Smears Against Tea Parties Contrived Political Strategy
By Bill Wilson
The attacks on the tea party movement and other citizen activists are continuing. This time, the DNC has unveiled its latest effort to portray tea parties, and Republicans, as radicals and extremists.
This effort, www.republicanteapartycontract.com, is nothing more than a series of misrepresentations of popular ideas like repealing ObamaCare and the financial takeover, eliminating whole departments and agencies in the federal government, keeping taxes low, etc. but it is occurring in a highly charged media climate where the NAACP has accused the movement of being racist.
The DNC is attempting to ride the wave of coverage that resulted from the NAACP’s charge to discredit the movement once and for all. It has all of the appearances of a coordinated attack, but there is an even wider context than has been widely reported by the mainstream media that shows a clear pattern to sabotage, infiltrate, and to otherwise destroy the movement, which has been chronicled by conservative blogger Michelle Malkin.
For example, there’s the quite obvious effort by http://theteapartyisover.org whose express mission is to portray tea parties as extremists intent on inciting violence. According to the group’s mission statement, the tea parties represent “dangerous extremism that threatens to tear the country apart.” Of course, the group is actually nothing more than a Democrat-labor union front group that operates out of the offices of Joseph Sandler, a longtime general counsel to the Democratic National Committee, as reported by FNC’s Joseph Abrams.
But that’s not all. Michigan Capitol Confidential is reporting that the political director of the Oakland County Democrat Party was behind an effort to register candidates to run under a fake “Tea Party” in Michigan, ostensibly to take away votes from Republican candidates and to confuse voters. It turns out that the petition drive necessary to create the party on the ballot was operated by Progressive Campaigns, Inc. out of California, which has run ballot initiatives supported by left-wing activist-financier George Soros.
This mirrors a prior effort in Nevada by Scott Ashjian to run for Senate against Harry Reid under the banner, “Tea Party of Nevada.” Again, the apparent intent was to siphon votes away from Republican candidates who might benefit from the popular tea party movement.
Then there’s the case of Jason Levin, who ran an effort to actively infiltrate tea party rallies on April 15th, and who was dedicated to “dismantling and demolishing” the movement and to portray them as “racists, morons, and homophobes.” A similar effort was waged by an anarchist group to “[o]rganize counter-protests against the tea party demonstrations, same time, same place.”
Other sabotage and intimidation efforts include the violent assault of activist Kenneth Gladney by SEIU thugs out of a St. Louis town hall meeting, where activists spoke out against ObamaCare. Also, at least one pro-Reid union member attempted to misdirect tea partiers from a large rally that was being held in Searchlight, NV.
All of this, however, is overshadowed by what Democrat congressional leadership has said publicly about the tea parties from almost the very beginning. House Majority Whip James Clyburn’s has claimed that tea parties are a “kind of terrorism.” Others have alleged that activists shouted racial epithets at members of Congress on March 20th at a protest against the health care bill, as reported by the American Thinker. Others have attested that acts of vandalism were linked to the tea parties.
Majority Whip Clyburn's attack followed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer wrote an oped in USA Today calling opponents “un-American”. Congressman Steve Kagen called opponents “uncivilized,” and Congressman Baron Hill called them “political terrorists.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proudly called them “evil mongers.”
Congressman Brian Baird called opponents of ObamaCare “Brown Shirts” and compared them to domestic terrorists, “Some of the rhetoric that we’re hearing is… eerily reminiscent of the kind of things that drove Tim McVeigh to bomb the federal building in Oklahoma.”
See a pattern here? It has all of the appearances of a coordinated smear campaign against tea parties and other citizen activists, which even the leadership of Congress has participated in. But where is the major media coverage of this? It’s so obviously a political theater that to report the NAACP’s smear without taking into account the above facts is dishonest. It becomes complicity in the myth’s perpetuation.
The fact is, if there were this many pieces showing Republican Party efforts to sabotage, infiltrate, and discredit an entire political movement and falsely portray it as extremist, you can bet it would be portrayed as a grand conspiracy.
It’s time to start putting these pieces together. Hundreds of thousands well-meaning, activist Americans are being besmirched and smeared as part of a contrived political strategy by Democrats to keep Congress. These citizens want nothing more than less government control over the lives of individual Americans, and for that, they are pariahs and must be destroyed.
Bill Wilson is the President of Americans of Limited Government.
.jpg)
An Open Letter to Democrats
By Bill Wilson
What happened? That’s the question rank-and-file Democrats ought to be asking themselves.
In the post-World War II era, the so-called Cold War consensus, a bipartisan approach to U.S. foreign policy against the spread of communism, was best embodied by the late Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg’s famous quote, “Politics stops at the water’s edge,” and also the career of Democrat Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, whose support for U.S. armed forces in harm’s way was unswerving.
Throughout the Korean struggle, and even Vietnam — the worst war in American history — Congress never failed to appropriate funds for American forces’ overseas during wartime. Whether one agreed or disagreed with the wisdom of these wars, what was beyond debate was Congress’ responsibility to fund and equip the troops.
Basically, the nation used to give the armed services everything they needed in the field, no question.
Although it is commonly thought that the “consensus” collapsed at the 1968 Chicago Democrat convention, even at the height of the anti-war movement against Vietnam, the war was fully funded until the Paris Treaty of 1973, which halted hostilities. It was not until after Richard Nixon’s August 1974 resignation that North Vietnam began its new offensive in earnest to capture the South, which it finally accomplished in 1975.
By the time President Gerald Ford had signed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 prior to the fall of Saigon, which defunded assistance to the South, it merely reflected the domestic political reality that America’s role in the war had ceased — but it had nothing to do with defunding our troops in harm’s way. Not even the strong contingent of anti-war Democrats in Congress failed to pass a funding measure while troops were actively engaged in fighting.
Not so today, where a $33 billion war supplemental is being held hostage by House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey. In the process, critical resources are being held back, and Defense Secretary Bob Gates warns that if the supplemental is not passed by July 4th, the Defense Department may be forced to begin furloughing civilians and being unable to pay active-duty military. General Petraeus has called the supplemental “essential for the conduct of this mission.”
The issue? Certainly not even a principled “power of the purse” stand against the war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. This time, the issue is $10 billion in corrupt handouts to states like New York and California, which Obey and Barack Obama want to bail out through the war-funding measure. The $10 billion would go to unsustainable public education spending — directly keeping the teachers unions afloat.
At best, Obey’s move to attach the $10 billion bailout of the educrat industry to the war supplemental is a gross misuse of power — basically blackmailing our fighting forces — to keep “stimulus” money flowing. At his most cynical, Obey is doing so because he knows he needs that money to keep flowing into public union campaign coffers. So at worst, it’s a taxpayer down payment on the 2010 elections — for Democrats.
Either way, until Obama and Obey get what they want, funding for the troops in harm’s way in the form of the emergency war supplemental is in grave doubt. So radical are today’s Congressional Democrats that they are willing to have their obligation to fund our sons and daughters’ defense take a back seat to their desire to keep their political “stimulus” slush fund liquid.
So, the question is: What happened? What happened to the Democrat Party? Are they so enamored with the Hard Left that something so basic as supporting their own country’s troops in an ongoing battle has become secondary to catering to their favored political constituencies, in this case the public sector unions?
Are they so divorced from the lives of the American people as a Party that they would rather our soldiers, sailors, and airmen — who are risking their lives every day in patriotic service to their country — go without the Congressional support that has historically been beyond question? In 2007, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously said, “Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm's way”.
So, what happened? The lunatic fringe of the Democrat Party has taken over. In short, the inmates are running the asylum. So committed is the Party leadership to keeping the unions afloat that they’re willing to roll the dice.
This is not the only example of such overreach. In Wisconsin, Bucyrus International, Inc., which had hoped to sell $310 million of coal mining equipment Reliance Power, Ltd. of India, recently had a request for financing denied by the U.S. Export-Import Bank, putting about a thousand jobs at risk.
The reason? Not that they didn’t have the money to lend, or that either company was a credit risk. No. The bank denied the request because the mining equipment would be used to extract fuel for a coal power plant in Madhya Pradesh, India, creating carbon emissions thought to contribute to “man-made” global warming. Said the Bank’s Chairman, Fred Hochberg, “President Obama has made clear this administration's commitment to transition away from high-carbon investments and toward a cleaner energy future.”
So committed to the religious dogma of radical environmentalism is the Hard Left, they are willing to sacrifice a thousand American jobs rather than allow India to pursue its own energy policy or an American company to do business there.
Another example is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decision blocking the use of so-called superskimmers in the Gulf oil spill disaster. Tremendous Dutch skimming vessels could be sucking the oil, filtering it, and returning the cleaned water. According to Weird Koops, the chairman of Spill Response Group Holland, “Our system can handle 400 cubic metres per hour.” According to the Financial Post, that “[gives] each Dutch ship more cleanup capacity than all the ships that the U.S. was then employing in the Gulf to combat the spill.” They have been awaiting approval since April 20th,
The Taiwanese-owned “A Whale” skimmer too has the capability to collect up to 500,000 barrels of oil water a day. The vessel, more than three football fields long and ten stories high, could help collect much of the oil from the spill prior to reaching the shore.
So, what’s the hold up? EPA approval is required because some of the seawater returned to the Gulf would still have some percent of oil being returned. According to the Post, “Nearly oil-free isn't good enough for the U.S. regulators, who have a standard of 15 parts per million — if water isn't at least 99.9985 percent pure, it may not be returned to the Gulf of Mexico.”
So, the Hard Left would rather have all of the oil hit the shores Louisiana, Florida, and other Gulf states rather than remove nearly all of it before it ever gets there. The clock is ticking, as it has been more than seventy days since the spill began. How much oil will hit the shores that could have been collected by the superskimmers? Why hasn’t Barack Obama rescinded or waived the EPA regulations via executive order?
I could go on, but these examples suffice to demonstrate that the Democrat Party — and the Hard Left which runs it — is more committed to the fulfillment of a deranged ideology than to protecting obvious American interests and even acting on basic common sense.
There’s plenty of room in our Republic for honest disagreement. But not when it comes to giving basic resources to our fighting men and women at war. Not when it comes to the government sacrificing jobs on the altar of some zealous, Luddite cult. Not when it comes to the government blocking the cleanup of the worst oil spill in American history.
2010 marks a turning point for America, and for rank-and-file Democrats nationwide. It’s time for them to wake up to a terrible truth — that the Democrat Party is acting directly against the benefit of their fellow countrymen. Leadership in consequential times has been replaced by rantings and ravings of a lunatic fringe that has taken control not just of the Party, but of the country.
The question is: Do regular Democrats allow themselves to be governed by these radical forces? Or will they overthrow them politically through the primary process and elections? Where are the Scoop Jacksons now, willing to buck these radical elements?
Will they take back their Party? Americans can only pray that the sane, rational Democrats choose to wake up and retake control. For, we will all be living with the choice they make. And history will not judge kindly those who capitulated at this critical moment in the Republic.
Bill Wilson is the President of Americans for Limited Government.
The Obama administration stops at nothing to accomplish their goals
By Adam Bitely
Nearly 150,000 jobs connected to the offshore oil drilling industry are in jeopardy over hypocrisy from the Obama administration. In the Gulf Coast alone, where the economies of the Gulf States are still recovering from devastating hurricanes, the Obama administration has made it clear that they will play politics with the livelihoods of the citizens rather than do what is right. When so many people are depending on government to do the right thing, the Obama administration says one thing and does another.
Consider the unfolding episode with Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar. Salazar has come under scrutiny for falsifying a 30-day review of the offshore drilling program conducted by seven engineers from the National Academy of Engineering. Specifically, the administration changed the findings of the report to back-up the Obama administration’s policy of placing a ban on offshore drilling permits. The report from the engineers makes no such finding, and they have spoken out.
While Salazar has come forth and admitted that the changes were made, unbeknownst to the people that actually wrote the report, Salazar has continued to push his doctored report as fact. The engineers that participated in the review came forth and brought the issue to light. However, their exposure of the Obama administration’s blatant doctoring of the report to reinforce the Administration’s endorsed position has received little coverage.
Couple Salazar’s actions with those of Steven Chu. Not 3 years ago, Chu participated in an interview where he lavished high praise on BP. According to Chu, BP will help “save the world.” Fast forward to today, and Chu now supports a complete ban on offshore drilling, backing up the Administration’s position.
It seems that the Obama administration has forgotten that many jobs are on the line and that the Gulf Coast economy will be heavily impacted — for the worst.
As Kevin Mooney pointed out at NetRightDaily.com on Thursday, Ken Salazar and company have been incorrectly suggesting that fewer jobs would be lost due to the Administration’s drilling ban. As Mooney reported, “The moratorium could cost 3,000 to 6,000 Louisiana jobs in the next two to three weeks alone, and potentially 10,000 in the coming months. To put that in context, the entire U.S. economy created only 41,000 new private jobs in May, according to the Louisiana Department of Economic Development.”
Gulf Coast residents’ fate hang in the hands of Administration officials that stop at nothing to get what they want. Even after a Federal Judge ruled that the drilling ban was unfounded, Salazar keeps up his battle to stop the drilling. He has proven that he will commit actions that would ruin any person’s reputation under normal standards to get his way.
The victims of Salazar’s and the Obama Administration’s actions are not just on the Gulf Coast. All Americans will see changes if they are allowed to have their way.
Writing at The Hill, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) points out that the Obama Administration is backing legislation that would in effect force smaller oil companies out of the offshore drilling business in America. If the Administration backed legislation, the “Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act”, is allowed to pass, Big Oil will see government aiding their efforts to allow their businesses to be the only ones allowed to drill. This legislation is nothing but government shielding Big Oil. All the while, the Obama administration is suggesting that they are going after Big Oil and making it harder for them to operate.
Again, the people hurt by this are the consumers. They will be forced to pick up the extra costs that government throws on them to operate. Many smaller oil companies will be pushed out of the market thus causing job losses.
While the Administration says it is helping prevent another disaster of the type of the Deepwater Horizon accident, their actions are speaking louder than words. From phony commissions that exist only to push out Administration propaganda, to outright lying about reports on drilling recommendations, all Americans should be keeping a watchful eye on the government that is promising to protect them from these incidents. Clearly, they are only championing their own interests, at the expense of your money and your jobs.
Adam Bitely is the Editor-in-Chief of NetRightDaily.com for Americans for Limited Government.
Sen. Kennedy Offered to Collaborate with Soviets Against Reagan, KGB Documents Show
By Kevin Mooney 
Exclusive to NetRightDaily.com, a blog project of Americans for Limited Government.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy offered to work in close concert with high level Soviet officials to sabotage President Ronald Reagan’s re-election efforts and to arrange for congenial American press coverage of General Secretary Yuri Andropov, according to a 1983 KGB document.
Specifically, Kennedy offered to have “representatives of the largest television companies in the U.S. contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interview.” The idea here would be for the Soviet leader to make an end run around Reagan and make a direct appeal to the American people.
Kennedy suggested that Walter Cronkite, Barbara Walters and Elton Raul, the president of the board of directors for ABC, be considered for the interviews with Andropov in Moscow. He also asked the KGB to consider having “lower level Soviet officials, particularly the military” take part in television interviews inside the U.S. where they could convey peaceful intentions.
The confidential correspondence between Sen. Kennedy and Soviet agents first came to light in a February 2nd, 1992 report published in the London Times entitled “Teddy, the KGB and the Top Secret File.” Paul Kengor, a Grove City College political science professor, included the document in his 2006 book: “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and The Fall of Communism.”
However, the material has received a paucity of media attention even after Kennedy’s death last year and Monday’s release of his FBI files. Kennedy’s long history of secret overtures to the Soviets at the expense of his own president deserves further exploration as they could provide additional insight into the final, pivotal years of the Cold War.
The KGB document in question includes a letter dated May 14th, 1983 from KGB head Viktor Chebrikov addressed to Andropov. Former Senator John Tunney (D-Calif.) traveled to Moscow in May of that year on behalf of Kennedy where he outlined a potential collaborative scheme aimed against Reagan, the KGB letter says.
In the interest of world peace and improved American-Soviet relations, Kennedy offers specific proposals built around a public relations effort designed to “counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people,” Chebrikov wrote.
Although it is not made clear who Tunney actually met with in Moscow, the letter does say that Sen. Kennedy directed the California Democrat to reach out to “confidential contacts” so Andropov could be alerted to the senator’s proposals.
“Tunney told his contacts that Kennedy was very troubled about the decline in U.S -Soviet relations under Reagan,” Kengor the Grove City professor said in an interview. “But Kennedy attributed this decline to Reagan, not to the Soviets. In one of the most striking parts of this letter, Kennedy is said to be very impressed with Andropov and other Soviet leaders.”
In Kennedy’s view, the main reason for the antagonism between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1980s was Reagan’s unwillingness to yield on plans to deploy middle-range nuclear missiles in Western Europe, the KGB chief observed in his letter.
“Kennedy was afraid that Reagan was leading the world into a nuclear war,” Kengor said. “He hoped to counter Reagan’s policies, and by extension hurt his re-election prospects.”
Tunney also discussed Kennedy’s presidential ambitions with the Soviet contacts, according to the letter. Kennedy was looking to run in 1988 when he would be remarried and his “personal problems” resolved. However, the letter also said he did not rule out 1984.
Kennedy also offered to travel to Moscow with Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.) to meet with Andropov. Both senators favored a freeze on the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
“There’s a lot more here that needs to found,” Kengor continued. “This was a shocking revelation.”
Tunney has previously acknowledged his role as an intermediary not just for Kennedy for but other U.S senators. There’s an opening here for enterprising reporting in the New York Times and other media outlets that have so far ignored the story. It is worth noting that Tunney told the London Times he made 15 separate trips to Moscow.
An investigative piece might begin by asking which other U.S. senators were involved in correspondence which could be in violation of an obscure law dating back to the time of the early American Republic called the Logan Act, which prohibits U.S. citizens from “directly or indirectly commenc[ing] or carr[ying] on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States.”
The 2,352 pages covering the period of 1961 through 1985 included in Kennedy’s FBI file have enabled the Times and others to supply readers with rich, detailed reports. The following nugget from the Gray Lady’s Monday edition gives good cause to keep reading:
“They [the FBI files] document the keen interest the bureau took when Mr. Kennedy met with “ ‘intellectuals’ of leftist tinge” on a visit to Mexico in 1961; the relationship the Kennedy family had with J. Edgar Hoover, the longtime director of the F.B.I.; and the efforts of the Nixon administration to find out more about the 1969 Chappaquiddick accident, in which a young woman drowned after a car being driven by Mr. Kennedy plummeted off a bridge near Martha’s Vineyard.”
So why not delve more into a KGB document that has been preserved by Professor Kengor and others in anticipation of Russian government figures resealing those same files?
In his blog appearing on the American Thinker, Kengor details his many media frustrations.
“In 2006, when my book was released, there was a virtual media blackout on coverage of the document, with the exception of conservative media: talk-radio, Rush Limbaugh, some websites, and mention on FoxNews by Brit Hume,” he wrote. “Amazingly, I didn’t even get calls from mainstream reporters seeking to shoot down the story. I had prepared in great detail to be grilled on national television, picturing the likes of Katie Couric needling me. I didn’t need to worry.”
There is no escaping the “blame America first” mentality at work in Kennedy’s correspondence that omits and discussion of Soviet aggression in Europe and belligerence toward the U.S.
“Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations,” Chebrikov observes. “Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe. According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the president’s refusal to engage in any modification of his policies.”
According to the New York Times opinion page (and more often than what passed for objective reporting) Reagan was also a threat to world stability. With the Berlin Wall demolished, enslaved nations set free and the capitalist system vindicated, the NYT and other media organizations that long sought to discredit the anti-communist cause ought to consider probing into perfidious exercises operating at odds with American interests.
Kevin Mooney is a contributing editor to NetRightDaily.com, and the Executive Editor of TimesCheck.com.
Reich's Bad Idea
By Adam Bitely
A terrible idea is being put forth by Robert Reich in regards to the Obama administration putting BP into temporary receivership in order to better control the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. This move would only be a recipe for disaster.
Reich offers five flimsy reasons why such a move would be necessary, but in doing so, forgets the obvious.
For instance, Reich states that "BP continues to be responsible primarily to its shareholders, not to the American public". Reich is correct. BP is responsible to its shareholders. And right now, those shareholders want BP to plug that gushing oil well as much as anyone else. It is with each passing day that BP stock loses value as the gusher continues to pollute the water. The stockholders have an interest themselves to make sure that BP is doing whatever is necessary to fix the problem.
Reich also fails to recognize that even with government in control of the situation, albeit through controlling BP's North American operations, that government officials will be as likely to solve this as the experts at BP currently. Reich makes an argument against a temporary receivership situation with his own admission that government officials lack the expertise to fix the gushing while noting that BP does have better minds in this field.
Keeping in mind the above, Reich argues that the government should have the authority to force BP to adopt a different strategy. But how could the government possibly know a better strategy when they openly admit they are void of the expertise in this field? The government, and Reich included, openly admit that BP is better suited to handle the fixes necessary to shut off the well.
This is a bad situation already and advocating for government receivership of BP will only make the situation worse. BP is responsible for shutting off the gushing well. Putting government bureaucrats in charge of BP will only lead to further accidents and will spread responsibility — and the inevitable failures of government — on the backs of the taxpayers.
Adam Bitely is the Executive Editor of the Liberty Features Syndicate for Americans for Limited Government.
Damning Admissions by White House on Sestak Job Offer
By Robert Romano
Apparently, Barack Obama learned nothing from Rod Blagojevich’s attempted sale of his own Illinois Senate seat. Perhaps this is just the Chicago way.
First, there was no offer at all, according to the Obama Administration, which denied that Joe Sestak’s charge that he had been offered a “high-ranking” presidential appointment in exchange for withdrawing from the Pennsylvania Senate race. Then, there were some conversations that had taken place, but they weren’t “problematic.” Now, an offer for an appointment was made, but it wasn’t high-ranking, it was only an “uncompensated” position on a Presidential advisory board.
And it was “fully consistent with the relevant law”.
Right.
There are, of course, many problems with the White House’s story. For example, unpaid roles on commissions, advisory boards, or the like in the Administration are not “high-ranking”. When asked by journalist Larry Kane the job offered was “high-ranking,” Sestak said yes. That indicates a senior position, such as Secretary, Assistant Secretary, or a Czarship or the like.
There are other problems with the cover story. Does anyone really believe that Congressman Sestak doesn’t know that an advisory panel is not “high-ranking”? Why would somebody give up being a Senator for six years in exchange for a seat on some advisory board? That seems like a rather poor deal to be offered.
Moreover, does anyone believe that the White House would make such a poor offer?
Finally, and most importantly, even if all Sestak was offered was an advisory panel — which is to be doubted based on Sestak’s statement confirming that it was a “high-ranking” job offered — it still violates the law.
According to 18 U.S.C. § 600, entitled “Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity”:
“Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”
A full year in prison and/or fined for selling a presidential appointment, whether directly or indirectly. Both former President Bill Clinton and top Obama advisor Rahm Emmanuel have already been implicated in this clear violation of law. But the authority had to come from somewhere. Only one person has the power to make a Presidential appointment, and that’s Barack Obama.
And whether a paid or unpaid post, the relevant statute is crystal clear, and much broader — it extends to any appointment or position, or any benefit at all.
The Legal Counsel has admitted that the White House engaged in “discussions of alternatives to the Senate campaign” and at least promised an appointment in exchange for Sestak pulling out of the race.
That is a damning admission by the White House. They’re opening statement on this matter has been to overtly admit to violating the law.
The White House even illuminates as to what the rationale for offering Sestak the appointment was: “The Democratic Party leadership had a legitimate interest in averting a divisive primary fight and a similarly legitimate concern about the Congressman vacating his seat in the House.” Obama may have had a perfectly political rationale for offering this job, but that does not change the clear language of the law.
Offering Joe Sestak anything of value, including an appointment, as a “reward for any political activity,” in this case to pull out of the Pennsylvania Senate, is against the law. It’s a bribe. Barack Obama is supposed to be enforcing the law, not making bribes.
This story is not going away. Eric Holder should appoint a special prosecutor, even if it is to look into his own boss. And the House of Representatives should be immediately launch investigations, including an ethics inquiry into Sestak, and subpoena every person thus far implicated in this case: Rahm Emmanuel, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama.
Robert Romano is the Senior Editor of ALG News Bureau.
.jpg)
Times Check: Times Hit Piece Against Rand Paul Recycles Unfounded Accusations
Times Hit Piece Against Rand Paul Recycles Unfounded Accusations
By Kevin Mooney
Despite his substantial win over the Republican establishment in the Kentucky primary, U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul operates well outside of the American mainstream and is therefore unelectable, according to the liberal news media. He is also a champion of the Tea Party movement and therefore also a racist, The New York Times informs readers in a front page hit piece that is short on facts and long on unfounded accusations.
Allegations of racism that have been directed against average Americans opposed to unconstitutional federal power grabs have been wearing thin for some time. Nevertheless, The New York Times remains convinced race can be used as a foil against the leading proponents of small government initiatives.
This is evident from a front page hit piece directed against Rand Paul, a Tea Party favorite, who prevailed in Kentucky’s Republican primary with about 60 percent of the vote. Although he would have ultimately voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, certain provisions of the legislation run counter to First Amendment freedoms, he has observed. Sensing vulnerability, The Times has pounced and is working overtime to put Paul and his libertarian supporters on defense.
Establishment Republicans who lost badly in Kentucky have been recruited here as part of an elaborate takedown effort that is not likely to abate anytime soon. Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell and other prominent party leaders had supported Secretary of State Trey Grayson who was overwhelmed by Tea Party activism.
While it’s perfectly appropriate to point out that Rand’s primary victory is a source of consternation for some party officials, no effort is made to balance out the reporting with commentary from Republicans who are more committed to limited government. Outgoing Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY), who has been sharply critical of McConnell’s leadership, has been speaking with the press recently and could have been used as a source to add a fresh perspective.
But the objective here is to close off debate and to delegitimize a candidacy that complicates the big government policy preferences of The Times. Even as the report concedes that Paul came down squarely on the side of 1964 bill, it proceeds to inform readers that he is probably unelectable in the Fall.
“Still, it was not clear that he [Paul] had quelled rising concerns among Republicans about his ability to win in the general election, especially given his libertarian views in favor of limiting the role government,” the report says.
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the No.2 Republican behind McConnell, is quoted here and suggests Paul deals too much in the realm of fanciful theories that would not translate into practical policies. The Times also has it on the “strong” authority of Democrats that some of Paul’s proposals fall “out-of-the mainstream.” Meanwhile, the Washington D.C. spending binge that Paul opposes is somehow mainstream.
The free speech explanation Paul gives for his stance on the civil rights bill is not dissimilar from the rationale the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other liberal pressure groups use to defend the rights of individuals and organizations who express hostility toward America. But somehow they do not wash here.
“While those views reflect the libertarian philosophy that Mr. Paul and many Tea Party members have embraced, they are politically treacherous for someone making an appeal to the electorate at large, as Mr. Paul learned as he struggled with questions about whether he thought the government had a role in regulating food safety and working conditions,” so says The New York Times as it asks loaded questions.
And how is it established that Paul is struggling after capturing a strong majority of his party’s vote?
The report also feigns outrage over Paul’s use of a country club as the location for his election night celebration as opposed to a less ostentatious setting. Clearly, this is someone the newspaper has learned to fear. This much time, effort and ink would not be spent on a candidate who was genuinely unelectable.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a long-time Republican media darling for The Times, was also called upon to explain his constitutional interpretation of the Commerce Clause as a way of demeaning the Paul candidacy.
“I just want to be on the record that I believe the Interstate Commerce Clause was properly used by the courts and the Congress to make sure that when you travel in this country you can’t be denied food and lodging based on your race,” the South Carolina Republican is quoted as saying.
The Times might have asked Graham how he squares his support for campaign finance regulations with the First Amendment. But expansive interpretations of constitutional freedoms are only in vogue where it suits the ideology and ambitions of liberal editors.
Kevin Mooney is the Executive Editor of Timescheck.com and a contributing editor to ALG News Bureau.
Hoyer Admits Budget Too Hard to Pass in Election Year
By Rick Manning
House Democrats plan to leave the country without a budget according to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer who stated, “It’s difficult to pass budgets in election years because they reflect what the [fiscal] status is.”
Now that’s courage, leadership and transparency.
It is stunning that the Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives has publicly admitted that the entire budgeting process of the United States government is being turned on its head, because it is politically hard.
Remember, the Democrats hold 59% of the seats in the House with a 255 to 176 advantage over the Republicans, yet it is too hard to put a budget together?
For perspective, consider election year 2002 when Speaker Dennis Hastert enjoyed a slender 222 to 211 advantage, yet our nation was not left without a budget.
The ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan, has called this decision, “an unprecedented failure to govern.”
I call it unprecedented cowardice and dereliction of duty.
If you look closely at what Hoyer’s statement reveals, you learn that the real reason behind the Democrats failure to do their jobs is that they are afraid if the voters find out what the nation’s true fiscal status is, they will be very, very angry at election time.
The Hoyer solution? Don’t pass a budget and hope that no one notices that the national debt is approaching catastrophic levels.
The House of Representatives and Senate are still going to spend money, they just aren’t going to put a budget down leaving the ultimate budgeting to the appropriators in Congress who have received so much notoriety for their penchant for earmarks and unbridled spending.
However, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out where spending is going in this last session of this Congress. It is going up – way, way up.
The graph at the right compiled by the Heritage Foundation shows that since the Democrats took the reins in 2007, the budget deficit has skyrocketed into heretofore unknown territories.
Yet, for purely political reasons, Pelosi and Hoyer have decided that rather than publicly pass a budget that they can be held accountable for, they would prefer to hide the overall totals from an angry American public in the hopes that they will not add fuel to the voter frustration that has led to the tea party movement.
Instead, by failing to perform their basic constitutional duties, Hoyer and his colleagues are trying to hide from the electorate the overall impact of their spending policies prior to what promises to be a strongly anti-incumbent election year, avoiding the tough choices that true leaders make for the good of the nation.
Like an armadillo rolling up into a ball when confronted by an enemy, Democratic leaders hope that when they emerge, the elections will be over and no one will have noticed that they failed to do their most basic duty. Hoyer and Pelosi make an interesting and instructive political calculation that the only way for them to hold onto power is to not do their jobs.
At a time when Americans are looking for leaders to move us through perhaps the most challenging time in our history, Steny and his crew are hoping no one notices that they are afraid to lead.
At a time when America needs courageous leaders more than ever, Hoyer rolls up in a ball and hides.
At a time when America demands transparency from their government, Hoyer doesn’t want the public to be able to figure out how taxpayer money is being spent.
In a little more than five months, the public will give the verdict of whether they want leaders or armadillos. It should be interesting.
Rick Manning is the Director of Communications for Americans for Limited Government, and the former Public Affairs Chief of Staff for the U.S. Department of Labor.
