Inauguration Day. The pathway to trials in American courts with American lawyers and American rights would be set for those jihadists captured on the battlefield trying to kill Americans.
One of the problems is exactly where to relocate the remaining 248 prisoners. Few places are standing in line for the privilege. Maybe ACORN could use a few more volunteers.
This moment stands in stark contrast to the day in 1981 when President Reagan took the oath of office as American hostages were winging their way back to freedom after 444 days of captivity in a Tehran prison. The mullahs set them free rather than deal with a resolute new commander in chief, and in the knowledge they wouldn't have Jimmy Carter to kick around anymore.
Now it is we who are capitulating. Last May, the Defense Department said at least 36 former Guantanamo detainees are "confirmed or suspected" of having returned to the battlefield. If Obama orders a shift out of Gitmo, you can be sure more terrorists will return to the front.
Among those previously released are Abdullah Salim Ali al-Ajmi, who was first detained in Afghanistan and spent three years at Gitmo before being released in 2005. Al-Ajmi returned to Kuwait and last May went to Iraq to become a suicide bomber. He was successful in his new line of work.
Abdullah Mehsud spent 25 months at Gitmo until his release from such inhuman bondage in March 2004. While out on his own recognizance, he returned to his native South Waziristan where he rebuilt and led a Taliban cadre estimated at 5,000 foot soldiers conducting cross-border raids from Pakistan.
Guantanamo is home to some of the world's most dangerous Islamists: Chechen jihadists, Afghan mujahedeen and Taliban fighters, and al-Qaida terrorists from across the Middle East and North Africa. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, architect of the USS Cole bombing in 2000, are among the 14 "high value" detainees.
Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Gitmo detainees have not been held without some form of adjudication. All have undergone two levels of review, one to determine their status as enemy combatants, the other an annual review to determine their fitness for release. Obviously this part is not an exact science.
Guantanamo and the incarceration and interrogation of its inhabitants have saved thousands of American lives and untold tragedy. While it has existed, America's enemies have had a harder time plying their trade.
In his first post-election interview with "60 Minutes" last Nov. 16, Obama said: "I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that. I've said repeatedly that America doesn't torture, and I'm going to make sure that we don't torture.
"Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world."
We are more concerned with guaranteeing America's survival.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, January 13, 2009 4:20 PM PT
War On Terror: On Jan. 20, 1981, Ronald Reagan welcomed the return of American hostages in victory. On Jan. 20, 2009, Barack Obama will welcome the closing of Guantanamo in appeasement. Yes, change has come.
For anti-war liberals, closing the prisoner of war camp at Guantanamo has long been a cause celebre, one the president-elect warmly embraced.
On ABC's "This Week," he gave supporters pause when he suggested actually closing the facility within his first 100 days would be a "challenge." At least one Obama transition team adviser reassured them on Monday not to worry.
An executive order to close the camp could be issued as early as Inauguration Day. The pathway to trials in American courts with American lawyers and American rights would be set for those jihadists captured on the battlefield trying to kill Americans.
One of the problems is exactly where to relocate the remaining 248 prisoners. Few places are standing in line for the privilege. Maybe ACORN could use a few more volunteers.
This moment stands in stark contrast to the day in 1981 when President Reagan took the oath of office as American hostages were winging their way back to freedom after 444 days of captivity in a Tehran prison. The mullahs set them free rather than deal with a resolute new commander in chief, and in the knowledge they wouldn't have Jimmy Carter to kick around anymore.
Now it is we who are capitulating. Last May, the Defense Department said at least 36 former Guantanamo detainees are "confirmed or suspected" of having returned to the battlefield. If Obama orders a shift out of Gitmo, you can be sure more terrorists will return to the front.
Among those previously released are Abdullah Salim Ali al-Ajmi, who was first detained in Afghanistan and spent three years at Gitmo before being released in 2005. Al-Ajmi returned to Kuwait and last May went to Iraq to become a suicide bomber. He was successful in his new line of work.
Abdullah Mehsud spent 25 months at Gitmo until his release from such inhuman bondage in March 2004. While out on his own recognizance, he returned to his native South Waziristan where he rebuilt and led a Taliban cadre estimated at 5,000 foot soldiers conducting cross-border raids from Pakistan.
Guantanamo is home to some of the world's most dangerous Islamists: Chechen jihadists, Afghan mujahedeen and Taliban fighters, and al-Qaida terrorists from across the Middle East and North Africa. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, architect of the USS Cole bombing in 2000, are among the 14 "high value" detainees.
Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Gitmo detainees have not been held without some form of adjudication. All have undergone two levels of review, one to determine their status as enemy combatants, the other an annual review to determine their fitness for release. Obviously this part is not an exact science.
Guantanamo and the incarceration and interrogation of its inhabitants have saved thousands of American lives and untold tragedy. While it has existed, America's enemies have had a harder time plying their trade.
In his first post-election interview with "60 Minutes" last Nov. 16, Obama said: "I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that. I've said repeatedly that America doesn't torture, and I'm going to make sure that we don't torture.
"Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world."
We are more concerned with guaranteeing America's survival.
SOCIIALIST SENATORS'S COMPLAINT
THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WHEN A SCUM BAG LIKE SENATOR BERNARD SANDERS (I-VT) A DEVOUT SOCIALIST, (TURNED INDEPENDENT TO GET ELECTED) IS ABLE TO GET WORDING TO SUIT HIS POLITICAL SLANT. SHAME. DAA,
Socialist Senator’s Complaint Prompts
Smithsonian to Change Plaque on President Bush’s Portrait
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer
A portrait of President George W. Bush by artist Robert Anderson located at the National Portrait Gallery (Photo by CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)(CNSNews.com) – The Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery has agreed to change the wording on the plaque accompanying a portrait of President George W. Bush in response to a complaint by Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.).
Sanders objected to the sign's language because he believed it suggested a linkage between the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and the subsequent U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The plaque reads: “Expecting that the success of his presidency would hinge, as it had when he was governor, on his negotiating skills and ability to solve problems, Bush found his two terms in office were instead marked by a series of catastrophic events: the attacks on September 11, 2001, that led to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina; and a financial crisis during his last months in office.”
Plaque on portrait of President George W. Bush at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)Sanders, a self-described “democratic socialist,” wrote a letter to National Portrait Gallery Director Martin Sullivan on Jan. 7 complaining about the phrase, “the attacks on September 11, 2001, that led to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq."
On Monday, Sullivan wrote back to Sanders, saying that the plaque would be changed.
The letter reads as follows:
Dear Senator Sanders,
Thank you for your letter of January 7, 2009, regarding the label which accompanies the National Portrait Gallery’s recently acquired portrait of George W. Bush.
Our label was not intended to imply that there was a causal connection between the attacks that occurred on 9/11 and the subsequent U.S. invasion of Iraq. Our intention was to remind viewers of the portrait that the listed events were defining episodes in the Bush presidency, within the limited space of an object label. I appreciate your concern, however, about the words “led to.” We will revise the label to delete the words “led to.” I would welcome the opportunity to escort you on a personal tour of the National Portrait Gallery, and will call your office in hopes that we can arrange that.
Thank you for your interest in the Smithsonian Institution.
Sincerely,
Martin E. Sullivan, director
Sanders indicated that he was grateful to Sullivan for moving so swiftly to change the Bush portrait plaque. “I very much appreciate the prompt response from the director and appreciate his willingness to make the change,” he said in a statement released Monday.
Bethany Bentley, spokeswoman for the National Portrait Gallery, told CNSNews.com that the gallery’s staff historians select the wording to be used on the plaques in the American Presidents exhibit and that no other presidential plaque has been challenged or changed.
Sanders ran for several statewide offices in Vermont in the 1970s as a candidate for the socialist Liberty Union Party. He was elected mayor of Burlington, Vt., in 1981 and served until 1989.
He was elected to Congress in 1990, becoming “only the third Socialist elected to the House,” according to the New York Times. He was elected to the Senate in 2006 as an Independent.
Sanders voted against authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq.
Socialist Senator’s Complaint Prompts
Smithsonian to Change Plaque on President Bush’s Portrait
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer
A portrait of President George W. Bush by artist Robert Anderson located at the National Portrait Gallery (Photo by CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)(CNSNews.com) – The Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery has agreed to change the wording on the plaque accompanying a portrait of President George W. Bush in response to a complaint by Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.).
Sanders objected to the sign's language because he believed it suggested a linkage between the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and the subsequent U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The plaque reads: “Expecting that the success of his presidency would hinge, as it had when he was governor, on his negotiating skills and ability to solve problems, Bush found his two terms in office were instead marked by a series of catastrophic events: the attacks on September 11, 2001, that led to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina; and a financial crisis during his last months in office.”
Plaque on portrait of President George W. Bush at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)Sanders, a self-described “democratic socialist,” wrote a letter to National Portrait Gallery Director Martin Sullivan on Jan. 7 complaining about the phrase, “the attacks on September 11, 2001, that led to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq."
On Monday, Sullivan wrote back to Sanders, saying that the plaque would be changed.
The letter reads as follows:
Dear Senator Sanders,
Thank you for your letter of January 7, 2009, regarding the label which accompanies the National Portrait Gallery’s recently acquired portrait of George W. Bush.
Our label was not intended to imply that there was a causal connection between the attacks that occurred on 9/11 and the subsequent U.S. invasion of Iraq. Our intention was to remind viewers of the portrait that the listed events were defining episodes in the Bush presidency, within the limited space of an object label. I appreciate your concern, however, about the words “led to.” We will revise the label to delete the words “led to.” I would welcome the opportunity to escort you on a personal tour of the National Portrait Gallery, and will call your office in hopes that we can arrange that.
Thank you for your interest in the Smithsonian Institution.
Sincerely,
Martin E. Sullivan, director
Sanders indicated that he was grateful to Sullivan for moving so swiftly to change the Bush portrait plaque. “I very much appreciate the prompt response from the director and appreciate his willingness to make the change,” he said in a statement released Monday.
Bethany Bentley, spokeswoman for the National Portrait Gallery, told CNSNews.com that the gallery’s staff historians select the wording to be used on the plaques in the American Presidents exhibit and that no other presidential plaque has been challenged or changed.
Sanders ran for several statewide offices in Vermont in the 1970s as a candidate for the socialist Liberty Union Party. He was elected mayor of Burlington, Vt., in 1981 and served until 1989.
He was elected to Congress in 1990, becoming “only the third Socialist elected to the House,” according to the New York Times. He was elected to the Senate in 2006 as an Independent.
Sanders voted against authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq.
'Question of the day for Luke Air Force Base:
NOTHING COULD BE ADD TO THIS TRIBUTE TO A FALLEN WARRIOR
Isn't it about time that we all stopped thinking about ourselves all of the time?????
True Story…….. Luke AFB is west of Phoenix and is rapidly being surrounded by civilization that complains about the noise from the base and its planes, forgetting that it was there long before they were. A certain lieutenant colonel at Luke AFB deserves a big pat on the back. Apparently, an individual who lives somewhere near Luke AFB wrote the local paper complaining about a group of F-16s that disturbed his/her day at the mall.
When that individual read the response from a Luke AFB officer, it must Have stung quite a bit.
The complaint:
'Question of the day for Luke Air Force Base:
Whom do we thank for the morning air show? Last Wednesday, at precisely 9:11 A.M, a tight formation of four F-16 jets made a low pass over Arrowhead Mall, continuing west over Bell Road at approximately 500 feet. Imagine our good fortune! Do the Tom Cruise-wannabes feel we need this wake-up call, or were they trying to impress the cashiers at Mervyns early bird special?
Any response would be appreciated.
The response:
Regarding 'A wake-up call from Luke's jets' On June 15, at precisely 9:12 a.m., a perfectly timed four- ship fly by of F-16s from the 63rd Fighter Squadron at Luke Air Force Base flew over the grave of Capt. Jeremy Fresques. Capt Fresques was an Air Force officer who was previously stationed at Luke Air Force Base and was killed in Iraq on May 30, Memorial Day.
At 9 a. m. on June 15, his family and friends gathered at Sunland Memorial Park in Sun City to mourn the loss of a husband, son and friend.. Based on the letter writer's recount of the fly by, and because of the jet noise, I'm sure you didn't hear the 21-gun salute, the playing of taps, or my words to the widow and parents of Capt. Fresques as I gave them their son's flag on behalf of the President of the United States and all those veterans and servicemen and women who understand the sacrifices they have endured..
A four-ship fly by is a display of respect the Air Force gives to those who give their lives in defense of freedom. We are professional aviators and take our jobs seriously, and on June 15 what the letter writer witnessed was four officers lining up to pay their ultimate respects.
The letter writer asks, 'Whom do we thank for the morning air show? The 56th Fighter Wing will make the call for you, and forward your thanks to the widow and parents of Capt Fresques, and thank them for you, for it was in their honor that my pilots flew the most honorable formation of their lives.
Only 2 defining forces have ever offered to die for you....Jesus Christ and the American Soldier.
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
Lt. Col. Grant L. Rosensteel, Jr.
USAF
Isn't it about time that we all stopped thinking about ourselves all of the time?????
True Story…….. Luke AFB is west of Phoenix and is rapidly being surrounded by civilization that complains about the noise from the base and its planes, forgetting that it was there long before they were. A certain lieutenant colonel at Luke AFB deserves a big pat on the back. Apparently, an individual who lives somewhere near Luke AFB wrote the local paper complaining about a group of F-16s that disturbed his/her day at the mall.
When that individual read the response from a Luke AFB officer, it must Have stung quite a bit.
The complaint:
'Question of the day for Luke Air Force Base:
Whom do we thank for the morning air show? Last Wednesday, at precisely 9:11 A.M, a tight formation of four F-16 jets made a low pass over Arrowhead Mall, continuing west over Bell Road at approximately 500 feet. Imagine our good fortune! Do the Tom Cruise-wannabes feel we need this wake-up call, or were they trying to impress the cashiers at Mervyns early bird special?
Any response would be appreciated.
The response:
Regarding 'A wake-up call from Luke's jets' On June 15, at precisely 9:12 a.m., a perfectly timed four- ship fly by of F-16s from the 63rd Fighter Squadron at Luke Air Force Base flew over the grave of Capt. Jeremy Fresques. Capt Fresques was an Air Force officer who was previously stationed at Luke Air Force Base and was killed in Iraq on May 30, Memorial Day.
At 9 a. m. on June 15, his family and friends gathered at Sunland Memorial Park in Sun City to mourn the loss of a husband, son and friend.. Based on the letter writer's recount of the fly by, and because of the jet noise, I'm sure you didn't hear the 21-gun salute, the playing of taps, or my words to the widow and parents of Capt. Fresques as I gave them their son's flag on behalf of the President of the United States and all those veterans and servicemen and women who understand the sacrifices they have endured..
A four-ship fly by is a display of respect the Air Force gives to those who give their lives in defense of freedom. We are professional aviators and take our jobs seriously, and on June 15 what the letter writer witnessed was four officers lining up to pay their ultimate respects.
The letter writer asks, 'Whom do we thank for the morning air show? The 56th Fighter Wing will make the call for you, and forward your thanks to the widow and parents of Capt Fresques, and thank them for you, for it was in their honor that my pilots flew the most honorable formation of their lives.
Only 2 defining forces have ever offered to die for you....Jesus Christ and the American Soldier.
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
Lt. Col. Grant L. Rosensteel, Jr.
USAF
SILENCE RUSH, HANNITY AND CONSERVATIVE TALK RADIO
Dear Dave:
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi isn't just trying to SILENCE RUSH, HANNITY AND CONSERVATIVE TALK RADIO by re-imposing the so-called Fairness Doctrine…
…Pelosi has also effectively moved to SILENCE CONSERVATIVES in Congress and keep the American public in the dark!
You didn't read about it on the front page of The New York Times, but some have gone as far as to call Pelosi's move outright "tyranny."
Jim Meyers with CNSNews.com simply called it a "naked grab for power."
On the very first day of Congress, Pelosi pushed through a change to a House rule known as the "motion to recommit," a rule that was implemented a CENTURY AGO specifically to PROHIBIT the leadership of the majority party from railroading horrendous legislation through Congress under the cover of darkness.
John Fund of The Wall Street Journal aptly described the "motion to recommit" as "a procedural safeguard first given to the minority a century ago after a rebellion against tyrannical GOP Speaker Joe Cannon."
So what is the "motion to recommit" and what are the ramifications of doing away with the it?
A real-life example - or rather, 50 real life examples - should suffice.
As Fund put it: "Republicans used the tactic 50 times in the last Congress, primarily to block tax increases buried in larger bills."
In other words, on 50 occasions during the last session of Congress, Pelosi and Company tried to sneak tax increases, anti-Second Amendment measures and amnesty for illegal aliens, among other things into unrelated bills.
On those 50 occasions, conservatives exercised their right to send the bills back to committee to FORCE liberal committee members to actually go on record.
Essentially, conservatives said, if you want to pass it... vote on it... go on the record... let the American people see what you're trying to do and let the American people know where you stand... but don't try to sneak measures the American people DO NOT WANT through Congress under the cover of darkness!
Of course, in many cases, Pelosi and Company simply let the bills die rather than forcing fellow liberals to actually go on record.
Pelosi's wasn't very happy about being forced into those situations, so she quietly changed the rule. As for the rights of the American people: Who cares -- after all, Nancy knows best.
But now that conservatives in Congress are daring to bring Pelosi's tyranny into the light, Pelosi and her fellow-travelers are screaming bloody murder.
According to The Washington Post; "Republicans had repeatedly abused these motions, wording them to put vulnerable members in a bind by having to choose between killing a bill or taking a politically unpalatable vote destined to turn up in a 30-second attack ad."
Representative Barney Frank said conservatives in Congress are only "interested in game playing."
Representative Jim McGovern chided conservatives; "Congress has to accomplish things. This is designed to help us do just that."
Representative Louise Slaughter called the "motion to recommit," "a gimmick that was used to kill bills."
Shame on those evil conservatives in Congress! They should be flogged for demanding legislative transparency!
How dare they "play games" by stopping liberals from sneaking legislation through Congress under the cover of darkness.
How dare they "abuse" their authority and put liberals in a "bind" by demanding transparency.
How dare they institute a "gimmick" (how one institutes something that has been around for 100 years is anyone's guess) to force liberals to actually vote on the unpalatable laws they want to shove down the throats of the American people.
Use the hyperlink below to send tough personalized Blast Faxes to the Republican and Democrat Leadership of the House and Senate and shine the light of day on Pelosi's shenanigans!
Tell our elected officials that the American public does indeed know what Nancy Pelosi is trying to do and that she must not be allowed to get away with her tyrannical change of House rules. Tell them you do not want tax increases, amnesty for illegal aliens and other egregious measures passed in the dark of night and under the cover of darkness.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/pelosipowergrab.html
AOL Members May Also Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlinks do not work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into your browser address bar.
Secrecy Is the Liberals' Favorite Weapon.
Seriously, Pelosi and her left-wing cohorts in Congress firmly believe that what YOU don't know won't hurt THEM.
They believe that as long as you don't know what they're up to, they can get away with whatever they want to impose on the American people.
Pelosi is depending on the cover of darkness and the silence of her allies in the media to keep her shenanigans under wraps.
The last thing Pelosi wants is for the American people to find out what she has done.
And that's how we STOP her. We let the cat out of the bag.
With your help, we're going to ring some fax machines in Congress off the hook! And when you're done, Pelosi and her liberal allies in Congress WILL back down.
They WILL be disabused of the notion that they can:
Secretly raise your taxes.
Secretly impose amnesty for illegal aliens on your community and your neighborhood.
Secretly take away your ability to protect your family by regulating away your right to own and keep a firearm.
In short, we're not going to let Pelosi get away with it!
Use the hyperlink below to send tough personalized Blast Faxes to the Republican and Democrat Leadership of the House and Senate and shine the light of day on Pelosi's shenanigans!
Tell our elected officials that the American public does indeed know what Nancy Pelosi is trying to do and that she must not be allowed to get away with her tyrannical change of House rules. Tell them you do not want tax increases, amnesty for illegal aliens and other egregious measures passed in the dark of night and under the cover of darkness.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/pelosipowergrab.html
AOL Members May Also Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlinks do not work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into your browser address bar.
Is The Media Helping Pelosi Keep The Secret?
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Liberals in the mainstream media are taking that old philosophical adage to heart.
Just because you haven't read about what is happening in your local newspaper or haven’t heard about it on the nightly news, do not think that conservatives in Congress don't understand the horrible implications of what would happen if Pelosi is allowed to quietly get away with taking away the rights of the American people.
They're hopping mad... they're making their feelings known... but the liberal media simply is NOT reporting it.
You'd better believe that if conservatives moved to SHUT DOWN the voice of the minority, it would be on the front page of The New York Times.
Conservatives are talking and just in case you missed it, here is some of what is being said:
House Republicans sent a letter to Pelosi which addressed the hypocrisy and dishonesty of her position. The letter read in part: “This is not the kind of openness and transparency that President-elect Obama promised.”
Representative David Dreier of California said the rule change would create “the most closed Congress in history.”
House Minority Leader John Boehner complained that Pelosi's little subterfuge “silences the voices of tens of millions of Americans by further shutting down open debate on the House floor and taking away the minority’s right to offer substantive policy alternatives on behalf of the millions of Americans they represent.”
Conservative legislators are trying to get the message out but they need your help to drive the message home.
Pelosi and liberals in Congress must be made to understand that the American people ARE getting the message and that the liberal media can't give them cover this time around.
And they need to know that you ARE NOT happy!
Use the hyperlink below to send tough personalized Blast Faxes to the Republican and Democrat Leadership of the House and Senate and shine the light of day on Pelosi's shenanigans!
Tell our elected officials that the American public does indeed know what Nancy Pelosi is trying to do and that she must not be allowed to get away with her tyrannical change of House rules. Tell them you do not want tax increases, amnesty for illegal aliens and other egregious measures passed in the dark of night and under the cover of darkness.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/pelosipowergrab.html
AOL Members May Also Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlinks do not work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into your browser address bar.
A Government of Pelosi, By Pelosi and For Pelosi?
Nancy Pelosi changed her tune on a great many things once she assumed the position of Speaker of the House.
Two years ago, she said; "Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute."
Even the liberal Washington Post could not help but comment on Pelosi's blatant hypocrisy and her apparent rush to change the rules when it comes to transparency and openness:
"When they took over in 2007, Democrats set aside their pledge in order to muscle through their agenda during the first 100 hours; their promises continued to prove hollow in the ensuing months.... Democrats brought more measures to the House floor under closed rules - permitting no amendments - than any of the six previous Republican-controlled congresses."
The Post also wrote:
"But there is a legitimate concern about whether the House can return to a semblance of 'regular order': committee hearings and markups rather than measures brought precipitously to the floor with little time for review; reasonable allowance for amendments on the floor rather than closed rules allowing no changes; and conferences to resolve differences between the chambers rather than leadership-dictated products."
Naturally, The Post doesn't quite get it. The issue is about A LOT MORE than Pelosi's apparent hypocrisy!
It's not about a choice between a Congress that is orderly versus a Congress that bickers.
It's a choice between a Congress that is accountable to the people or a Congress that simply tries to legislate through stealth.
It's a choice between freedom and tyranny.
Will you stand up for your freedoms?
That's your choice!
Use the hyperlink below to send tough personalized Blast Faxes to the Republican and Democrat Leadership of the House and Senate and shine the light of day on Pelosi's shenanigans!
Tell our elected officials that the American public does indeed know what Nancy Pelosi is trying to do and that she must not be allowed to get away with her tyrannical change of House rules. Tell them you do not want tax increases, amnesty for illegal aliens and other egregious measures passed in the dark of night and under the cover of darkness.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/pelosipowergrab.html
AOL Members May Also Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlinks do not work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into your browser address bar.
Yours In Freedom,
Jeff Mazzella
President
www.cfif.org
P.S. Please help us reach as many concerned Americans as possible by forwarding this e-mail to at least 10 of your friends and family members.
The CFIF Action Alert is a service to the conservative community. If you would like to subscribe please go to www.cfif.org/signup.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please go to http://tool.donation-net.net/opt.cfm?dn=1043. You are subscribed at the email address [[-Email-]]. Please use this address when unsubscribing. You must use the correct e-mail address to discontinue your membership. Please do not reply directly to this message.
If you experience any technical problems and/or do not receive confirmation that your request has been completed online, please postal mail, voice or fax your request using the contact information listed below. Your request will be processed within 10 days of the receipt of your request.
Please keep these emails coming. Add cfif@cfiflistmanager.org and info@cfif.org to your address book, buddy list or accepted senders list.
Center for Individual Freedom
113 S. Columbus St., Suite 310
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-535-5836
Fax:703-535-5838
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi isn't just trying to SILENCE RUSH, HANNITY AND CONSERVATIVE TALK RADIO by re-imposing the so-called Fairness Doctrine…
…Pelosi has also effectively moved to SILENCE CONSERVATIVES in Congress and keep the American public in the dark!
You didn't read about it on the front page of The New York Times, but some have gone as far as to call Pelosi's move outright "tyranny."
Jim Meyers with CNSNews.com simply called it a "naked grab for power."
On the very first day of Congress, Pelosi pushed through a change to a House rule known as the "motion to recommit," a rule that was implemented a CENTURY AGO specifically to PROHIBIT the leadership of the majority party from railroading horrendous legislation through Congress under the cover of darkness.
John Fund of The Wall Street Journal aptly described the "motion to recommit" as "a procedural safeguard first given to the minority a century ago after a rebellion against tyrannical GOP Speaker Joe Cannon."
So what is the "motion to recommit" and what are the ramifications of doing away with the it?
A real-life example - or rather, 50 real life examples - should suffice.
As Fund put it: "Republicans used the tactic 50 times in the last Congress, primarily to block tax increases buried in larger bills."
In other words, on 50 occasions during the last session of Congress, Pelosi and Company tried to sneak tax increases, anti-Second Amendment measures and amnesty for illegal aliens, among other things into unrelated bills.
On those 50 occasions, conservatives exercised their right to send the bills back to committee to FORCE liberal committee members to actually go on record.
Essentially, conservatives said, if you want to pass it... vote on it... go on the record... let the American people see what you're trying to do and let the American people know where you stand... but don't try to sneak measures the American people DO NOT WANT through Congress under the cover of darkness!
Of course, in many cases, Pelosi and Company simply let the bills die rather than forcing fellow liberals to actually go on record.
Pelosi's wasn't very happy about being forced into those situations, so she quietly changed the rule. As for the rights of the American people: Who cares -- after all, Nancy knows best.
But now that conservatives in Congress are daring to bring Pelosi's tyranny into the light, Pelosi and her fellow-travelers are screaming bloody murder.
According to The Washington Post; "Republicans had repeatedly abused these motions, wording them to put vulnerable members in a bind by having to choose between killing a bill or taking a politically unpalatable vote destined to turn up in a 30-second attack ad."
Representative Barney Frank said conservatives in Congress are only "interested in game playing."
Representative Jim McGovern chided conservatives; "Congress has to accomplish things. This is designed to help us do just that."
Representative Louise Slaughter called the "motion to recommit," "a gimmick that was used to kill bills."
Shame on those evil conservatives in Congress! They should be flogged for demanding legislative transparency!
How dare they "play games" by stopping liberals from sneaking legislation through Congress under the cover of darkness.
How dare they "abuse" their authority and put liberals in a "bind" by demanding transparency.
How dare they institute a "gimmick" (how one institutes something that has been around for 100 years is anyone's guess) to force liberals to actually vote on the unpalatable laws they want to shove down the throats of the American people.
Use the hyperlink below to send tough personalized Blast Faxes to the Republican and Democrat Leadership of the House and Senate and shine the light of day on Pelosi's shenanigans!
Tell our elected officials that the American public does indeed know what Nancy Pelosi is trying to do and that she must not be allowed to get away with her tyrannical change of House rules. Tell them you do not want tax increases, amnesty for illegal aliens and other egregious measures passed in the dark of night and under the cover of darkness.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/pelosipowergrab.html
AOL Members May Also Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlinks do not work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into your browser address bar.
Secrecy Is the Liberals' Favorite Weapon.
Seriously, Pelosi and her left-wing cohorts in Congress firmly believe that what YOU don't know won't hurt THEM.
They believe that as long as you don't know what they're up to, they can get away with whatever they want to impose on the American people.
Pelosi is depending on the cover of darkness and the silence of her allies in the media to keep her shenanigans under wraps.
The last thing Pelosi wants is for the American people to find out what she has done.
And that's how we STOP her. We let the cat out of the bag.
With your help, we're going to ring some fax machines in Congress off the hook! And when you're done, Pelosi and her liberal allies in Congress WILL back down.
They WILL be disabused of the notion that they can:
Secretly raise your taxes.
Secretly impose amnesty for illegal aliens on your community and your neighborhood.
Secretly take away your ability to protect your family by regulating away your right to own and keep a firearm.
In short, we're not going to let Pelosi get away with it!
Use the hyperlink below to send tough personalized Blast Faxes to the Republican and Democrat Leadership of the House and Senate and shine the light of day on Pelosi's shenanigans!
Tell our elected officials that the American public does indeed know what Nancy Pelosi is trying to do and that she must not be allowed to get away with her tyrannical change of House rules. Tell them you do not want tax increases, amnesty for illegal aliens and other egregious measures passed in the dark of night and under the cover of darkness.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/pelosipowergrab.html
AOL Members May Also Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlinks do not work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into your browser address bar.
Is The Media Helping Pelosi Keep The Secret?
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Liberals in the mainstream media are taking that old philosophical adage to heart.
Just because you haven't read about what is happening in your local newspaper or haven’t heard about it on the nightly news, do not think that conservatives in Congress don't understand the horrible implications of what would happen if Pelosi is allowed to quietly get away with taking away the rights of the American people.
They're hopping mad... they're making their feelings known... but the liberal media simply is NOT reporting it.
You'd better believe that if conservatives moved to SHUT DOWN the voice of the minority, it would be on the front page of The New York Times.
Conservatives are talking and just in case you missed it, here is some of what is being said:
House Republicans sent a letter to Pelosi which addressed the hypocrisy and dishonesty of her position. The letter read in part: “This is not the kind of openness and transparency that President-elect Obama promised.”
Representative David Dreier of California said the rule change would create “the most closed Congress in history.”
House Minority Leader John Boehner complained that Pelosi's little subterfuge “silences the voices of tens of millions of Americans by further shutting down open debate on the House floor and taking away the minority’s right to offer substantive policy alternatives on behalf of the millions of Americans they represent.”
Conservative legislators are trying to get the message out but they need your help to drive the message home.
Pelosi and liberals in Congress must be made to understand that the American people ARE getting the message and that the liberal media can't give them cover this time around.
And they need to know that you ARE NOT happy!
Use the hyperlink below to send tough personalized Blast Faxes to the Republican and Democrat Leadership of the House and Senate and shine the light of day on Pelosi's shenanigans!
Tell our elected officials that the American public does indeed know what Nancy Pelosi is trying to do and that she must not be allowed to get away with her tyrannical change of House rules. Tell them you do not want tax increases, amnesty for illegal aliens and other egregious measures passed in the dark of night and under the cover of darkness.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/pelosipowergrab.html
AOL Members May Also Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlinks do not work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into your browser address bar.
A Government of Pelosi, By Pelosi and For Pelosi?
Nancy Pelosi changed her tune on a great many things once she assumed the position of Speaker of the House.
Two years ago, she said; "Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute."
Even the liberal Washington Post could not help but comment on Pelosi's blatant hypocrisy and her apparent rush to change the rules when it comes to transparency and openness:
"When they took over in 2007, Democrats set aside their pledge in order to muscle through their agenda during the first 100 hours; their promises continued to prove hollow in the ensuing months.... Democrats brought more measures to the House floor under closed rules - permitting no amendments - than any of the six previous Republican-controlled congresses."
The Post also wrote:
"But there is a legitimate concern about whether the House can return to a semblance of 'regular order': committee hearings and markups rather than measures brought precipitously to the floor with little time for review; reasonable allowance for amendments on the floor rather than closed rules allowing no changes; and conferences to resolve differences between the chambers rather than leadership-dictated products."
Naturally, The Post doesn't quite get it. The issue is about A LOT MORE than Pelosi's apparent hypocrisy!
It's not about a choice between a Congress that is orderly versus a Congress that bickers.
It's a choice between a Congress that is accountable to the people or a Congress that simply tries to legislate through stealth.
It's a choice between freedom and tyranny.
Will you stand up for your freedoms?
That's your choice!
Use the hyperlink below to send tough personalized Blast Faxes to the Republican and Democrat Leadership of the House and Senate and shine the light of day on Pelosi's shenanigans!
Tell our elected officials that the American public does indeed know what Nancy Pelosi is trying to do and that she must not be allowed to get away with her tyrannical change of House rules. Tell them you do not want tax increases, amnesty for illegal aliens and other egregious measures passed in the dark of night and under the cover of darkness.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/pelosipowergrab.html
AOL Members May Also Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlinks do not work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into your browser address bar.
Yours In Freedom,
Jeff Mazzella
President
www.cfif.org
P.S. Please help us reach as many concerned Americans as possible by forwarding this e-mail to at least 10 of your friends and family members.
The CFIF Action Alert is a service to the conservative community. If you would like to subscribe please go to www.cfif.org/signup.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please go to http://tool.donation-net.net/opt.cfm?dn=1043. You are subscribed at the email address [[-Email-]]. Please use this address when unsubscribing. You must use the correct e-mail address to discontinue your membership. Please do not reply directly to this message.
If you experience any technical problems and/or do not receive confirmation that your request has been completed online, please postal mail, voice or fax your request using the contact information listed below. Your request will be processed within 10 days of the receipt of your request.
Please keep these emails coming. Add cfif@cfiflistmanager.org and info@cfif.org to your address book, buddy list or accepted senders list.
Center for Individual Freedom
113 S. Columbus St., Suite 310
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-535-5836
Fax:703-535-5838
Israel Ready to Strike Iran
The Time Clock Has Run Out: Israel Ready to Strike Iran
Monday, January 12, 2009 3:56 PM
By: Jim Meyers
Informed sources in Washington tell Newsmax that Israel indeed will launch a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities soon – possibly in just days as President George W. Bush prepares to leave office.
The reason: The time clock has begun to run out. Iran is close to acquiring a nuclear device under the control of its radical president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said in June that Iran would have a nuclear weapon in as little as six months.
That six-month period has passed.
Reports of Israel’s decision to imminently launch strikes, although unconfirmed, would seem to contradict the Bush stance outlined in a front-page New York Times story last week, which asserted that Bush rejected a plea from Israel last year to help it raid Iran’s main nuclear complex.
The Times said Israel was rebuffed after it requested from the U.S. specialized bunker-busting bombs that it needs to attack Iran’s nuclear complex at Natanz. The U.S. also reportedly nixed permission to the Israeli warplanes to fly over Iraqi territory to reach Iran.
Israel’s requests to the U.S. for military assistance came as the Jewish state was reportedly angry over a U.S. intelligence assessment in late 2007 that concluded Iran had effectively suspended its development of nuclear weapons.
But an investigative report circulated by IAEA chief ElBaradei late last year disclosed that Iran was continuing to carry out uranium enrichment and had already established 6,000 centrifuges for enriching uranium, of which 3,800 were then in operation.
American intelligence officials now estimate that the figure is 4,000 to 5,000 centrifuges, enough to produce about one weapon’s worth of uranium every eight months or so, according to the Times.
The IAEA report estimated that Iran has obtained two tons of enriched uranium since its enrichment program was restarted at Natanz two years ago.
Last year 100 Israeli jets took part in an exercise over the eastern Mediterranean that was interpreted as a dress rehearsal for a possible attack on Iran.
And on Sept. 6 Israel launched an air attack against a site in Syria believed to be a nuclear-related facility containing material delivered by North Korea.
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton predicted that Israel would stage a raid against Iran's nuclear facilities if Barack Obama won the presidential election.
Bolton stated that he believed the Israeli attack would take place sometime between the day after Obama's win and his inauguration on January 20.
In an interview with FOX News, Bolton reasoned that Israel wouldn’t be able to hold off a strike on Iran any longer than that given Obama’s more conciliatory approach to Iran.
The Israeli government “would have to make a judgment whether to [strike] during the remainder of President Bush’s term in office or wait for his successor,” Bolton added.
William Perry, U.S. Secretary of Defense under President Bill Clinton, said that Obama would face a major crisis in his first few months in office over Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Perry, speaking at a foreign policy conference on Jan. 8, said that Iran is "moving inexorably toward becoming a nuclear power" and “it seems clear that Israel will not sit by idle while Iran takes the final steps toward becoming a nuclear power."
And former CIA officer Robert Baer, author of the new book “The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower,” told Newsmax in October that Iran was at that time probably months, if not weeks, away from war with Israel.
The repercussions of an Israeli attack are not clear.
Though Arab states remain openly hostile to Israel, many who belong to the Sunni branch of Islam fear the rise of a nuclear Iran, a nation dominated by Shiite imams. Gulf states like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have been quietly pressing the U.S. to take action against Iran – and may secretly root for an Israeli attack.
But Iran, even without nuclear weapons, is a regional power. If attacked, they are likely to press proxy terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to launch offensives against Israel and possibly the U.S.
Iran has warned in the past that it would launch a “missile blitz” against Gulf states if it is attacked.
And last July a senior Iranian official said the Islamic Republic would destroy Israel and 32 U.S. military bases in the Middle East if Iran is attacked over its nuclear program.
“Israel and 32 U.S. military bases in the region would not be out of the reach of our missiles and would be destroyed," the semi-official Fars News Agency quoted Mojtaba Zolnour as saying in a speech.
Zolnour is the deputy of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's representative in Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards.
Even more ominously, Iran has reportedly carried out missile tests for what could be a plan for a nuclear strike on the U.S.
Monday, January 12, 2009 3:56 PM
By: Jim Meyers
Informed sources in Washington tell Newsmax that Israel indeed will launch a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities soon – possibly in just days as President George W. Bush prepares to leave office.
The reason: The time clock has begun to run out. Iran is close to acquiring a nuclear device under the control of its radical president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said in June that Iran would have a nuclear weapon in as little as six months.
That six-month period has passed.
Reports of Israel’s decision to imminently launch strikes, although unconfirmed, would seem to contradict the Bush stance outlined in a front-page New York Times story last week, which asserted that Bush rejected a plea from Israel last year to help it raid Iran’s main nuclear complex.
The Times said Israel was rebuffed after it requested from the U.S. specialized bunker-busting bombs that it needs to attack Iran’s nuclear complex at Natanz. The U.S. also reportedly nixed permission to the Israeli warplanes to fly over Iraqi territory to reach Iran.
Israel’s requests to the U.S. for military assistance came as the Jewish state was reportedly angry over a U.S. intelligence assessment in late 2007 that concluded Iran had effectively suspended its development of nuclear weapons.
But an investigative report circulated by IAEA chief ElBaradei late last year disclosed that Iran was continuing to carry out uranium enrichment and had already established 6,000 centrifuges for enriching uranium, of which 3,800 were then in operation.
American intelligence officials now estimate that the figure is 4,000 to 5,000 centrifuges, enough to produce about one weapon’s worth of uranium every eight months or so, according to the Times.
The IAEA report estimated that Iran has obtained two tons of enriched uranium since its enrichment program was restarted at Natanz two years ago.
Last year 100 Israeli jets took part in an exercise over the eastern Mediterranean that was interpreted as a dress rehearsal for a possible attack on Iran.
And on Sept. 6 Israel launched an air attack against a site in Syria believed to be a nuclear-related facility containing material delivered by North Korea.
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton predicted that Israel would stage a raid against Iran's nuclear facilities if Barack Obama won the presidential election.
Bolton stated that he believed the Israeli attack would take place sometime between the day after Obama's win and his inauguration on January 20.
In an interview with FOX News, Bolton reasoned that Israel wouldn’t be able to hold off a strike on Iran any longer than that given Obama’s more conciliatory approach to Iran.
The Israeli government “would have to make a judgment whether to [strike] during the remainder of President Bush’s term in office or wait for his successor,” Bolton added.
William Perry, U.S. Secretary of Defense under President Bill Clinton, said that Obama would face a major crisis in his first few months in office over Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Perry, speaking at a foreign policy conference on Jan. 8, said that Iran is "moving inexorably toward becoming a nuclear power" and “it seems clear that Israel will not sit by idle while Iran takes the final steps toward becoming a nuclear power."
And former CIA officer Robert Baer, author of the new book “The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower,” told Newsmax in October that Iran was at that time probably months, if not weeks, away from war with Israel.
The repercussions of an Israeli attack are not clear.
Though Arab states remain openly hostile to Israel, many who belong to the Sunni branch of Islam fear the rise of a nuclear Iran, a nation dominated by Shiite imams. Gulf states like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have been quietly pressing the U.S. to take action against Iran – and may secretly root for an Israeli attack.
But Iran, even without nuclear weapons, is a regional power. If attacked, they are likely to press proxy terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to launch offensives against Israel and possibly the U.S.
Iran has warned in the past that it would launch a “missile blitz” against Gulf states if it is attacked.
And last July a senior Iranian official said the Islamic Republic would destroy Israel and 32 U.S. military bases in the Middle East if Iran is attacked over its nuclear program.
“Israel and 32 U.S. military bases in the region would not be out of the reach of our missiles and would be destroyed," the semi-official Fars News Agency quoted Mojtaba Zolnour as saying in a speech.
Zolnour is the deputy of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's representative in Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards.
Even more ominously, Iran has reportedly carried out missile tests for what could be a plan for a nuclear strike on the U.S.
Lee Iacocca Says:
This was written by Lee Iacocca back in mid-April of 2007.
Remember Lee Iacocca, the man who rescued Chrysler
Corporation from its death throes? He's now 82 years old and has a new
book, 'Where Have All The Leaders Gone?
Lee Iacocca Says:
'Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's
happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody
murder! We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state
right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and
we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car.
But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads
when the politicians say, 'Stay the course.'
Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America ,
not the damned, 'Titanic'. I'll give you a sound bite: 'Throw all the
bums out!'
You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my
rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly
recognize this country anymore.
The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but
the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq , the Middle East
is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving
'pom-poms' instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of
the ' America ' my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've
had enough. How about you?
I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if
you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have. The
Biggest 'C' is Crisis! (Iacocca elaborates on nine C's of leadership,
with crisis being the first.)
Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of
crisis. It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk
theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a
battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes
tumbling down.
On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than
any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out
of the ashes. A hell of a mess, so here's where we stand.
We're immersed in a bloody war with no plan for winning and
no plan for leaving.
We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the
country.
We're losing the manufacturing edge to Asia , while our
once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs.
Gas prices are skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a
coherent energy policy. Our schools are in trouble.
Our borders are like sieves.
The middle class is being squeezed every which way.
These are times that cry out for leadership.
But when you look around, you've got to ask: 'Where have all
the leaders gone?' Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where
are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and
common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get
the point.
Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security
than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our
shampoo?
We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new
bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have
already happened.
Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane
Katrina. Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response
to the hurricane or demanding accountability for the decisions that were
made in the crucial hours after the storm.
Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping it
doesn't happen again. Now, that's just crazy. Storms happen. Deal with
it. Make a plan. Figure out what you're going to do the next time.
Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about
how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have
believed that there could ever be a time when 'The Big Three' referred
to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more important, what
are we going to do about it?
Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for
paying down the debit, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the
health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises
that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry.
I have news for the gang in Congress. We didn't elect you to
sit on your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy
is being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity.
What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on Fox News will call
them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a
change?
Had Enough? Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and
doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have
hope - I believe in America . In my lifetime, I've had the privilege of
living through some of America 's greatest moments. I've also experienced
some of our worst crises: The 'Great Depression,' 'World War
II,' the 'Korean War,' the 'Kennedy Assassination,' the 'Vietnam War,'
the 1970's oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years culminating
with 9/11.
If I've learned one thing, it's this: 'You don't get
anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take
action. Whether it's building a better car or building a better future
for our children, we all have a role to play. That's the challenge I'm
raising in this book. It's a "Call to Action" for people who, like me,
believe in America '. It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close.
So let's shake off the crap and go to work. Let's tell 'em all we've had
'enough.'
Make your own contribution by sending this to everyone you
know and care about. It's our country, folks, and it's our future. Our
future is at stake!!
Remember Lee Iacocca, the man who rescued Chrysler
Corporation from its death throes? He's now 82 years old and has a new
book, 'Where Have All The Leaders Gone?
Lee Iacocca Says:
'Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's
happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody
murder! We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state
right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and
we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car.
But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads
when the politicians say, 'Stay the course.'
Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America ,
not the damned, 'Titanic'. I'll give you a sound bite: 'Throw all the
bums out!'
You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my
rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly
recognize this country anymore.
The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but
the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq , the Middle East
is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving
'pom-poms' instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of
the ' America ' my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've
had enough. How about you?
I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if
you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have. The
Biggest 'C' is Crisis! (Iacocca elaborates on nine C's of leadership,
with crisis being the first.)
Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of
crisis. It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk
theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a
battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes
tumbling down.
On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than
any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out
of the ashes. A hell of a mess, so here's where we stand.
We're immersed in a bloody war with no plan for winning and
no plan for leaving.
We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the
country.
We're losing the manufacturing edge to Asia , while our
once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs.
Gas prices are skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a
coherent energy policy. Our schools are in trouble.
Our borders are like sieves.
The middle class is being squeezed every which way.
These are times that cry out for leadership.
But when you look around, you've got to ask: 'Where have all
the leaders gone?' Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where
are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and
common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get
the point.
Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security
than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our
shampoo?
We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new
bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have
already happened.
Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane
Katrina. Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response
to the hurricane or demanding accountability for the decisions that were
made in the crucial hours after the storm.
Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping it
doesn't happen again. Now, that's just crazy. Storms happen. Deal with
it. Make a plan. Figure out what you're going to do the next time.
Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about
how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have
believed that there could ever be a time when 'The Big Three' referred
to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more important, what
are we going to do about it?
Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for
paying down the debit, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the
health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises
that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry.
I have news for the gang in Congress. We didn't elect you to
sit on your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy
is being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity.
What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on Fox News will call
them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a
change?
Had Enough? Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and
doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have
hope - I believe in America . In my lifetime, I've had the privilege of
living through some of America 's greatest moments. I've also experienced
some of our worst crises: The 'Great Depression,' 'World War
II,' the 'Korean War,' the 'Kennedy Assassination,' the 'Vietnam War,'
the 1970's oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years culminating
with 9/11.
If I've learned one thing, it's this: 'You don't get
anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take
action. Whether it's building a better car or building a better future
for our children, we all have a role to play. That's the challenge I'm
raising in this book. It's a "Call to Action" for people who, like me,
believe in America '. It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close.
So let's shake off the crap and go to work. Let's tell 'em all we've had
'enough.'
Make your own contribution by sending this to everyone you
know and care about. It's our country, folks, and it's our future. Our
future is at stake!!
Monday, January 12, 2009
Radical In Disguise
Radical In Disguise
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, January 12, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Politics: Is anyone surprised that the would-be czarina of federal climate and energy policy has ties to a socialist group? The environmental movement's goal is to afflict the economy, not comfort the ecology.
Carol Browner, who'll run the new White House office of climate and energy policies, isn't new to Washington. The public will recognize her name from the years she served as Environmental Protection Agency administrator under Bill Clinton.
The public, however, knows little or nothing about her work with Socialist International, a group that describes itself as a worldwide organization of social democratic, socialist and labor parties that envisions a "new, democratic world society" and typically takes anti-U.S. positions.
Within its declaration of principles there are clear signs it's comfortable with using the authority of the state to establish a global socialist regime.
Equally as telling are its member groups, including Nicaragua's Sandinista National Liberation Front, Democratic Socialists of America, and socialist and labor parties from dozens of nations.
Browner was linked to Socialist International through her leadership post on the group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society. The Washington Times reports Browner was also listed as an individual member of Socialist International.
In her role as a White House aide, Browner should be looking out for U.S. interests. Yet, according to the Times, Socialist International's Commission for a Sustainable World Society not only wants America, as well as other developed nations, to cut their current levels of consumption. It has called for a "fair approach" to global warming and climate change that "must be centered on solidarity and aim to reduce the disparity between the developed and the developing countries."
Reducing the disparity will come, of course, at the expense of wealthy nations. Socialists dream of an egalitarianism that is reached not by lifting the fortunes of everyone but by redistributing wealth downward. They pretend to be interested only in taking care of the planet. But another purpose seems to be containing or even shrinking thriving economies. They are little more than socialists disguised as activists.
Evidence of Browner's association with Socialist International has been largely scrubbed from the group's Web site. Someone in the incoming administration — Browner herself? — must have felt it wouldn't be wise for people to know about it.
This we can understand. What we can't understand is why those ties didn't disqualify her for the job.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, January 12, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Politics: Is anyone surprised that the would-be czarina of federal climate and energy policy has ties to a socialist group? The environmental movement's goal is to afflict the economy, not comfort the ecology.
Carol Browner, who'll run the new White House office of climate and energy policies, isn't new to Washington. The public will recognize her name from the years she served as Environmental Protection Agency administrator under Bill Clinton.
The public, however, knows little or nothing about her work with Socialist International, a group that describes itself as a worldwide organization of social democratic, socialist and labor parties that envisions a "new, democratic world society" and typically takes anti-U.S. positions.
Within its declaration of principles there are clear signs it's comfortable with using the authority of the state to establish a global socialist regime.
Equally as telling are its member groups, including Nicaragua's Sandinista National Liberation Front, Democratic Socialists of America, and socialist and labor parties from dozens of nations.
Browner was linked to Socialist International through her leadership post on the group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society. The Washington Times reports Browner was also listed as an individual member of Socialist International.
In her role as a White House aide, Browner should be looking out for U.S. interests. Yet, according to the Times, Socialist International's Commission for a Sustainable World Society not only wants America, as well as other developed nations, to cut their current levels of consumption. It has called for a "fair approach" to global warming and climate change that "must be centered on solidarity and aim to reduce the disparity between the developed and the developing countries."
Reducing the disparity will come, of course, at the expense of wealthy nations. Socialists dream of an egalitarianism that is reached not by lifting the fortunes of everyone but by redistributing wealth downward. They pretend to be interested only in taking care of the planet. But another purpose seems to be containing or even shrinking thriving economies. They are little more than socialists disguised as activists.
Evidence of Browner's association with Socialist International has been largely scrubbed from the group's Web site. Someone in the incoming administration — Browner herself? — must have felt it wouldn't be wise for people to know about it.
This we can understand. What we can't understand is why those ties didn't disqualify her for the job.
Al Franken Denied Certificate to Take Senate Seat
THESE NO ACCOUNT WANNA BE IS STILL TRYING TO STEAL THE ELECTION AND IS A FURTHER EXAMPLE OF WHAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN YOU CEDE YOUR AUTHORITY TO THE LIKES OF GEORGE SOROS.
Al Franken Denied Certificate to Take Senate Seat
Monday, January 12, 2009 1:00 PM
Democrat Al Franken asked the Minnesota governor and secretary of state to issue an election certificate that would let him take office in the Senate, but the request was denied.
"Minnesota law is very clear on when a certificate of election can be issued,” Mark Ritchie, Minnesota’s Democratic secretary of state, wrote in a Monday statement. “Neither the governor nor I may sign a certificate of election in the U.S. Senate race until all election contests have reached a final determination. Even if the governor issues a certificate of election prior to the conclusion of the contest phase, I will not sign it."
Minn. Governor Pawlenty echoed Ritchie, saying the following in a statement: “I have a duty to follow state law and our statutes are clear on this issue. I am prohibited from issuing a certificate of election until the election contest in the courts has been resolved.”
In letters the campaign sent Monday, Franken's lawyers argued that a seven-day waiting period had passed and he should get the signed certificate. State law requires the waiting period after the election is finalized; the election was finalized on Jan. 5, with Franken leading Republican Norm Coleman by 225 votes after a statewide recount.
Franken attorney Marc Elias said the campaign believed federal law entitled him to the certificate before the Coleman lawsuit is settled.
Al Franken Denied Certificate to Take Senate Seat
Monday, January 12, 2009 1:00 PM
Democrat Al Franken asked the Minnesota governor and secretary of state to issue an election certificate that would let him take office in the Senate, but the request was denied.
"Minnesota law is very clear on when a certificate of election can be issued,” Mark Ritchie, Minnesota’s Democratic secretary of state, wrote in a Monday statement. “Neither the governor nor I may sign a certificate of election in the U.S. Senate race until all election contests have reached a final determination. Even if the governor issues a certificate of election prior to the conclusion of the contest phase, I will not sign it."
Minn. Governor Pawlenty echoed Ritchie, saying the following in a statement: “I have a duty to follow state law and our statutes are clear on this issue. I am prohibited from issuing a certificate of election until the election contest in the courts has been resolved.”
In letters the campaign sent Monday, Franken's lawyers argued that a seven-day waiting period had passed and he should get the signed certificate. State law requires the waiting period after the election is finalized; the election was finalized on Jan. 5, with Franken leading Republican Norm Coleman by 225 votes after a statewide recount.
Franken attorney Marc Elias said the campaign believed federal law entitled him to the certificate before the Coleman lawsuit is settled.
Obama, Democrats Plan to Keep Estate Tax
DID YOU HONESTLY THINK THAT THE ESTATE TAX WOULD GO AWAY UNDER DEMOCRATS??
Obama, Democrats Plan to Keep Estate Tax
Monday, January 12, 2009 11:10 AM
By: Jim Meyers
Barack Obama and congressional Democrats plan to retain the estate tax instead of allowing it to expire as scheduled in 2010.
Elimination of the tax on big inheritances was approved by Congress and President George W. Bush in 2001, when there were large projected budget surpluses, with rollbacks phased in gradually and its full elimination to take effect next year.
Under Obama’s plan, the tax would be locked in at the rate and exemption levels that took effect this year, according to a front-page story in Monday’s Wall Street Journal.
That would exempt estates of $3.5 million — $7 million for couples — from the estate tax. The value of estates above that level would be taxed at a rate of 45 percent.
If the tax were returned to levels before the 2001 action, the tax would exempt only $1 million with the rest taxed at a 55 percent rate.
Democrats who favor retaining the tax argue that the budget deficit is huge, full repeal of the tax would cost the Treasury more than $500 billion over a decade, and the wealthy have already benefited from the Bush tax cuts, the Journal reports.
Advocates of eliminating the estate tax contend that the Obama plan is the wrong move during a recession. Bill Rys, tax counsel for the National Federation of Independent Business, told The Journal that small businesses that are struggling should not have to devote resources to estate planning as they seek ways to minimize taxation.
The Senate rejected GOP efforts to repeal the estate tax in June 2006, with Republican Bill Frist of Tennessee calling it a “vicious tax.” Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois called the repeal bill “the most outrageous piece of special interest legislation in modern memory."
Under Obama’s plan, only the largest estates — fewer than 2 percent of annual deaths — would be subject to the estate tax.
Obama, Democrats Plan to Keep Estate Tax
Monday, January 12, 2009 11:10 AM
By: Jim Meyers
Barack Obama and congressional Democrats plan to retain the estate tax instead of allowing it to expire as scheduled in 2010.
Elimination of the tax on big inheritances was approved by Congress and President George W. Bush in 2001, when there were large projected budget surpluses, with rollbacks phased in gradually and its full elimination to take effect next year.
Under Obama’s plan, the tax would be locked in at the rate and exemption levels that took effect this year, according to a front-page story in Monday’s Wall Street Journal.
That would exempt estates of $3.5 million — $7 million for couples — from the estate tax. The value of estates above that level would be taxed at a rate of 45 percent.
If the tax were returned to levels before the 2001 action, the tax would exempt only $1 million with the rest taxed at a 55 percent rate.
Democrats who favor retaining the tax argue that the budget deficit is huge, full repeal of the tax would cost the Treasury more than $500 billion over a decade, and the wealthy have already benefited from the Bush tax cuts, the Journal reports.
Advocates of eliminating the estate tax contend that the Obama plan is the wrong move during a recession. Bill Rys, tax counsel for the National Federation of Independent Business, told The Journal that small businesses that are struggling should not have to devote resources to estate planning as they seek ways to minimize taxation.
The Senate rejected GOP efforts to repeal the estate tax in June 2006, with Republican Bill Frist of Tennessee calling it a “vicious tax.” Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois called the repeal bill “the most outrageous piece of special interest legislation in modern memory."
Under Obama’s plan, only the largest estates — fewer than 2 percent of annual deaths — would be subject to the estate tax.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Bush Thwarted Israel's Iran Strike Plan
On a Handheld Device? Visit mobile.newsmax.com Web Newsmax.com
Jokes Links Advertise Cartoons Contact Shop Archives RSS
SIGN UP FOR FREE NEWS ALERTS
Home Newsmax.tv Money Inside Cover Newsfront U.S. Politics International Pundits Health Science & Technology Entertainment Election 2008
Latest: Key Supplements Can Prevent Alzheimer's, Parkinson's - Click Here
Bush Thwarted Israel's Iran Strike Plan
Saturday, January 10, 2009 8:06 PM
WASHINGTON – President George W. Bush rejected a plea from Israel last year to help it raid Iran's main nuclear complex, opting instead to authorize a new U.S. covert action aimed at sabotaging Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program, The New York Times reported.
Israel's request was for specialized bunker-busting bombs that it wanted for an attack that tentatively involved flying over Iraq to reach Iran's major nuclear complex at Natanz, where the country's only known uranium enrichment plant is located, the Times reported Saturday in its online edition. The White House deflected requests for the bombs and flyover but said it would improve intelligence-sharing with Israel on covert U.S. efforts to sabotage Iran's nuclear program.
The covert efforts, which began in early 2008, involved plans to penetrate Iran's nuclear supply chain abroad and undermine electrical systems and other networks on which Iran relies, the Times said, citing interviews with current and former U.S. officials, outside experts and international nuclear inspectors who spoke on condition of anonymity. The covert program will be handed off to President-elect Barack Obama, who will deciding whether to continue it.
According to the Times, Bush decided against an overt attack based on input from top administration officials such as Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who believed that doing so would likely prove ineffective and could ignite a broader Middle East war.
Israel made the push for permission to fly over Iraq for an attack on Iran following its anger over a U.S. intelligence assessment in late 2007 that concluded Iran had effectively suspended its development of nuclear weapons four years earlier. Israel sought to rebut the report, providing evidence to U.S. intelligence officials that they said indicated the Iranians were still working on a weapon.
Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the National Security Council, declined to comment Saturday.
In an interview with The Associated Press earlier this week, Stephen Hadley, Bush's national security adviser, said he believed that Iran is the biggest challenge Obama will face in the Middle East and that more sanctions will be needed to force Tehran to forgo its nuclear ambitions and support for extremists. He said the Bush administration has been trying to "shore up and store up leverage" to bequeath to the Obama administration.
Last month, Obama suggested that a combination of economic incentives and tighter sanctions might work. Tehran rejected the proposal. Obama also has said he would pursue tough-minded diplomacy.
Jokes Links Advertise Cartoons Contact Shop Archives RSS
SIGN UP FOR FREE NEWS ALERTS
Home Newsmax.tv Money Inside Cover Newsfront U.S. Politics International Pundits Health Science & Technology Entertainment Election 2008
Latest: Key Supplements Can Prevent Alzheimer's, Parkinson's - Click Here
Bush Thwarted Israel's Iran Strike Plan
Saturday, January 10, 2009 8:06 PM
WASHINGTON – President George W. Bush rejected a plea from Israel last year to help it raid Iran's main nuclear complex, opting instead to authorize a new U.S. covert action aimed at sabotaging Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program, The New York Times reported.
Israel's request was for specialized bunker-busting bombs that it wanted for an attack that tentatively involved flying over Iraq to reach Iran's major nuclear complex at Natanz, where the country's only known uranium enrichment plant is located, the Times reported Saturday in its online edition. The White House deflected requests for the bombs and flyover but said it would improve intelligence-sharing with Israel on covert U.S. efforts to sabotage Iran's nuclear program.
The covert efforts, which began in early 2008, involved plans to penetrate Iran's nuclear supply chain abroad and undermine electrical systems and other networks on which Iran relies, the Times said, citing interviews with current and former U.S. officials, outside experts and international nuclear inspectors who spoke on condition of anonymity. The covert program will be handed off to President-elect Barack Obama, who will deciding whether to continue it.
According to the Times, Bush decided against an overt attack based on input from top administration officials such as Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who believed that doing so would likely prove ineffective and could ignite a broader Middle East war.
Israel made the push for permission to fly over Iraq for an attack on Iran following its anger over a U.S. intelligence assessment in late 2007 that concluded Iran had effectively suspended its development of nuclear weapons four years earlier. Israel sought to rebut the report, providing evidence to U.S. intelligence officials that they said indicated the Iranians were still working on a weapon.
Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the National Security Council, declined to comment Saturday.
In an interview with The Associated Press earlier this week, Stephen Hadley, Bush's national security adviser, said he believed that Iran is the biggest challenge Obama will face in the Middle East and that more sanctions will be needed to force Tehran to forgo its nuclear ambitions and support for extremists. He said the Bush administration has been trying to "shore up and store up leverage" to bequeath to the Obama administration.
Last month, Obama suggested that a combination of economic incentives and tighter sanctions might work. Tehran rejected the proposal. Obama also has said he would pursue tough-minded diplomacy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)