Sunday, January 31, 2010

A Letter from Congress to Obama on Israel

Gary Fouse

Below is a letter signed by more than 50 members of Congress to President Obama asking him to address the issue of the protective wall that Israel has built to keep out terrorists (Hat tip to Investigative Project on Terrorism).

While giving lip service to Israeli concerns for safety against terrorists, they call for a lifting of a blockade that would prevent certain items like construction materials and fuel from entering into Gaza. I am not familiar with each and every name, but all the names I recognize are Democrats.

Below is a list of members of Congress who have received donations from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Read and compare the recipients with the signatories to the above letter.

-Source: Wall Street Journal/Market Watch

FROM the Senate:
Barbara Mikulski – D-MD
Paul Durbanes – D- MD
Debbie Stabenow – D-MI
Dick Durbin – D-IL
Kent Conrad – D- ND

From the House:
Joe Sestak – D-PA
John Conyers – D-MI (#4)
Keith Ellison – D-MN
Jesse Jackson, Jr. – D-IL (#6)
Danny Davis – D-IL
Gary Miller – R- CA
Loretta Sanchez – D-CA
Linda Sanchez – D-CA
Jan Schakowsky – D-IL
Gregory Meeks – D-NY
Albert Wynn – D-MD
Betty McCollum – D-MN
Lois Capps – D-CA
Bill Pascrell – D-NJ
Benjamin Cardin – D-MD
Elijah Cummings – D-MD
Gerry Connelly – D-VA
Anna Eshoo – D-CA
Bob Filner – D-CA
Wayne Gilchrest – R-MD
Mike Honda – D-CA
Dennis Kucinich – D-OH (#5)
Barbara Lee – D-CA (#7)
Zoe Lofgren – D-CA
John Dingell – D-MI (Tied #7 w/Lee)
James Moran – D-VA (#2)
Nick Rahall – D-WV (#1)
Charles Rangel – D-NY
Dutch Ruppersberger – D-MD
Pete Start – D-CA
Chris Van Hollen – D-MD
Andre Carson – D-IN
Shelia Jackson Lee – D-TX (#9)
Adam Schiff – D-CA
Mary Jo Kilroy – D-OH
Darrell Issa – D-CA (#3)
Carolyn Kilpatrick – D- MI (#8)
Jim McDerrmott – D-WA (#10)
Nancy Pelosi – D- CA

Numbers beside name are the top ten cash recipients.

Note that there are two Republicans on the list (Gary Miller-CA and Wayne Gilchrest-MD). In addition, Darrell Issa is incorrectly listed as a Democrat. The rest are Democrats. Do you detect a trend here?

Friday, January 29, 2010

Fort Hood Heroes Ignored at State of the Union: Checking the Facts of the SOTU

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

President Obama spent 1 hours and 10 minutes on the State of the Union. I understand that is the longest State of the Union our Union has ever endured.

He failed to mention the fact that our US Marines finished their mission and left Iraq last week. A colossal and unforgivable omission.

He assured us that our Military will be completely out of Iraq by the end of August 2010, but will they? I guess we can fact check that next January.

He did not mention the November 5, 2009 Fort Hood murders. Astonishingly, he did not introduce the two brave heroes who confronted and took down Nidal Hasan, as he brought down 13 soldiers and one unborn child. At least, going back to President Reagan, the First Lady's guests were always introduced. So they invited Officers Mark Todd and Kimberly Munley there for what...the pleasure of being in the same room with The One, and being graced with a seat next to the First Lady?

After 70 minutes, another 10 could have been spent applauding these courageous Americans, honoring them  thanking them for the lives of those spared because of their bravery; thanking Munley, just a petite, pony-tailed Sergeant, for rushing into the site of an Islamic killer's weapon. What was this President thinking?

He did not mention the attempts of the Christmas Day bomber. He did not mention that security alerts in Britain have elevated. He did not mention that Canada's airports are on high alert, and American airlines will not allow passengers boarding flights from Canada to the US to have carry-on baggage. He did not talk about the topic of the day: terror trials in the middle of New York City, and specifically the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammad. These are the state of our union.

This man's character is flawlessly egotistical, narcissistic, and boastful.

The AP skipped Obama's denigration of the Supreme Court decision to eliminate some campaign finance laws. He specifically complained that their ruling opens the door to foreign contributions, but Associate Justice Kennedy said the barrier to foreign campaign spending is outside the scope of the opinion. This from Politifact:

...the legal experts we spoke to after Obama's radio address said that the president was overstating the immediate impact of the opinion. They said Obama was correct that the ruling could open the door to foreign companies spending on American campaigns, given the general direction of the majority's opinion. But because the majority justices didn't actually strike down the existing barriers on foreign companies -- in fact, they explicitly wrote that it fell beyond the boundaries of their decision -- our experts agreed that Obama erred by suggesting that the issue is settled law. Until test cases proceed and further rulings are handed down, Obama's claim about foreign campaign spending is a reasonable interpretation, and nothing more.
The Associated Press fact checked 8 statements from the speech. Here is what they, and others had to say:

(1) Obama's important spending freeze beginning in 2011 - One lousy percent, my friends
AP THE FACTS: The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than 1 percent of the deficit — and that's if the president can persuade Congress to go along.
 Nevertheless, Charles Krauthammer says the spending freeze is a fraud:
[Paraphrased] What Obama doesn't tell you is that last year...they ratcheded up the spending for all departments astronomically, an average of about 20% - that's huge. Normal is usually 3% or 4%. Last year, the budget for the EPA was increased by 35%! See the video below, and thank you to The ConservativeXpress
 Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) says the true reduction is only "little more than one-half of 1 percent. PolitiFact's turth-o-meter says that is true.

If a "spending freeze" does come about, does mean the government will not be adding workers to their already bursting bureaucracy? What happens to "j-o-b-s."

(2) The Senate voted-down (56-43) a "debt commission" proposed by Obama to usurp the authority of Congress. The Commission would propose "unpopular remedies to reduce the debt." Once the Commission comes up with a proposal, Congress is mandated to vote on it. But, the Senate voted it down, so the President said he'll create an executive order to make it happen, but...apparently he can't make it happen. He tried to neuter Congress. This time he failed...but we still have the Czars.
AP THE FACTS: ... Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success.
(3) The President wants to continue with health care. He just needs Republicans to support what he wants. It's that simple.
AP THE FACTS: But Obama can't guarantee people won't see higher rates or fewer benefits in their existing plans. Because of elements such as new taxes on insurance companies, insurers could change what they offer or how much it costs. Moreover, Democrats have proposed a series of changes to the Medicare program for people 65 and older that would certainly pinch benefits enjoyed by some seniors. The Congressional Budget Office has predicted cuts for those enrolled in private Medicare Advantage plans.
What? The AP acknowledges what everyone else knows? Dang about time!

(4) The President said again he will restrict lobbyists. I'll admit that I don't know much about how lobbyists garner favor, other than hanging out on Capitol Hill and making it worthwhile for Congress to spend some time with them. I can't imagine why a lobbyist would ever be admitted to the White House, except for a Sunday afternoon tour with the family.

Obama said he would not hire lobbyists to work out of the White House, but of course, he did just that. He said he wants lobbyists to disclose every contact made with his administration or Congress...and he boasted of the White House Visitors log posted online. But those logs are not complete, not up-to-date, not up-to-snuff. And who knows that every contact is disclosed? Here's how the game is played: more and more lobbyists are simply not registering as Andy Stern.
AP THE FACTS: ...[to make this work] Congress would have to change the law, and that's unlikely to happen. And lobbyists already are subject to strict limits on political giving. Just like every other American, they're limited to giving $2,400 per election to federal candidates, with an overall ceiling of $115,500 every two years.
PolitiFact points out:
We found that the administration has granted waivers to several former lobbyists, allowing them to serve. The administration also allows recusals, where former lobbyists simply recuse themselves from discussions concerning whatever interest it is for which they used to lobby. The recusals have not been made public, and we don't know how many have been issued. (You can read more details on our ruling by scrolling down to our update of March 17, 2009.)

(5) Obama boasted of creating or saving 2 million jobs.
AP THE FACTS: The number was based on self-reporting by recipients and some of the calculations were shown to be in error...." [from the Congressional Budget Office) It is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package." 
(6) The President said he will continue to "do our work openly, and give our people the government they deserve."
AP THE FACTS: Obama skipped past a broken promise from his campaign — to have the negotiations for health care legislation broadcast on C-SPAN...Democrats in the White House and Congress have conducted the usual private negotiations, making multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders behind closed doors.
Nor has Obama lived up consistently to his pledge to ensure that legislation is posted online for five days before it's acted upon.
We knew the above. It's frightening to think what we do not know, like what does Andy Stern do in all those White House meetings? Heads-up Mr. President, we know we do not have the government we deserve.

(7) The United States and Russia are near reaching the "farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades."
AP THE FACTS: Despite insisting early last year that they would complete the negotiations in time to avoid expiration of the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in early December, the U.S. and Russia failed to do so.
One important sticking point: disagreement over including missile defense issues in a new accord.

If completed, the new deal may arguably be the farthest-reaching arms control treaty since the original 1991 agreement. An interim deal reached in 2002 did not include its own rules on verifying nuclear reductions. 
Barack Obama supports the United Nations Millennium Goal, which includes de-arming, not just de-nuclearize, the world. He will give away the farm if we let him.

(8) Obama claims that more al-Qaeda has been killed in his first year as President - hundreds of them - and "far more than in 2008.
AP THE FACTS: It is an impossible claim to verify. Neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has published enemy body counts, particularly those targeted by armed drones in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. The pace of drone attacks has increased dramatically in the last 18 months, according to congressional officials briefed on the secret program.
Feel free to add your own thoughts in comments about the State of the Union and the President's "facts."

Krauthammer on the Spending Freeze: Fact Checking Obama (video)

Obama's State of the Union Speech

Gary Fouse

President Obama's SOTU speech may have been a sign that state of the union speeches are not designed for great orators-which Obama apparently used to be. With few exceptions, it might as well have been Gerald Ford up there speaking. All in all, Obama's speech was technocratic, delving into such exotic items as the economy, jobs, and other minutia. I don't see this as an event that will turn Obama's fortunes around. I think within the next few days, it will drag his ratings down lower.

A couple of signs that the speech wasn't going to go well were when Harry Reid was caught on camera in the first ten minutes about to doze off. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) was also caught texting during the speech.

Off topic: If you ask me, that blue carpet on which the President walks down the aisle on his way to the podium should be renamed "Brownnoser Blvd."

And did you get a load of Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden? Memo to White House: Never put the president in front of those two characters. The TV audience had to have been distracted by those two clowns, Biden resplendent in his bright purple tie and Cheshire smile with Pelosi matching in her lavender dress and Cheshire smile. Actually, Pelosi wasn't there. Madame Tussaud sent over a wax effigy with strings attached to pull her up and down Howdy Doody style for the applause lines.

And where was Hillary?

Well, she was over at some conference in London telling the Yemeni government that they need to cut down on corruption. Add that to her list of "accomplishments".

And how many of you noticed as the camera scanned the audience how old and decrepit those faces were? I hate to sound partisan, but the worst were the Dems. Can we say "term limits"?

Remember a few days ago in Ohio when Obama said, "It's not about me"? Well, his speech last night was ALL about him. How many times did he use the words, "I", "me", "my"? How many times did he use the term "invest", which really means "spend"? Did he say something about a partial spending freeze? Yes, he did. How's that gonna work?

He also spoke out against earmarks. Has he forgotten those 9,000 or so that were in his stimulous package?

But the worst was when he called out the Supreme Court for their recent decision against McCain-Feingold. As he scolded them like school children, his Democrat minions stood and applauded while the justices sat silently and sullenly. Sam Alito was actually caught on camera, silently mouthing the words, "that's not right or "that's not true". Alito was apparently referring to Obama's statement that foreign corporations could now contribute unlimited funds into American elections-a totally false claim.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Or maybe Alito meant, "that's not right what you are doing to us".

Watch for this moment to be talked about nationally until Obama issues some sort of apology, which he should. On the other hand, the Dems are already lining up to condemn Alito. First out of the box is that horse's ass from Vermont, Patrick Leahy, who talked about "when justices stayed out of politics". For crying out loud, Alito didn't say anything. He winced and mouthed it to himself. What's next? Will we watch to see if his eyes contract? The point is that the President did something to my knowledge unprecedented. He castigated the Supreme Court in front of Congress and a national TV audience while they were sitting right there-and mis-characterized the decision to boot. He was wrong and should apologize to the entire court.

Off topic: Speaking of the Supreme Court, did you see Ruth Bader Ginsburg last night? Not looking well.

Obama really gave it a half-hearted effort when talking about the econonmy and jobs. Ditto for national security. While acknowledging that business is the biggest engine for creating jobs, he went right into what the government should do. The truth is that Obama's silly claim to have saved millions of jobs with his stimulus package is bogus. He created or saved GOVERNMENT jobs and did zilch for the private sector. But now he is calling for a JOBS BILL!! Along the way, of course, he attacked the banks, insurance companies, CEOs, and Wall Street. I didn't hear him say anything about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their misdeeds. Did he mention Barney Frank's name? No.

War on terror? We're going to leave Iraq. Nothing about sending top terrorists to New York for federal trials. Nothing about the Justice Department's decision to give the Detroit bomber an attorney and put him into a federal court.

And of course, he indirectly slapped George W Bush around by talking about how horrible things were when he came into office. Well, nothing's changed and he has been here a year now.

What was the classiest moment of the night? That would be when he gave the obligatory salute to the First Lady. Michelle graciously simply smiled and motioned for the crowd to sit down. Classy.

Quite unlike a former first lady I could name but won't. (You know who.)

And Chris Matthews said what????

Somebody please give that man a washcloth.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Obama's Ordinary, Banal, Empty State of the Union Address

by Maggie @ Maggie's Notebook

President Obama's first State of the Union address did little to address the the state of our Union. There is nothing in this speech that has not been said over and over and over, but plenty was left out.

Three of the most concerning events inside our our own country, and on our own soil, were not mentioned: Fort Hood Islamic murderer, the Christmas Day Underpants attempted bombing under the direction of Islamic murderers, and the coming New York terrorist trials of Islamic murderers. Not a single word about the reason we are in this long war. Not a single word about the jihad that has turned our world, and the lives of many, upside-down.

He did, however, say this:

We're working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science and education and innovation.
 Our US Marines pulled out of Iraq last week. In the face of their incredible sacrifices, he didn't give a single sentence to their service.

He did not mention that he and Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geither, paved the way for a flood of monetary support to Hamas. Had this brazen step aided the West's side on the War on Terror, we would hear the administration talking about it, but, of course, it provides aid and comfort to the enemy, and it is understood that if Americans know about it, they will be outraged about it.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano slept through his mundane, inane, lackluster attention to terrorism.

After only 16 lines into the speech, the President launched into the expected Bush assault, but...

After one year, the Obama administration has done nothing to address the reason for the housing bubble - the Democrat Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Obama voted for every piece of legislation that ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to loan money to millions who had no credit, had no down payment. It is one thing to enforce fair housing and lending laws. It is another to recklessly design and write them, as did Rep. Chris Dodd (D-CT), and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass), the muscle on the Senate Banking Committee.

After one year, the Obama administration has done nothing to address the reason for the housing bubble - the Democrat Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Obama voted for every piece of legislation that ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to loan money to millions who had no credit, had no down payment. It is one thing to enforce fair housing and lending laws. It is another to recklessly design and write them, as did Rep. Chris Dodd (D-CT), and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass), the muscle on the Senate Banking Committee.

After one year, the Obama administration has done nothing to address the reason for the housing bubble - the Democrat Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Obama voted for every piece of legislation that ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to loan money to millions who had no credit, had no down payment. It is one thing to enforce fair housing and lending laws. It is another to recklessly design and write them, as did Rep. Chris Dodd (D-CT), and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass), the muscle on the Senate Banking Committee.

As the frenzy for easy, senseless money diluted the housing supply, home prices soared. Nevermind that homes were outrageously priced. Homeowners moved into near-mansions. Nothing need for credit. They moved in as though they actually owned the home, but the truth is, the lender owned every penny of it. When times got tough, they moved out and left the properties behind. No skin off their noses...they were really only renting from the bank. After issuing $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt, Fannie and Freddie were done, bankrupt, disgraced...and taxpayers, once again bore the burden and bailed them out.

With the announcement of the bank bailouts, the stock market plunged. Employers began their layoffs, cut their purchasing and the race to the bottom of the mountain was fast and furious.

Then Barack Obama took the Oval Office and every businessman and woman understood their taxes would soar and their energy costs would skyrocket, just as the smug candidate-Obama promised they would while still on the campaign trail. There was no chance for revival of the growth of small business. Business owners have no faith in this administration, which believes if you are not dependent on his government, you are not American.

We were told that our Treasury would gain huge profits from the repayment of the TARP funds. In this speech, we learned he will be spending those profits, rather than paying down the deficit. Thirty billion, just the first of billions to be spent elsewhere, will now go to small community banks to enable them to loan to small businesses. The mission of TARP was to get money to the people. That didn't happen. Financial institutions, without an ounce of confidence in the President, horded the government money, and businesses languished. Now we're doing it all over again.

Reminiscent of his wife's words on the campaign trail, the President said "...I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight... " Michelle infamously said "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country." The problem, Barack and Michelle, is that throughout America's history, Americans have continually been hopeful about our future, continuously proud of our country. It isn't new or unusual for us. But today, we see your presidency as a dark, ominous cloud on our horizon. Mr. President, American is about to disburse that cloud.

Obama promised the elimination of capital gains taxes on small-business investment and a tax incentive for business to invest in their own operation. He also offers incentives for businesses to hire or raise wages. Do we hold our breathes? How many businesses will spend capital with the fog of cap-and-tax, and health care as we know it today, looming? How many will hire or give raises with no uncertain business on the horizon?

The stock market is plummeting as I write this morning, after the President's continued stubborn determination on Cap and Trade, under the guise of "passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill," (translation: following the lead of the UN's climate change policies). "Tough decisions," are awaiting Congress on "New off-shore areas for oil and gas development," but we have no reason to believe he is entertaining any development for drilling. So what are the tough decisions? He is not willing to even discuss drilling. Empty, space-filling rhetoric.

I nearly fell on the floor when this high-minded orator said this:
Third, we need to export more of our goods.

Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. So...
That is the statement of a simpleton. No mention of how he plans to unwind his Democrat Congress on Fair Trade.Take a quick look at the percentages of the pro-Fair Trade votes from Democrats as opposed to Republicans.

We are going to put people to work on a high-speed-rail, subsidized by every American taxpayer. Not a single self-sustaining rail system exists. While I like the idea of efficient rail of any kind, if private funding cannot make the system work, then we do not need it. Most of America lives in the middle of our country. We'll never see a dime of advantage, or boost to our quality of life from high-speed-rail, IF THE GOVERNMENT IS INVOLVED. Get the government out, other than land acquisition, and let private endeavors make rail profitable, or scrub the program, including those already in use today - including subway systems and Amtrak.

And again we endured claims about his policies that cannot be verified or substantiated. What can be verified is the administration's use of smoke-and-mirrors and slight-of-hand accounting practices. Disgraceful coming from the President of the United States.

And how astonishing is it that a President of the United States would admonish 5 Supreme Court Justices over a First Amendment ruling? Did you see Justice Alito shake his head, and mouth 'Not True?'  We know what Obama thinks about the First Amendment. We know what his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, thinks about the First Amendment. 

To end my thoughts on this platitudinous speech, we know the State of our Union. Our President does not.  We know our lives are threatened by Islam, while he coddles it in secret, ignores it in public. We know our military keeps the 'state of our union' free, although he disdains them. We know we have a President who cannot lift-up our Union, because he is committed to tearing it raise up a socialist, collectivist society, that in the end, America will have none of. As critics express their dismay that there was no optimism in this speech, be reminded that he said he is "hopeful" about our future. The question is, "hopeful" of what? His hopes, and the hopes of you and I, differ greatly.

See transcript of President Obama's State of the Union Speech here.

State Of The Nation

by Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

Book of Obama:  Chapter 10


e placed The Holy Suit and Tie once again upon His body, and ascended once again to the Dome.  There the assembled chapter of the Congress, the Holy Justices of the land, the members of the anointed Cabinet and guests from near and far sat awaiting His words.  Unlike the year before, He wasn't popular.  Every plan, every idea He had, was rejected by the people.

"We do not want your Cap and Trade, Health Care, or other Moonbat ideas.  Your bowing down to dictators, despots and tyrants around the world does not put us at ease You have apologized to everyone for all the supposed evils that we were suspected of doing.  You are getting ready to destroy our laws, by declaring the Holy Document invalid.  We have heard enough lies from you, your dogs Emanuel, Axelrod, Pelosi and Reid.  We've heard them all and we've learned a couple of things."

The Anointed One just smiled and then addressed the Nation:

short year ago I took office, but that is just a breeze in time.  Look back upon our Founding Fathers, our struggles during the Civil War, the Depression.  We did not flounder or despair.  Nor did we despair through out the struggles of the Civil Rights Movement.  And I will not despair now.

For I inherited a bad economy that was shaken to its core.  I opposed all of the bailouts done, for I saw the harm they will do.  My stimulus plan has created jobs in teaching, rescue, construction and other sectors.

We need Health Care now!  I demand Congress to pass.  Cap and Trade too.  Forget about the Holy Document.  There is too much to do.

I am a man of the people, representative of the Middle Class, My values are the same as yours.  I love this country so much I would never bad name it.  But we did wrong with the Muslim world, and other places too.  I said to them I am sorry, there is nothing you can do.

I said I would create jobs, and that I will do.  For every man and woman.  New industries, new factories, Red, White, Blue, and Green.  We must compete with China, Korea, and Germany too.  This we must excel in if we are going to continually survive.

I will eliminate the nukes of the world, starting with our own.  For did not the Great Reagan of old try to achieve this very goal.

People through out the land write to Me with their problems.  A businessman in Denver*, or in Philadelphia, a teacher in the city, the cop on the beat, a child who wants to know why Mommy and Daddy lost their jobs, another who just lost his home.  I read all their letters, I know all their problems, and I will solve them all.

I could go on all night, but that will do no good at all.  I promised you Hope and Change, and did not lie to you on that, for I am not President #43.

And after The Anointed One had finished His speech, His  followers were full of glee.  For they just knew that once again He had saved the day.

But from right across the river, from the city of Richmond in the land of Virginia, came a new prophet from the right.  Bob The Wise McDonnell.
The Prophet spoke of those with a job, how 1 in 10 lost theirs.
He spoke of the despair the nation felt, of how the economy  was gone.
He spoke of the need for smaller government, how The Anointed One did spend.
He said that the time for spending cuts and freezes were last year, not when your polling number has shown you have failed.

The Prophet McDonnell told the people that it isn't too late.
That the time has come to sit and wait,
So The Anointed One could not shove His agenda down our throats.

He told the assembled people and media the truth.
And our solutions aren't 1,000-page bills that no one has fully read,
After being crafted behind closed doors with special interests.
In fact, many of our proposals are available online at, and we welcome your ideas on Facebook and Twitter.

He told them this and more.
 And through it all, the world went on, the nation will endure.

The GOP got Teddy's seat, they can get more they will.
For the people have seen the truth, heard the lies and broken promises.
Unlike those on the left, the right will not just yell.
They are the ones, in Midterm years, come out in droves to vote.

Reid, Frank and Boxer, plus many more are running scared tonight.
For the GOP has the will, the drive and the clout,
To drive the Moonbats back into the dark.

We just have to wait for November to do it!

*  The President mentioned many people in his speech, but none by name, nor did he recognize any of them in the balcony (he only recognized his wife).  Could it be they are all named:  Ellie Light?

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Is Harry Reid Finished?

Gary Fouse

"He looks so peaceful."

"Yes. Almost as if he were asleep."

(Apologies to Henry Waxman for blocking out his haaandsome face.)

Let's be honest. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is not the most charismatic guy in the world. Far from it. When Reid walks into a room, the paint on the walls starts peeling, flowers die, babies cry and dogs growl. Even Nancy Pelosi cringes when Reid puts his arm around her.

Yet, this guy has risen to the top of the Senate. Just goes to prove that old adage about things that rise to the top.

Now, it looks like Reid is nearing the end of his Senate career and about to embark on his new career as a lobbyist. (You heard it here first.) Facing an election next fall, Reid's poll numbers show him some 30 points behind his Republican competitor-whoever that is. Hell, a recent poll even showed Reid lagging behind that other famous Nevada resident, O.J. Simpson, were he to declare his candidacy. (Just kidding.)

The fact is with Reid leading a Democratic majority and a far-left president in office, the public has finally realized what a shifty-deal-making goof Reid really is. The nation has spoken rather loudly and clearly on the subject of health reform, yet Reid is still scheming to ram this deal down our throats because-or rather- if he can. Hell, he's the parliamentary expert, he has the majority and if there's a way to do it, he's gonna do it, by golly. Buy off a couple of senators with sweetheart deals that apply only to their states? Let's do it (Louisiana-Nebraska). Change the procedure to get that 51 vote majority instead of that pesky 60-vote majority? (Reconciliation). Let's do it. What we have here is a deal-maker-and not much else.

Of course, ten months is a long time in the electoral process, and things could change between now and November. More deals could be made, ACORN could escape its, uh, legal predicament in Nevada, and thus, be freed up to uh, shall we say register enough people to vote for Reid, and voila! Another great victory for the Democrats. Hopefully, the sparsely-inhabited state of Nevada doesn't have enough cemeteries to produce enough voters for Reid. Of course, they could always round up all those guys on the Vegas streets who pass out porn flyers to passers-by. They could make the difference, you know.

But if things continue along their present trend, which I think they will, Harry Reid will take his deal-making skills to Washington's famed red-light district on K Street* come 2011, helping out his sons who are already DC lobbyists. (You didn't think he was going back to Searchlight, Nevada, did you?)

What, you say? He would have to wait two years or something like that, according to the law? Silly me. Reid will have to call himself a "consultant". Pardon my goof.

*K Street- Where many of Washington's lobby firms are located.

U.S. Treasury Funds Hamas

by Maggie @ Maggie's Notebook

If you have any doubt of this administration's Muslim sympathies, you can lose that right now. The U.S. Treasury has allowed the terrorist organization, Hamas, to begin receiving funds from around the world, by removing all names of Hamas terrorists from the International terror list, except one, Musa Abu Marzouk. This was an unnecessary action, as an international lawsuit to stop this was a considered possibility.

The original report came from Arutz Sheva, an Israeli online news site. So far, blogs are hot on the story, but a search of Google News reveals no main stream media, anywhere, reporting. Thanks to Infidels are Cool for the heads up.

You might remember that Barack Obama's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, printed Marzouk's Palestinian manifesto in his Sunday church bulletin on July 10, 2007. Marzouk was arrested at JFK airport in July 1995, and eventually evicted from the country. He is an American-educated Ph.D. with many aliases, among them: Moussa Abu Marzouk, Musa Abu Marzuq, and Musa Abu Marzook. He is believed to be operating out of Damascus, but was born in Gaza. Marzouk's terrorist connections are so obvious even Tim Geithner could not remove his name. How many American taxpayer dollars are streaming to Hamas bank accounts?

Here's the Israeli media's report. I hope you will read it all:

( The United States Treasury has taken all but one member of Hamas off the international list of terrorists, thus enabling funds from the European Union to enter Hamas-controlled Gaza.

It is an open secret that large sums of money from the EU flow into Gaza in the guise of humanitarian aid and salaries for officials, but are actually funneled into the coffers of Hamas, which controls Gaza with an iron grip. This method of transferring funds into terrorists' hands could have been blocked by an international lawsuit, but according to journalist Avi Tarango, the United States Treasury has made this impossible by removing all but one Hamas man – Deputy Chairman of the Political Bureau, Musa Abu Marzouk – from the list of international terrorists.

The updated terrorist list, published last week, takes up 443 pages. However, according to Tarango, who went over the list, none of the tens of thousands of people who form Hamas is mentioned – other than Abu Marzuk, who resides in Damascus. The terrorist list is meant for distribution in the world banking system, where the transfer of funds to anyone on the list is prohibited.

Cleared for Funding
Abu Marzouk is listed as having been born in Gaza on February 9, 1951, and as bearing an Egyptian passport with the number 92/664. “While branches of Hamas appear in the list under different names, such as 'The Students of Ayash,' 'The Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza,' 'The Iz A-Din El-Kassam Battalions,' the rest of Hamas's men do not appear on the list at all,” Tarango said.

"Musa Abu-Marzouk's presence on the list means that whoever tries to transfer money to him personally will be rejected by the world banking system and be accused of funding terrorism, but the transfer of funds to any other Hamas man will not arouse suspicion,” he explained.
According to published reports and other sources, the journalist said, the EU sends millions of Euros every month to cover the salaries of 77,000 employees of the Palestinian Authority and about 70,000 recipients of welfare aid in Gaza.

 “EU laws define Hamas as a terror organization and therefore the EU people need to verify on a name-by-name basis that none of the people receiving salaries and support is a terrorist,” Tarango said. “This is done by the EU's cash transfer mechanism, PEGASE, which verifies that none of the recipients of salaries are members of Hamas's police force or activists of the military wing of Hamas, by comparing the names as received from the PA treasury department with the list of international terror activists. However, since the newly-updated list contains no Hamas officials except for Marzouk, the European check will find nothing and the funds for Gaza salaries will be transferred in whole to the Gaza banks.” 
Others talking about the US Treasury and Gaza/Hamas:

The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report
Creeping Sharia
Weasel Zippers

Jeremiah Wright Publishes CAIR Founder's Manifesto

Sunday, January 24, 2010

New Jewish Blood Libel Making the Rounds-Now Haiti

Gary Fouse

The old Jewish blood libel is being resurrected by the enemies of Israel. The claim about Israeli military forces killing Palestinians in order to harvest their body parts is now being spread to Haiti. This is thanks to some loon named T. West, who heads a black solidarity group called Afri Synergy. West has produced a video warning Haitians that the Israeli rescue workers and doctors may try to steal the body parts of their loved ones. In the above video, you can watch and listen as West makes his charges-without any corroboration.

Nevertheless, the claim is gaining currency among those who hate Israel-and who hate Jews in general. One by one, they are pouncing on this. The Iranian-run English-language Press TV is running the story, which you can check out below. One of Press TV's "journalists" has been British radical and Muslim-convert Yvonne Ridley. I wonder if she subscribes to this latest pipe dream. I guess I will add this to all the previous questions I have posed to Ridley on this blog.§ionid=351020706

Then there is the anti-Semitic web-site La Voz de Aztlan, run out of Los Angeles by a couple of guys who think the US Southwest belongs to Mexico and who hate Jews in general. One of their so-called reporters accompanied George Galloway to Gaza last year with one of his Viva Palestina convoys. This hateful website is running with the story, showing West's video and adding their own "inside information".

"Already a reporter said that a medical container with human corneas was noticed at the IDF tent hospital."

- La voz de Aztlan

So my question would be who is the "reporter" who said this and who "noticed" this container, etc. Hell, the National Enquirer wouldn't even run a line like that without proof or some type of corroboration. You couldn't put a dog in the pound with that kind of evidence.

But while you are on the Aztlan site, I invite you to peruse the myriad of articles attacking Jews as people with or without any connection to Israel.

More serious than the accusation against the Israeli volunteers who are saving lives and giving medical aid to people in Haiti (something few if any of their enemies are doing, by the way) is the resurrection of an old anti-Jewish accusation that Jews were killing Christian children to use their blood in the making of matzo. It was a despicable lie that persevered for ages only out of Jew hatred. It is like the fictitious "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" story concocted by elements of tsarist Russia to convince people there was a worldwide Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world. This preposterous fraud, though long debunked, still has currency in the Middle East.

Now, in the middle of a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions, the anti-Semitic hate-mongers in the Middle East, Europe and America are coming out from under their rocks in an effort to discredit a heroic effort on the part of the Israelis.

It is beyond despicable.

Americans Prisoners Convert to Islam - Travel to Yemen

A group of Americans, converted to Islam in American prisons, are believed to have traveled to Yemen for study of the Arabic language. The group is officially known as the Yemen 36.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee reports that our American intelligence says they "have lost track" of some of the men, but believe they are in Yemen.

But what's especially outrageous about the Yemen 36 is the very real possibility that they were fed their poison by folks collecting government paychecks as Muslim chaplains.
Now we have the Yemen 36 who were radicalized inside American prisons. We let Muslim clerics inside our prisons and we pay them to radicalize. Are we nuts, or what? Now we must worry about these American men coming back into the country - but...intelligence has lost track of some of them! Do we know their Muslim names? Are they on a no-fly list?

Friday, January 22, 2010

UN Report on Global Warming-False

Gary Fouse

Remember that UN (IPCC) report on global warming that led to a Nobel Prize last year?


Well, guess what.

It turns out that now the IPCC is apologizing because a critical part of that report was bogus.

As in BOGUS.

In the report, the IPCC claimed that the Himalayan glaciers were melting at such a fast pace that by 2035, they would disappear. In that report, they relied on a telephone conversation with an Indian scientist who is disowning statements accredited to him in the report. In addition, they overestimated the size of the glaciers by a few hundred thousand square kilometers.

Oh, and that year 2035? Actually, it was a typo. What they really meant to say was 2350!!!

And here's the kicker. This was the report that resulted in these boobs getting a Nobel Prize!!

And Al Gore?

Unavailable for comment

But this gets even better. In the past week, I have posted about the head of the California Air Resources Board, radical environmentalist Mary D Nichols, who hired a guy named Hien Tran to do a study on the connection between diesel particulate matter in the air and premature deaths. Based on this guy's fraudulent study, California has passed a regulation that is forcing diesel truck owners to re-do their engines at a cost of thousands of dollars and jobs as well. Turns out Mr Tran had a false resume and holds a PHD from a diploma mill in London operated by a US fugitive on the lam for serial child molestation charges. Nichols kept that bit of info hidden from her colleagues on the board as they passed the new regulation.

So now, listen below as Nichols appears on a panel in September 2008 with none other than UN Environmental head Rajendra Pachauri, one of the major actors at Copenhagen, and who accepted the Nobel Prize on behalf of the IPCC. Listen as they dismiss global warming skeptics as "flat-earthers".

It's called "connecting the dots". Two frauds, who have now been linked to phony studies, sitting together and calling skeptics, "flat-earthers".

UN's Rajendra Pachauri-You be the judge.

Still believe in global warming?


"Gary Fouse is a Pathetic 'Shabbos Goy'"

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse

George Galloway and friends in Gaza

That is the comment I received from "Anonymous" this morning in response to my latest posting on a Zionist Organization of America press release on the George Galloway/Viva Palestina controversy.

I have to confess that I did not understand what the term meant, so I asked a couple of Jewish friends during the day and learned this:

A "Goy" is a Gentile, which I already knew. A "Shabbos Goy" is a Gentile who is hired by Orthodox Jews during the Sabbath to perform certain every day duties that Orthodox Jews are not supposed to do, such as turning electrical appliances on and off. It is a Yiddish term and to Jews is not offensive.

If I get Mr/Ms. Anonymous' bent, however, I would infer that this person is accusing me of being a Gentile tool of Jews because I am criticizing George Galloway, Viva Palestina, defending Israel and speaking out against anti-Semitism. If that is what "Anonymous" is implying, then I wear the label with pride.

In fact, I am grateful to "Anonymous" for making my point-namely that there is an anti-Semitic (Jewish) angle to all the Israel-bashing that goes on. My feud with Galloway began on May 21 of last year when he appeared at UC-Irvine and solicited funds for Viva Palestina to put together convoys to deliver supplies and who knows what else to the Hamas government that runs Gaza. These deliveries have caused demands for the Department of Justice to investigate Galloway's fund-raising in the US in support of a terrorist organization (Hamas). On May 21, Galloway called me a liar when I recounted pro-Palestinian rallies in the US that featured demonstrators yelling things like, "Long Live Hitler" and "Jews back to the ovens". Galloway made a fool out of himself because these incidents are well documented on YouTube and can be found on this blog as well as many others.

The pro-Palestinian lobby in the US, which is made up of Middle-Eastern activists and professors who have joined arms with far-left activists and professors, insists that they are not anti-Semitic-only anti-Zionist. For some that may be true, but for many others, it is merely a semantic game. Make no mistake; there is a strong anti-Jewish element present.

George Galloway strongly denies that he is anti-Jewish. I will take him at his word on that because I have no information to the contrary. Yet, he is firmly allied with forces that are anti-Jewish. Hamas itself is anti-Jewish. If you don't believe me, read their charter. On one of the past Viva Palestina convoys to Gaza, Galloway was accompanied by a "reporter" from the viciously anti-Jewish web site "La Voz de Aztlan", a radical site based in Los Angeles. This handful of Latino radicals has two basic issues; the Southwest US should revert to Mexico and Jews are evil and the cause of countless problems in the world. The anti-Semitic articles in the website go way beyond the issue of Israel; they attack Jews as people.

They have also attacked me in the web page of the UC-Irvine newspaper, New University.

I, of course, have raised the connection between Galloway, Viva Palestina and La Voz de Aztlan both on this blog and the UC-Irvine campus newspaper. I have listed the anti-Jewish articles that this toxic website has published. They are there and speak for themselves.

Now comes "Anonymous" with his/her statement that I am a "pathetic Shabbos Goy". Does this statement make me angry or defensive? Hardly. That is because the statement proves my point about why I got involved in all this controversy to begin with a few years ago. I stand against anti-Semitism and will not stand idly by when anti-Semitic voices come to my campus and spread their hateful poison. It has to be exposed because history shows us where this sentiment can lead.

So to "Anonymous", I say thank you for confirming my argument. You are not the first "Anonymous" to come to my site and make anti-Jewish statements, and you will not be the last. I note, however, that you and your like-minded thinkers have all chosen to remain anonymous rather than attach your name to your beliefs-as I always do. That means only one thing; you are cowards. Yet, I cannot blame you. If I had beliefs like you, I wouldn't sign my name either.

Dems will Fight for Health Care: Rahm emanuel Stripping Down the Bill

by Maggie @ Maggie’s Notebook

Yesterday, Senator Max Baucus said there is "no way health cre is dead...we will find a way to pass it."

Below the fold in a Politico article dated today, it was reported that Rahm Emanuel was hunkered-down, working on a stripped-down version of health care, in the hopes of forcing Republicans to vote. Friends, this is the Chicago-machine we're dealing with. It's not over till it's over. Update 1-22-10: Rush Limbaugh is reporting right now, that the reconciliation option, needing only 51 votes to pass health care, is on the table. Dems will be spending the next 4 or 5 days trying to figure out a way to get the legislation through.

From Politico 1-21-10:

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said, “No way is it dead, because it’s so important for the country. And we will find a way to pass [it].”
From Politico 1-22-10:
Emanuel, for his part, is now pushing for a stripped-down health care bill that could be passed within a few weeks and force Republicans, for a change, to take a few tough votes.
Can Rahm Emanuel resurrect a stripped-down version of ObamaKare, and foist it on us - the incredibly naive public who thinks the legislation is dead, done and over?

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

The Awakening!

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

Book of Obama Chapter 9

All through the first year of The Anointed One the people of the land did grumble.
"You are spending too much!"
"Increasing the debt!"
"The jobs are gone, make more!"
"The banks will fail again!"
"The car companies will fail!"
And did The Anointed One listen to the people of the land?  No He did not.  For He was told by Pelosi the Loud and Reid the Inept that they can do what they want, for the people will forget.

So while all through the Summer of Discord,. while tempers ran wild, The Anointed One just plowed forward with His own New Deal.

"We will push it through Congress!" The Anointed One shouted to His staff.  "We will force this on the people."  And the Progressives did laugh.

"We will change the nation, turn it into Europe-lite.  By the time We are finished, those idiots in the street will not be able to change it back."

"For Nanny is the name of the New Welfare Plan.  Total Cradle to Grave, We will do to them as well.  I know best, that everyone can see.  My way is the Right Way.  That is what I say it will be!"

All through the summer and into the fall, the warning signs were there for all to see, but The Anointed One became blinded to the truth.

He ignored the disaster of the Olympics, how His city of Chicago was turned down.  Or when He went to campaign for Virginia and Jersey of New, He couldn't turn those races around.

He put on the tears for the victims of Fort Hood, but refused to call it terror.
He ignored the Christmas bomber, it upset His plans for golf and fun that week.
But when His friend's son received a boo-boo, He ran back as fast as He could.
He partied day and night in the warm Hawaiin sands.

But on the eve of His first year anniversary.  He has received the worst news.
The Fiefdom of the Kennedy's:  Massachusetts has left the color blue.
The Fiefdom that old Joe the Bootlegger bought for his own son.  A piece of land that was the birthplace of the progressive slant.
The land of Harvard (the school The Anointed One attended.), of Barney the Frank and Kerry the Swiftboater, plus other illustrious names.
The Fiefdom of John the Martyr and Teddy the Lecher, both of Camalot fame, did hold court.  Those names plus Tips, remained true in count.

Yet of the day before the anniversary of the anointing by John of Roberts, the Holy Chief of Justice, where He was endowed with the Mantle of Power, did the news break unto HimHis party just lost the Fiefdom of Massachusetts, and may never get it back.

There goes the New Deal for the Nation.  The Nanny must go!  The people have turned against us.  Our seats will be given to another.  The people have spoken in Massachusetts, a Fiefdom so blue it was nearly black.  The Kennedys don't run this Fiefdom any more.  The people have taken it back!

"We are fed up with your nanny, spending and lies.  You promised us openness on C-SPAN!  You said no smoke-filled rooms, transparency.  Yet you haven't delivered these.  What we want is good government.  Lower taxes, more jobs, less waste, less debt.  We didn't get that.  We want to feel safe when we fly.  Yet we don't feel safer too.  You treat those who cause harm to us like the common criminal.  Giving them rights they are not entitled to, setting them upon our shore.

For all these reasons and more, we have chosen our new champion Brown of the Body Politic.  He is our champion.  He is our Redeemer!"

The Anointed One reeled in horror.  He was the chosen.  He wore the Mantle of Power.  He was the one they had to worship.  He would see to it that the people would have this nanny nation to live on.

But it is too late for the false Messiah He has become, His oration will fail.  For the people of the nation have awakened.  Now they will just count the days to the next election where they can correct the mistake they made in 08!

Dedicated to the late Roger W. Gardner of Radarsite.  Massachusetts was his home state!

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Keith Olbermann's Tirade Against Scott Brown-This is News?

by Gary Fouse

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Keith Olbermann of MSNBC outdid himself last night in his diatribe against Scott Brown. This is what passes for political analysis on MSNBC. Sensing that the Massachusetts election is going to go against his personal wishes, this so-called news analyst goes off on a tirade against the Republican candidate, Scott Brown, calling him everything but a genocidal axe-murderer.

How is it that Olbermann hangs the "racist" label on Brown? What is that based on? He says that Brown condones violence against women-specifically Martha Coakley when a supporter in a crowd makes a crude reference to doing to Coakley what was done to a rape victim that didn't get justice under the reigning Massachusetts attorney general. Brown was clearly caught off guard by the comment and said, "we can do this". Was it a reference to the comment from the crowd or a continuence of his thought that we can defeat Coakley? A fair-minded observer might have a hard time deciding. Not Keith. Olbermann chooses his own interpretation just as he chooses his own interpretation on Brown's comment about Obama's mother giving birth at a young age. In both cases, Olbermann has seized on sound bites in which Brown was not making his own point but responding to someone else's point, perhaps not in the most eloquent way.

My point is that for Olbermann to go off on a tirade and hang all these labels on Brown is clearly irresponsible journalism at its worst. This is no news analyst. This is a vicious propagandist pushing his own agenda.

Wasn't it interesting that last night, Olbermann made two short speeches under the heading "comment"? Olbermann's entire show, night after night after night is a comment-opinion as opposed to fact. Yes, Sean Hannity's show on Fox is opinion-based, but at least Hannity has on opposing voices and is willing to debate
issues. Olbermann's schtick is clearly not debating, just getting like-minded folks on his show and attacking, attacking, attacking.

Quite appropriately, Joe Scarborough, on his own MSNBC morning show, condemned Olbermann's remarks. In my view, Scarborough should leave MSNBC to the mad-hatters.

Speaking of which, what did the other mad-hatters have to say in the last 24 hours about this election?

David Shuster asks whether Massachusetts voters have lost their minds.

Chris Matthews asks whether the birthplace of American democracy will be the death bed of health care-not government health care-just health care.

Ed Schultz said that he would "cheat to keep those bastards out of office".

I will close here because it is poll-closing time, and I am going to watch the coverage on MSNBC. Olbermann, Maddow and Matthews are clearly down-cast and Olbermann has opened his show tonight by saying,

"It doesn't look good."

It doesn't look good for whom, Keith-you?

Whatever happened to those guys named Huntley and Brinkley?

MLK a Republican? Civil Rights in spite of Democrats

by Maggie @ Maggie's Notebook

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s life was celebrated across our nation this week. Mostly the celebration is Democrats patting themselves on the back for getting the civil rights acts through those mean-ole Republicans. The discussion of civil rights is always with us in America, and in spite of the lies and intimations of Harry Reid and our current pumpkin patch of Democrats, Republicans played a huge role in bringing about the Civil Rights acts that were far too long in coming - but nevertheless, did come because of the tireless and emotional work of some key Republicans. Here is the story:

Originally published at GrizzlyGroundswell by Maggie M. Thornton

In the wake of yet another Harry Reid “inartful” comment, and MLK’s niece saying Reid is “sadly outrageous,” the Grand Old Partisan reminds us that Martin Luther King voted for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for president in 1956 and over the next ten years, Republicans were emotionally and politically active in bringing civil rights into being. Does it matter? And what does that have to do with Harry’s “inartful” words?

It matters. It matters because Black leaders, like Jesse Jackson say things like:
“Leadership cannot just go along to get along. Leadership must meet the moral challenge of the day.”
But there is never a discussion of the definition of “moral challenge.” One party sees it one way and the other party sees it another way, and the “other party,” Republicans, never seem to get it right in the eyes of most Black Americans.

This is a time to acknowledge the truth: Conservatives cannot say that our President speaks English well, and also speaks “Negro” well. But Harry Reid can. And when he says it, the President calls it a compliment.

One year after Eisenhower was elected, his Vice President, the much maligned Richard Nixon, presided over the Senate and was a staunch supporter of those opposing filibuster on the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

I’m quite frankly sick of Democrats claiming to be the champions of Black America. No one political party should be champion of anyone. Everyone is equal. That’s the proper argument, but the very fiber of the Democrat party and the powerful Black Caucus, think they are saviors, and a large block of Democrat voters see it the same.

Let’s look at some of the facts behind the civil rights acts. They are not what the Left would have you believe. In the discussion of civil rights history, how often do you hear the names of Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois? Not often. How often do you hear the name Democrat Senator Robert Byrd in connection to civil rights? Not often, but for very different reasons. Dirksen was a champion for civil rights. Robert Byrd was not. But you do hear the name of Senator Strom Thurmond disparaged when civil rights are on the table, but readers, he was a Democrat in those days – and most people do not know that.

An agenda can be identified by what is NOT being said. The names of Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Everett Dirksen and the many Republicans who fought for, and/or voted for the bill, are never uttered. Neither is it mentioned that Republicans voted for the civil rights bill in a greater percentage than did Democrats.

As President of the Senate, Nixon witnessed Democrat Senator Strom Thurmond (yes, he was a Democrat before he was a Republican) and his single-man filibuster to prohibit Black voting rights…a filibuster which went for 24 hours and 18 minutes straight on the Senate floor. Republicans helped end it.

In the Civil Rights Act of 1964 here’s how the vote counting went down [Source Diane Alden Newsmax]:
Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time. Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it.
Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Alden describes the importance of conservative Senator Everett Dirksen to civil rights:
He was the master key to victory for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without him and the Republican vote, theAct would have been dead in the water for years to come. LBJ and Humphrey knew that without Dirksen the Civil Rights Act was going nowhere.
Dirksen became a tireless supporter, suffering bouts of ill health because of his efforts in behalf of crafting and passing the Civil Rights Act. Nonetheless, Sen. Dirksen suffered the same fate as many Republicans and conservatives do today.
Even though Dirksen had an exemplary voting record in support of bills furthering the cause of African-Americans, activist groups in Illinois did not support Dirksen for re-election to the Senate in 1962.
Believing that Dirksen could be forced into voting for the Civil Rights Act, they demonstrated and picketed and there were threats by CORE to continue demonstrations and violence against Dirksen’s offices in Illinois. James Farmer of CORE stated that “people will march en masse to the post offices there to file handwritten letters” in protest.
Dirksen blew it off in a statement typical of him: “When the day comes that picketing, distress, duress, and coercion can push me from the rock of conviction, that is the day that I shall gather up my togs and walk out of here and say that my usefulness in the Senate has come to an end.”
Dirksen began the tactical arrangements for passage of the bill. He organized Republican support by choosing floor captains for each of the bill’s seven sections.
The Republican “swing” votes were from rural states without racial problems and so were uncommitted. The floor captains and Dirksen himself created an imperative for these rural Republicans to vote in favor of cloture on filibuster and then for the Act itself.
As they worked through objections to the bill, Dirksen explained his goal as “first, to get a bill; second, to get an acceptable bill; third, to get a workable bill; and, finally, to get an equitable bill.”
In any event, there were still 52 days of filibuster and five negotiation sessions. Senators Dirksen and Humphrey, and Attorney General Robert Kennedy agreed to propose a “clean bill” as a substitute for H. R. 7152. Senators Dirksen, Mansfield, Humphrey and Kuchel would cosponsor the substitute.
This agreement did not mean the end of the filibuster, but it did provide Dirksen with a compromise measure, which was crucial to obtain the support of the “swing” Republicans.
On June 17, the Senate voted by a 76 to 18 margin to adopt the bipartisan substitute worked out by Dirksen in his office in May and to give the bill its third reading. Two days later, the Senate passed the bill by a 73 to 27 roll call vote. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats held firm and voted against passage.
In all, the 1964 civil rights debate had lasted a total of 83 days, slightly over 730 hours, and had taken up almost 3,000 pages in the Congressional Record.
On May 19, Dirksen called a press conference told the gathering about the moral need for a civil rights bill. On June 10, 1964, with all 100 senators present, Dirksen rose from his seat to address the Senate. By this time he was very ill from the killing work he had put in on getting the bill passed. In a voice reflecting his fatigue, he still spoke from the heart…[and ended with "it must not be stayed or denied."
Lest it get lost in the discussion, is this important question to Senator Dirksen and his answer:
After the civil rights bill was passed, Dirksen was asked why he had done it. What could possibly be in it for him given the fact that the African-Americans in his own state had not voted for him? Why should he champion a bill that would be in their interest? Why should he offer himself as a crusader in this cause?
Dirksen's reply speaks well for the man, for Republicans and for conservatives like him: "I am involved in mankind, and whatever the skin, we are all included in mankind."
On July 2, 1964, the legislation was signed into law by President Johnson - thanks to Republicans in great part.

President Eisenhower appointed prominent Blacks to prominent and important jobs in his administration, and other administrations followed: J. Ernest Wilkens to Assistant Secretary of Labor, Scovel Richardson as Chairman of the U.S. Board of Parole, Charles Mahoney as the first Black full delegate to the U.N. from the U.S., Clifton R. Wharton as Minister to Rumania and George M. Johnson and J. Ernest Wilkens as members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

President Nixon put the "bite" in affirmative action with his revised "Philadelphia Plan," where it was mandated that minority workers in the construction industry be hired.
In other words, not until the Nixon administration did "affirmative action" begin to become synonymous with "civil rights."...
Nixon's civil rights enforcement budget for fiscal 1973 represented an eight-fold increase over Johnson's for fiscal 1969. Enforcement funds for fiscal 1974 doubled those of 1972 with the EEOC budget increasing from $20.8 million to $43 million and the budget for the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department increasing from $10.7 million to $17.9 million....
The Nixon administration 1)desegregated southern schools; 2) significantly increased funding for the enforcement of both group and individual civil rights; 3) achieved court approval of goals in hiring practices rather than quotas; and 4) clearly transformed the power and responsibility for civil rights to a court-enforced approach based on recommendations of permanent government affirmative agencies within the executive branch.
I find this comment especially interesting and well put, from Mountain State University:
Nixon remains the only modern president whose personality, rhetoric, and image can be used with impunity to dismiss or ignore his concrete achievements, especially in the area of expanding civil rights enforcement in particular, and domestic reform in general.
Johnson had a long history of voting with the South against civil rights, and prior to 1957, he voted 100% with the South, including voting against the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960.
After the Civil Rights Acts, the southern Dixicrats who opposed civil rights, dissolved and most returned to the Democrat party, although if you listen to Democrat rhetoric you would think all Dixicrats became Republicans. Some did, but most did not, and to name a few that did not: Richard Russel, Mendell Rivers, William Fulbright, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore, Sr., the father of former Vice President Al Gore.
William Fulbright was the left of the Left, stauch apologist for Stalin, and mentor of the first Black president, Bill Clinton. Fulbright was a Dixicrat and a life-long Democrat. This week we've learned that in 2008 when Hillary was running against Obama, Bill Clinton, fresh from Harlem, quipped to Ted Kennedy "a few years ago, this guy [Obama] would have been getting us coffee.”
It is time for America to wake up and smell the coffee. Conservatives are not the enemy of Blacks. Democrats may be.
The following is a portion of commentary from Paul Weyrich at Newsmax in 2004:
Prior to 1936, those Blacks who could vote generally supported Republican Presidential candidates. The GOP was the party of Abraham Lincoln, after all. Even Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal failed to completely break the bond between Blacks and the GOP. Ike received strong support from Black voters in 1952 and 1956. Then came the 1960 election. John F. Kennedy, no strong civil rights crusader before and even during most of his presidency, did make a special and emotional appeal to the Black community by telephoning Coretta Scott King after her husband, the Rev. Martin Luther King, had been jailed. It worked, helping him to carry a majority of black votes.
Republicans in the 87th Congress were determined to get the Black vote back in the GOP column. It was they, under the leadership of Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-Il.), who drafted a very extensive Civil Rights Bill. They didn’t have the votes to pass the bill and there were some in the Republican Party, such as Sen. Karl Mundt (R-SD), who opposed it.
Still, word was out in the Black community that the Republicans were looking after them. President Kennedy, who contrary to current mythology was not a popular President, worried that the Black vote might return to the GOP. In a close re-election, which he anticipated would be the case, that would be fatal to his chances. So he quickly introduced an alternative bill that some analysts at the time said was not as potent as the Republican bill. No doubt that was an effort to win over some Democrats who were not enthusiastic about the legislation.
It is easy to forget, with the disciplined leftwing Democrat caucus in the current Senate in the 108th Congress, that not only were there Southern Democrats back then who opposed the kind of legislation that Kennedy proposed but such Northerners as Frank Lausche (D-OH.), Alan Bible (D-NV), and Mike Monroney (D-OK), were not enthusiastic about it either.
As Senator, John F. Kennedy had opportunities to vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1957, but instead voted to send it to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Instead, the vote happened and it passed with the help of Republicans, even if the bill was not all it could have been. After becoming president, JFK introduced no new civil rights proposals.
So in 2008 we have Senator Harry Reid exclaiming that Obama can speak English well and he can speak “Negro” well, and Black leaders are not at all upset. It is not just Harry Reid that is “outrageous.” The Black leadership is the embodiment of “outrageous.”
My friend and fellow-blogger, namaste, is a Black American blogging at My Voice on Wings of Change. She said this of the Reid comment:
As for saying Obama is “light-skinned” with no “negro dialect?” So what? He spoke the truth. Political correctness is for LIARS. I suppose this is a painful reminder to the world that the maority of blacks are undereducated and many, including Obama, including the highly intelligent and well-read, prefer to speak in a vernacular of street slang and broken English when they are in each other’s company.
Ah, but we just cannot tell the truth can we? Is it fair to say that some Blacks might sound differently from other Blacks? Of course it is fair, but only if a Democrat says it. Is it fair to say that some Whites might sound differently from other Whites? Of course it is fair, but who cares? The point is, a Democrat White has privileges that a Republican White does not have when it comes to race, and when it comes to pop culture – or maybe the privilege is simply that they can be rude and we cannot. But how is it rude if it is the truth?
It is not okay for a White Republican to say that our President speaks English well, and also speaks “Negro” well. That’s just a fact that cannot be denied, and it is sadly outrageous that our President tells us Harry Reid’s comment was complimentary. Had Mitch McConnell said it, it would not have been complimentary. Enough of the smurf-talk out of the Oval Office.

H/T to Grand Old Partisian and Infidel Bloggers Alliance

Read Michelle Malkin's post on MLK. Here's a teaser:
Hey, who knew Dr. King's dream was for his children to one day be dependent on government from cradle to grave for everything from their health care to college tuition to mortgage payments?

Monday, January 18, 2010

Ayaan Hirsi Ali-"Infidel"

by Gary Fouse

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

For those of you who have never heard of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, it behooves you to learn about her. She is truly a remarkable person. I have just finished reading her autobiography, "Infidel". It is a book everybody should read.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is originally a Somali who grew up as a Muslim in Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Kenya and Ethiopia. She lived through the civil war in Somalia and experienced female circumcision as a young girl. (Female circumcision is not practiced by all Muslim societies. It is mostly found in certain regions of Africa.)

She also grew up experiencing doubts about the restrictions placed on her by her religion, restrictions which she occasionally violated.

Eventually, Ayaan's father arranged a marriage for her with a Somali man who was living in Canada, a marriage she wanted no part of. While en route to Canada, Ali got on a train in Germany and proceeded alone to The Netherlands, where she became a refugee. In The Netherlands, she educated herself and eventually became a Dutch citizen while hiding from her family, and, when they found her, resisting their pleas to return to the family fold and accept her marriage.

All during these years in The Netherlands, Ali was astounded at the openness and tolerance of the Dutch authorities and people toward immigrants. She was also surprised at how so many Muslim immigrants seemed so ungrateful toward the Dutch and unwilling to assimilate. She also criticized the Dutch for being too tolerant and simply allowing immigrants to live in their own ghettos and continue their old traditions and customs-including in the case of certain groups, "honor killings" and forced female circumcision.

Ali was in The Netherlands on September 11, 2001 and was profoundly affected by the slaughter. She eventually came to the conclusion that there was no God, and renounced Islam. As she began to speak out publicly, it caused a furor not only with her family, but also among Muslims in The Netherlands and other European countries. Death threats began to pour in. During this same period, Ali was elected to the Dutch Parliament in January 2003. One of the efforts she led was to try and get the government to keep statistics on the number of "honor-killings" that were taking place in the country, which they were not doing. The government agreed to try it on a pilot basis in two police regions out of the twenty-five total. In those two regions between October 2004 and May 2005, eleven Muslim girls were killed by their families for reasons of "honor".

At a certain point, the threats became too real. The tipping point was in 2004, when she collaborated with Dutch film maker Theo Van Gogh to make a short film called "Submission", which was critical of Islam's treatment of women. It had become Ayaan's driving mission in life to publicize the plight of Muslim women, especially those who had been subjected to forced female circumcision and "honor-killings", practices that were now taking place not only in Africa and the Middle East, but within Muslim communities in Europe as well.

The film caused a firestorm within Europe's Muslim communities. The same year, a Moroccan immigrant in Amsterdam shot and stabbed van Gogh to death as he rode his bike on a public street. Before he was arrested, he pinned a threatening note to Ali on the knife and left it in Van Gogh's chest. As a result, Ayaan was taken into protective custody and off into a series of safe houses, both in The Netherlands and the US.

Eventually, the Dutch government moved to strip her of her citizenship on grounds that she had falsely filled out her application papers for asylum, which she had always admitted so as to keep her family from finding her. Eventually, she resigned from Parliament and left The Netherlands.

Today, Ali still lives in the West, but still with death threats hanging over her head. Her family has renounced her. What is the lesson to be learned from Ali's story? There are many, but as Ali has stated herself, it is Western ideas of tolerance that have allowed Muslim girls and women to be victimized within their own families and communities. The Dutch and other Europeans have thought that they were showing their tolerance by allowing immigrants to live in their own communities and according to their own traditions. Yet this same "tolerance" was allowing innocent girls and women to having their rights violated-rights that are guaranteed by Western laws and constitutions. This is unacceptable. Every human being who resides in the West-including the US-should be protected from these practices. There can be no exceptions in the name of freedom of religion or political correctness. So called "honor-killings" have no place under our laws nor forced female circumcisions. Immigrants who choose to come to the West must be under no illusions that we will turn a blind eye to these practices. They must understand that we have laws that protect women-and homosexuals as well from persecutiuon and violence.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a hero who has placed her very life on the line to speak her beliefs and tell her story. We must stand behind her. Who knows? Maybe someday, she will be remembered as another Martin Luther King.