Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Wednesday, March 31, 2010


This could be a very teachable moment for a University of Central Florida fraternity courtesy of Glenn Beck if this ends up being as it appears. On Saturday, March 27th at a Glenn Beck event in Orlando, 53 attendees had their cars towed from a parking lot they say they were led to with signs that read "Event Parking". When they returned to that lot, the signs - as well as their cars - were gone.

Courtesy of a news report by WFTV in Orlando, the lot belongs to the Kappa Sigma fraternity who, unlike the tow truck company's owner, was unavailable for comment. Kappa Sigma gave WFTV the name of someone with their fraternity to contact but he was apparently not doing interviews.
Dozens of people who parked at the University of Central Florida for an event say they were set up after their cars were towed. They said event parking signs directed them to a lot, but more than 50 cars in that lot were towed. People said those signs and their cars were gone when they got back.

A viewer contacted WFTV after his car was towed Saturday, along with 52 others. All of them were in line to recover their cars at an impound lot and all of them attended the Glenn Beck show at UCF.
Be sure to click here and watch the video of the news report. What doesn't appear to be known this point is the motive behind intentionally making people's lives miserable. Yes, fraternities don't need motives for most of what they do but if Kappa Sigma simply did it as a prank and had no political bias, that's bad but not nearly as inexcusable as it would be if they intentionally harmed these people because they're just angry liberals who hate Glenn Beck.

If this turns out to be a politically motivated act, Beck should shame the entire fraternity on national television. I'm not assigning guilt at this point but this kind of thing does fit the recent leftwing template of despicable behavior.

The similarities between what this appears to be and what Andrew Breitbart experienced at the recent Tea Party in Searchlight, NV are mildly uncanny. Like these 53 drivers at the Beck event, Breitbart discovered a man holding up a sign pointing people away from Searchlight. Breitbart also witnessed a gaggle of thugs throwing eggs at Tea Party buses who then called the cops, accusing Breitbart of throwing them. In the case of the 53, they appear to be similar victims. They were accused of unlawful behavior by virtue of having their cars towed. As was the case with Breitbart, the opposite is quite likely true.

h/t to Free Republic


MediaITE is usually a good place to gauge the sentiment of the more middle-of-the-road left and they're definitely more fair than the vast majority of leftwing sites but their take on this is way off base. Again, forget whether the incident was politically motivated and drop the conspiracy talk for a minute.

Someone - or some group - crossed the line between practical jokes and inflicting harm on people. They did so by intentionally deceiving a group of people unfamiliar with the area. If the cars had been towed to an adjacent lot at no monetary penalty to the owners, for a short time in order to freak them out for several minutes, it would be a practical joke. To direct people to a parking lot using signs and then have those cars towed at owner's expense crosses the line, regardless of motive.

However, MediaITE seems perfectly content to mock the people who had already shelled out substantial amounts of money to attend an event and blames them for following signs at a place with which they were likely unfamiliar. Instead, he finds fault with them for not looking for a person actually holding the sign, taking money.
Who could be behind this travesty? Did the towing company plant the signs for a few extra bucks? Was the fraternity in on it with him? Or was it even more sinister? Perhaps, some renegade liberals placed the signs so that Beck’s followers wouldn’t have the transportation to spread the dangerous Truths! Whatever the case, we’re sure everyone involved can fill dozens of chalkboards with their various conspiracy theories.

Just use this tragedy as a lesson: if you ever go to a big event like this and there’s isn’t a guy in a bright yellow jacket charging you ridiculous prices to park, chances are you’re parking illegally.
Once again, the victims are at fault.


And you thought Climategate was bad. When tens of thousands of emails implicating the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) went viral last November, the fraud that is man-made global warming was exposed - that is, everywhere except in American mainstream media outlets. The British media was all over it. Al Gore burrowed underground, like a gopher being chased by Bill Murray.

Now we learn thanks to emails obtained from NASA that CRU's American counterparts made East Anglia look like a beacon of facts and truth.

Via Fox News:
NASA was able to put a man on the moon, but the space agency can't tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA's temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data.

E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) -- the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails -- and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center.

The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA's data "was more accurate" than other climate-change data sets, NASA's Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said "the National Climatic Data Center's procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate," admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings.
Is it over-simplifying things to make the claim that NASA considered its records inferior to those of an outfit in Great Britain whose most notorious professor once used the phrase, "hide the decline" when referring to climate data?


h/t to Hot Air


Apple Computer has not only decided to boycott the Glenn Beck show but the entire network he works for. Conversely, they have decided to market at least one of their products - the iPhone - by featuring quotes from an infamous racist, hate-filled, murdering, marxist, who wanted to take down America. That's right. Glenn Beck is shunned as a pariah by Apple as Che Guevara is embraced and extolled as a virtuous historical figure.

Humberto Fontova at Big Journalism points out that, in true leftwing fashion, inconvenient facts are always avoided if they get in the way of an agenda. In this case, it's the Guevara quotes that fly in the face of the liberal paradigms that are missing from the iPhone.

Here are a couple of quotes attributed to Guevara that one will not find in the iPhone. Via Fontova:
The Negro is indolent and spends his money on frivolities and booze, whereas the European is forward-looking, organized and intelligent.

My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood… Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any surrendered enemy that falls in my hands! With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the triumphant proletariat with a bestial howl!
The left continues to lower the bar on itself. Each time it does, its staunchest advocates seem to get angrier. As they get angrier, they continue to project their own faults onto their opponents with ever increasing absurdity.

Read the whole thing.


Jason Mattera is quickly establishing himself as an incredible force when it comes to confronting politicians on their home turf and embarrassing the bejeepers out of them. In the past, he ambushed John Murtha, Charlie Rangel, and Ted Kennedy. Now, in conjunction with his book release, he is posting a plethora of his run-ins with a various sundry of other Senators and Representatives in which he challenges them on the absurd portions of the new health care law.

This one may be his best yet. He softens up Al Franken (D-MN) with a warm greeting and then challenges him on the portion of the language that covers the construction of jungle gyms.

It doesn't get any better than this.

h/t to Hot Air

Tuesday, March 30, 2010


While the Tea Party movement is smeared as a bunch of racists, Louis Farrakhan rambles on about how Barack Obama does not have the power people think he does, that the power which surrounds him is really in charge - Obama is merely governing "white affairs". Ah, those race-hustling poverty pimps are slick victimologists. It would seem they're hedging their bets when it comes to how successful Obama will be as a president by sowing the seeds of Obama the Victim.

Via New Zeal March 20th in Chicago, the day before Bart "Turncoat" Stupak changed his health care vote. Also note that the "other half" of Obama's brain, Valerie Jarrett was an invited panelist - she may or may not have been in attendance, I couldn't tell .

Is Valerie Jarrett being used too? Geesh.

For more videos of Farrakhan at the same event, go here.

Hmmmm. It would appear Louie has changed his tune since October, 2008...


Ah, the irony of it all. Some of Bill O'Reilly's best work as he confronts Sharpton about the latter's allegations that the "N" word was hurled at black congressmen John Lewis and Emanuel Cleaver on March 21st as they made their way to the Capitol through a crowd of Tea Party protesters. After making the claim, O'Reilly asks Sharpton what evidence he has. Sharpton claims he's seen the tape. Small problem.

There is no tape and O'Reilly calls him on it. Also worthy of note is that Lewis, Cleaver, and Jesse Jackson Jr. were all invited on the O'Reilly Factor program but declined, according to O'Reilly. Of all three, the absence of Jackson speaks volumes because he had a video camera in each hand, recording the entire time. There's apparently nothing on his recordings and since he was right there with Lewis and Cleaver, the fact that J.J.J. was recording video and can't back up any of these charges makes it even more damaging.

The whole interview is worth watching but if pressed for time, Sharpton exposed in a big way starting at the 4:00 mark. Sharpton lies, via Fox News.

Monday, March 29, 2010


On Saturday, March 27th, the Tea Party movement descended on Harry Reid's hometown of Searchlight, NV to protest. Subsequent to that, Andrew Breitbart was recorded on a phone conversation talking about how he confronted a man who was mis-directing people away from Searchlight. He also spoke about the Tea Party buses being hit with eggs and then later being approached by police after reports that he - Breitbart - actually threw the eggs.

Unlike the failure of Jesse Jackson Jr. and the countless other video recorders on-hand March 21st to verify the claims of Democrats John Lewis and Emanuel Cleaver, that they were the subjects of racial slurs and spitting, Breitbart makes his case with ONE camera.

Well, here's the video of the actual incident...

The phone conversation after this incident is also a must. More here.


When the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 this past January in favor of Citizens United against the FEC, Barack Obama didn't like it much. He voiced his displeasure directly at the Supreme Court Justices during the State of the Union. The argument that seemed to resonate with a majority of the public was that the ruling enabled big corporate interests, both foreign and domestic, to significantly alter elections.

That's not what this case was about........AT ALL. And there is a reason that Barack Obama is concerned. Politico reports that Obama is making campaign finance a huge issue this spring.
Aides say that with the momentum from the most complex domestic bill to pass Congress in 45 years, Obama now will push Congress to close campaign-finance loopholes opened by the Citizens United case…
People need to start asking why he is so concerned about this.

In any event, Obama's fight to render the Citizens United decision null and void took two significant blows on Friday. The New York Times reported:
WASHINGTON — Two federal courts here issued decisions on Friday addressing the impact of Citizens United, January’s big Supreme Court campaign finance ruling, on a new issue — whether the government may constitutionally restrict the size of contributions to groups that spend money to support political candidates.

One court said that individual contributions to advocacy groups known as 527s may not be limited. Another said that contributions to political parties can, though it said it was aware the resulting playing field might not be a level one.

Stephen M. Hoersting, a lawyer for the winning side in the first case, said the ruling represented a logical and welcome extension of Citizens United.

“The court affirmed,” Mr. Hoersting said in a statement, “that groups of passionate individuals, like billionaires — and corporations and unions after Citizens United — have the right to spend without limit to independently advocate for or against federal candidates.”
It would appear that the "loopholes" Obama is so concerned about closing seem to be getting closed without his help or intervention. Something else is afoot here. People need to step back and really take a look at why Mr. Obama might be so sensitive on this subject.

At the heart of the Citizens United case and why it was brought is a documentary film that was produced by a nonprofit organization which was subsequently not permitted to be advertised or marketed because of McCain Feingold. Citizens United produced a film called, Hillary: The Movie.

It was incredibly damaging to Hillary as her primary with Obama was starting to kick into gear in early 2008. With all of the baggage in Obama's past, a similar documentary about him could make Hillary look like a piker. Couple that with the fact that November 2010 has the makings of November 1994 on steroids. Obama is very concerned about groups like Citizens United tapping into that Tea Party anger and creating a buzz across the nation about a documentary that could do great political damage to not only Obama but to the entire Democratic party.

If Obama was so concerned about loopholes, he might look at those two decisions in New York on March 26th as evidence they're getting closed without him. I think it's safe to say he's not happy with either decision.

h/t to Special Guests


The man charged with threatening Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA) is named Norman LeBoon and he has apparently been making hundreds of YouTube videos that threaten various entities and individuals. He allegedly told the authorities he made over 2000. While the video "LeBoon" made threatening Cantor has understandably been removed, here is one that is still viewable. In it, "LeBoon" threatens YouTube employees and claims that YouTube belongs to him.

Very disturbed.

Via Michelle Malkin:


Republican whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) came out forcefully last week and singled out Democrat leaders for "fanning the flames" by exploiting threats to Democratic members of congress for political gain. To prove his point - remaining silent would have been worse - Cantor announced that a bullet had been shot into the window of his campaign office. His reason for doing so was to make it known that threats come with the job and are not directed at one party exclusively, as the Democratic leadership was implying.

The left actually decided to debunk Cantor's claims not by denying a bullet had entered his office through the window but by pointing to the police report, which said the angle of entry was from top, down. This apparently meant that someone shot a gun in the air and it happened to come down inside Cantor's office. How foolish of him to bring that up as an example.

Now we learn that a man has been arrested for posting a threat to Cantor and his family on YouTube. Take a look at how the extremely liberal Salon reports it:
Cantor made a real hash of it last week, but these kinds of things do show that he had at least a partial point: Though Democrats are now playing up the threats they've faced since passing healthcare reform, it's also true that politicians and other public figures have to deal with this stuff on a fairly regular basis, even without the anger from tea partiers.
Don't look now but could it be that even the leftwing bloggers are being forced to confront the stubborn truth? Not so fast. Note the implication in the last sentence. The left is bound and determined to make sure those darned Tea Partiers are guilty somehow.


Sunday, March 28, 2010


Set to the tune of, "You picked a fine time to leave me Lucille" this little ditty is quite a bit better in a few ways. Language warning as these two singers use the "R" word. They also explain why Obama is so mad at Rush Limbaugh, who won't cut the former any "slack". Be sure to watch all the way to the end as the two entertainers actually are able to laugh at themselves - unlike the subject of their song.

A must watch.....

h/t to New Zeal


If ever there was a debate that more clearly delineated the differences between two Republican candidates for Senate, it's this one with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. All through this campaign, Charlie Crist has been portrayed as the moderate candidate and Marco Rubio as the conservative one. This debate only serves to reinforce those notions. Frankly, I was surprised at how willing Charlie Crist was to entrench himself as a moderate Republican, esp. in this political climate.

For those who don't have time to watch the full 9+ minutes....

2:35 mark: Wallace challenges Crist on "the hug" between he and Obama over Crist's support of the Stimulus bill.

5:58 mark: Wallace references the only three Republican senators who voted for the Stimulus bill - Olympia Snowe (MN), Susan Collins (MN), and Arlen Specter (PA) - and then asks Crist if he'd have voted along with them if he was Senator. Shockingly, Crist says he would. This one should floor you.

7:40 mark: If you're a conservative in Florida and had any doubt who to vote for before this, it should be pretty clear after this. Wallace leads in by saying that Rubio identifies Jim DeMint (R-SC) as his favorite Senator (here, here). Conversely, Crist's favorite Senators are John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-NC). Wow.

Game, Set, Match..........Rubio.....Right?

Not so fast. Via Hot Air Pundit comes this video in which Crist seems to be dodging Wallace's questions about whether or not he would run as an Independent if he loses to Rubio:

Based on the fact that Crist is pointing to RINOs McCain and Graham as his Senatorial heroes, I am highly skeptical that he will run as an Independent when he loses to Rubio. I personally believe this is all pre-election banter designed to goad the other side. If Crist were to switch, it would create a lot of headaches for a Republican establishment that is more concerned with finding common ground, diffusing controversy, and appeasing its political opponents than it is in actually standing for something.

h/t to Patriots and Heroes


This is, WITHOUT QUESTION, a must-hear! Yes, it's 9 minutes long but it gives clear thinking people an inside look into what we're up against. Andrew Breitbart, the Glenn Beck of the internet, was on-hand in Searchlight, NV - Harry Reid's hometown - for the March 27th Tea Party, which turned out to be a huge success.

Billed as "The Conservatives' Woodstock", Breitbart via phone gives you a firsthand account of the tactics of an angry leftwing mob. Listen as he describes a man pointing people in the wrong direction, threats of bodily harm to him from individuals within the mob, and then almost laughably, the cops are called by members of the mob to arrest Breitbart for something members of the mob did - throwing eggs.

Literally unbelievable.

Folks, some may brush this off as fringe mobs but if true - I understand there is video evidence - it also means that Pallywood has come to America. See for yourself. Here is a short 2006 documentary by Richard Landes in which he dissects the raw footage of a 60 Minutes segment from 2000. It is jaw-dropping not only to watch the tactics of these Palestinians but even more so when you realize that these are the tactics being used by the left here in the U.S.A.

h/t to Gateway Pundit for the Breitbart audio.

Saturday, March 27, 2010


In Wisconsin, Governor Jim Doyle (D) - and huge Obamautomaton - has declined to approve the Attorney General's wish to jump on to the Individual mandate lawsuit bandwagon across the country, which is out to litigate the constitutionality of the health care bill. If there was nothing for Doyle to worry about, why take such a publicly partisan stance?

Now we have this in Pennsylvania.

Via Big Government:
In a response to Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett’s decision to join 13 other states in filing a lawsuit against the federal health care legislation, PA House Appropriations Chairman Dwight Evans threatened to “do whatever it takes” to thwart the AG’s efforts. Incensed, Evans even went so far as to say he would be willing to cut off all state appropriations to the Office of the Attorney General to prevent Corbett from fighting this legislation.
Check out this ironically hypocritical and laughable statement from Evans:
We are accountable to the voters of this state. He [Corbett] cannot think that he can do whatever he wants with taxpayer money. No one can protect him from being accountable.
Apparently, the fact that the overwhelming majority of the American people were slapped in the face with the passage of this bill is lost on Evans.

Hypocrisy aside, AG Corbett is already in the process of investigating House Democrats after securing a conviction against one of them. It would seem a bit of a bold move for Evans to get in Corbett's way at this point unless he was truly concerned about these pending lawsuits. There are already 13 filed and with the Governor in Wisconsin taking issue along with a state Representative in Pennsylvania, indications seem to be that the Democrat establishment is increasingly concerned at the prospects of these legal challenges to the health care monstrosity.

Read it all at BG


Quite the dilemma, isn't it. The IRS is beefing up its forces presumably to help enforce the new individual mandate that everyone have health insurance per the new bill. Considering that the law calls for penalties to be levied monthly, it would seem logical - despite the absurdity of the entire charade.

However, according to the Federal Joint Committee on Taxation, it appears there is no enforceable consequence for anyone who refuses to abide by the law.

Via Big Government, here is the relevant portion of the JCT report:
The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner.
At first blush, this appears to be a laughable omission. On second blush, it could put the extermination of the insurance industry on the fast track. The other portion of this bill is that no one with pre-existing conditions will be denied care.

Sounds like a prescription for extinction in the insurance world.

Read it all.

Friday, March 26, 2010


Chris Christie, unbeknownst to me, is known as "Governor Wrecking Ball" in some circles. He is also a guy who is making some extremely unpopular and tough, but necessary decisions. Look for New Jersey to be back in good shape before too long as Christie is turning off the spigot in a big way - including union pensions.

Via the Washington Times:
He has also taken on the widespread abuses that have contributed to soaring pension costs. On Monday, he signed his first bills into law, making major pension changes that result in less generous benefits for all government workers.

Most contentious have been his attacks on teachers and public-sector unions, which are getting a 7 percent pay raise over two years but contribute little or nothing toward health care at a time when one in 10 New Jerseyans are out of work. This week, the governor called on all public school employees to agree to salary freezes for the coming year and to contribute to their health insurance.
If only every Governor in the United States had the same set of stones.

h/t to Hot Air


The Seattle Times has reported that an out-of-control vandal has thrown a rock through the window of Representative Steve Driehaus (D-OH). Aside from also focusing exclusively on how Democrats are being victimized exclusively - they also reported as fact, that racial epithets were hurled at black congressmen as they walked to the Capitol on Saturday, the 20th despite strong evidence it never happened - Driehaus' office is on the 30th Floor!

According to the Lying Times:
A rock was thrown through the window of Driehaus' Cincinnati office Sunday, and a death threat was phoned in to his Washington office a day later, Mulvey said.
The Seattle Times neglected to mention the bullet shot through the window of Eric Cantor's (R-VA) campaign office, which actually has a police report.

Meanwhile, other sites would like to split hairs over the trajectory of the bullet that entered Cantor's office. How about taking a look at the trajectory of that rock that was allegedly thrown upward 30 stories?

h/t to Instapundit

Thursday, March 25, 2010


This time, Gibbs is tasked with explaining why it was necessary for Barack Obama to sign an Executive Order reaffirming one law while being in opposition to another law just signed. At some point, maybe we'll start feeling some sympathy for Gibbs who is increasingly being put in the position of defending increasingly absurd positions.

The only one who looks more foolish during this is somone who isn't even present - Bart Stupak, the man who sold his vote for that Executive Order.

h/t to Hot Air


There was a time when a politician being associated with someone like this would be so egregious, it would end his / her career. In these times, it goes largely ignored that not only does the President of the United States have these associations but they are increasingly voluminous.

Welcome to Jeremiah Wright's replacement. Jim Wallis is Barack Obama's spiritual advisor. He is also a marxist with some extremely twisted views on Biblical teachings, including wealth re-distribution and mandatory charity, which is just another way of advocating theft. I would love to hear Wallis' interpretation of the parable of the talents in Matthew 25. It's all about capitalism.

via Communists 4 Obama

h/t to Free Republic


When Representative Joe Sestak (D-PA) almost innocently stated during a television interview on February 18th that the White House offered him a job to drop out of his primary fight with incumbent Arlen Specter (D-PA), he couldn't possibly have known the can of worms he opened up.

Subsequent to this admission, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs feigned ignorance five times when asked about it. On the sixth time - March 16th - Gibbs attempted to brush off the entire controversy in two ways. One was to assert that the people he spoke to in the White House about the matter seemed to indicate that any discussions between the White House and Sestak were "not problematic". The second was to imply that whatever was said is in the past and that Sestak has indicated he just wants to focus on the primary.

The latter tactic is laughable because the only reason it's in the past is because Gibbs stonewalled for four weeks on five separate occasions. The former tactic may have him - and the White House by extension - in a bit of trouble. The CBS News website is reporting that the ranking Republican member of the House Oversight Committee, Darrell Issa (R-CA) is pressing on.
On March 10th, Issa sent a letter to White House lawyer Robert Bauer asking for details about communications between Sestak and the White House. In the letter, he pointed to statutes he said could have been violated if Sestak was offered a quid pro quo arrangement in which he would be given an administration job in exchange for leaving the race.

Issa said the move may have violated anti-bribery provisions of the federal criminal code as well as prohibitions on government officials interfering in elections and using federal jobs for a political purpose. Violation of each provision is punishable by up to one year in jail.

The White House did not respond to Issa's letter by its March 18 deadline.
Issa then sent a second letter to the White House after Gibbs' claims about conversations not being problematic. The reason? If Gibbs had conversations about a potential felony, then he may be gathering evidence in case that should be handled by a special prosecutor.
In the letter, Issa said that Gibbs' comments that he is "collecting direct evidence from witnesses" implies "that the White House is allowing its communications staff to carry out investigative tasks ordinarily conducted by legal professionals in the Counsel's office. Such slipshodness has all the makings of a cover up."
Stay tuned. This appears to be the real deal. However, there have been countless other examples since January, 2009 as well. In any case, Issa is likely to be watching Gibbs very closely. As long as the questions about Sestak's claims persist, Gibbs will likely continue to give Issa even more to work with.

Previous posts here and here.

h/t to Free Republic

Wednesday, March 24, 2010


Sent to me by Al Garza, founder of the Patriots Coaltion and former Executive Director of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. comes a movie trailer from the documentary, "Southern Exposure". As Americans are reeling from the signing of the health care monstrosity, it needs to be prepared for what's next - Amnesty. There is plenty out there to be outraged about so sorry to add this one to the list but the truth is the only thing that gives America a chance.

via Patriot's Coalition.


Jason Mattera does it again, this time confronting unhinged leftwing "kook" Alan Grayson (D-FL) as the latter leaves his office. Mattera has embarrassed several politicians on video but in this one he cites the portion of the health care bill that provides taxpayer dollars for the rehabilitation of native American child molesters, chapter and verse.

Grayson's defense of his own support for that language? Well, he calls Mattera a "kook". It's projection on steroids.

via Big Government


On the day Obama signed the Health care monstrosity into law, Representative John Dingell (D-MI) appeared on WJR Radio in Detroit. While making the argument in support of the bill, he said the administrative steps - bureaucracy - that need to be taken in order to "control the people" will take time.

Via Breitbart:

Just to remind us all who John Dingell really is, have a look at this video from August, in which he compared tea party / town hall protesters to the KKK.


The news broke on Saturday, March 20th that several black congressmen charged that Tea Party protesters hurled racial epithets at them as they walked toward the Capitol building. Two videos came out shortly thereafter - two different angles of the same incident - and neither showed evidence of anyone shouting N*****, as the congressmen alleged.

I blogged about the initial reports here. The charges came from John Lewis (D-GA), Andre Carson (D-IN), and Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) with Cleaver even charging that he was spat upon, though no police record existed and Cleaver said he didn't press charges. At the bottom of this post is an interview that Bill O'Reilly had with Dana Loesch, radio talk show host to discuss the incident. The video that O'Reilly played not only provided a third angle of the non-incident but it also showed Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) recording the entire thing on his personal video camera. I remember at the time asking, why isn't JJJ producing any evidence that the charges weren't made up?

Photo of JJJ via Gateway Pundit Be sure to look at the countless others they have posted that should blow the entire lid off of this blatant lie.

Hey JJJ, let's see what you got!

Now for the overwhelming evidence. Take a look at all of these video cameras along the entire path taken by the Congressmen.

9th Commandment: Thou Shalt not Bear False Witness

Video via Instapundit


Much ado has been made about how the American people haven't been listened to during the health care debate. However, not enough has been made of how they weren't listened to by their own supposed conservative leaders prior to the 2008 election. Doubly to Newt Gingrich's credit, he accurately portrays what's happening in America today and accepts a "mea culpa" for not listening to those voices that were warning political leaders about Obama.

To his discredit, he - along with so many others - didn't listen to people who knew the truth. There are many just like Gingrich who refused to believe the truth when so many were trying to tell him. John McCain was one of them and for that reason, he should not be re-elected.

via Gateway Pundit

During the 2008 campaign, John McCain insisted that Rev. Wright be off-limits. McCain was wrong in a big way.

Remember this in October, 2008?


There's social justice and then you have a Social Justice, which is a judge who makes rulings based solely on those types of considerations. In so doing, the potential exists to become what they claim to despise. Goodwin Liu is a law professor at Berkeley and has been recently nominated by Barack Obama to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Verum Serum uncovered a clip of Liu from a 2008 PBS documentary in which he was rather open about his views on how reparations should be handled. How big of him to concede that people alive today may not be "guilty" of being involved in the slave trade but should nonetheless still be held responsible, apparently based on their race. It would seem that Liu is advocating for whites to cede positions of power not because they've done anything to warrant such a penalty but because they should be responsible for making things right long before they were born.

More on Liu at National Review but as VS points out, a position on the Ninth Circuit may no longer be newsworthy - a sad statement in its own right - but there is speculation that Liu is being groomed for a nomination to the Supreme Court.

Resentment and grudges manifested in a Judge? No thanks.

via Verum Serum

By the way, when Liu speaks of leaders stepping down as a way to make things right, he reminded me so very much of Obama's diversity czar at the FCC, Mark Lloyd who said in 2005:

"We're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power."

Tuesday, March 23, 2010


The movie? Network. The line is so famous, it's almost become part of the American lexicon. It has never been more timely than it is today. In light of the pathetic programming / news fed to the American people via television and print media borders on criminal.

Tom Brady recently appealed to people to turn off their lights for one hour during the upcoming "earth hour". Perhaps during that hour, conservatives can stick their heads out the window for an hour.

h/t to New Zeal

Monday, March 22, 2010


Courtesy of Barack Obama's own words.... When Bart Stupak was voicing opposition to the Slaughter Solution, he was quoted as saying "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." The Slaughter Solution allowed the bill to be "deemed passed" but Stupak pointed to the countless House Bills still wallowing in the Senate - over 200 - as more than 200 reasons he didn't trust the Senate to take up the House fixes after Obama signed the Bill.

Yet, Stupak settled on relying on the signature / word of Barack Obama in the form of an Executive Order that we are led to believe supersedes the law being sent to Obama's desk. That makes Stupak either incredibly naive while also claiming to understand a very easy-to-understand cliche or complicit.

Based on this montage of Obama via Naked Emperor News, it should be more than apparent that Stupak is quite complicit in perpetrating this evil on the American people.

The American people are nowhere near as gullible as Stupak wants us to believe HE is.

h/t to Hot Air


The name Stupak is very quickly becoming synonymous with the worst kinds of attributes associated with man. It is becoming apparent that Bart Stupak has at best been a coward and at worst calculatingly deceptive for a very long time. He touts himself as a pro-life Democrat but sold his vote for an Executive Order signed by Barack Obama that does not supersede legislation signed by the President. In fact, Stupak has given Obama a way not to intervene when it comes to taxpayer funded abortions while maintaining that he's following the Constitution.

Here's where it gets beyond appalling. After Stupak pledged his support for the Bill, the Republicans filed a Motion to Recommit, which would essentially put Supak's abortion language in the Bill. It would serve to reinforce Obama's Executive Order. Not only does Stupak reject the Motion but he comes across as trashing his own Amendment.

Via The Hill:
Right now the best defense House leaders have against such a prospect is a colloquy that Stupak will hold on the House floor to publicly reaffirm that the executive order upholds the ban on federal funding of abortion.

“One of the reasons for the colloquy is to get it out there that, look, this is what it's doing,” Stupak said. “Not only do we have the President's order, the legislative body understands the same thing. We want to make it very clear.”
Now for Stupak's speech on the House Floor. Pay close attention after David Obey attempts to bring order and you can hear someone in the crowd shout, "Baby Killer". It may not be apparent right now how much Bart Stupak has sealed his fate in history as the worst kind of lying hypocrite, using abortion as his means, but he has done so in a very big way.

The day may be coming when calling someone a "Stupak" might be the worst kind of insult.

h/t to Gateway Pundit


Nearly four minutes of compelling video with the best part at the end, despite the theatrics in the middle. House minority leader John Boehner goes for the jugular and he finds it. After throwing down the gauntlet by asking the Democrats who voted for the health care bill if they've read it, the reconciliation bill, or the manager's amendments, Boehner shouts, "Hell No" multiple times in response to his own questions.

That prompts a laughably ridiculous admonition from the man presiding over the session, Rep. David Obey (D-WI), who tells both sides to respect the "dignity" of the House. Dignity of the House? That's its own punchline.

Then, at the end, Boehner challenges Pelosi and Obey to have every member cast their vote in person by standing in front of the entire House. Obey's response is actually more laughable than that crack about maintaining dignity.

via Breitbart

Sunday, March 21, 2010


If people thought Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson had it bad back home with his constituents after the "Cornhusker Kickback", just wait until Bart Stupak's constituents are heard. Actually, they're already being heard via a flood of donations going to Stupak's opponent, Daniel Benishek, who is a pro-life surgeon.

Via the Cypress Times:
Daniel Benishek is running for Congress against Bart Stupak. Since Stupak announced that he cut a deal with Barack Obama and will now support Health Care Reform, Benishek’s Facebook page has been on fire with well-wishes, and commitments of donations.
Be sure to check out Benishek's Facebook page, which is seeing quite a bit more visitors lately.

It would not surprise me in the least if Bart Stupak was Obama's ace in the hole all along. Perhaps he was hoping the he and his posse could stay on the sidelines and watch as 216 other Democrats made the difference. Maybe he even told Obama only to count on him as a last resort, that he didn't want to have to face his constituents as the man responsible for passing this health care monstrosity.

Based on the video of him at that town hall back in October, it's quite likely. Being the "ace in the hole" may just turn out to be worse for Stupak because as the leader of the alleged "pro-life" Democrats, he's not only the face of that bloc of House members but he's also the face of the deciding vote. Regardless of how wide the margin of victory will be for the House vote, it may as well be 216-215 with Stupak casting the final vote. He's cast himself as the person he so desperately wanted to avoid being.

The name Stupak could one day very soon become synonymous with the likes of Benedict Arnold, Woodrow Wilson, and Neville Chamberlain. Sleep well Bart, though you may need some medicinal help doing it. Don't worry, as a congressman, you'll have access to anything you need.

h/t to Free Republic


Look for Las Vegas to be taking bets on when Democrat Bart Stupak (D-MI) is going to have his Woodrow Wilson moment - the latter realizing what he had done to his country by convincing a then Democratic congress to pass the Federal Reserve Act. He reportedly told his closest friends and family, on his death bed that he had "betrayed his country". He is reported to have said this after realizing how much damage he had done. One look at the U.S. Dollar / Federal Reserve and it's quite clear that Wilson didn't know the half of it.

As it stands now, Bart Stupak could end up being the man responsible for thrusting his country into bankruptcy via government-run health care / takeover. As head of the pro-life Democrats and apparently the only obstacle standing in the way of Obama and Pelosi, Stupak appears to have sold his vote for an Executive Order signed by Barack Obama.
Under the agreement, President Barack Obama would sign an executive order ensuring that no federal funding will go to pay for abortion under the health reform plans. In addition, Stupak will get to state his concerns about abortion funding in the bill during a colloquy on the House floor during the debate.

And then, Stupak and several other Democratic holdouts over abortion will sign on to the bill, the sources said. The agreement would almost certainly give House Speaker Nancy Pelosi the 216 votes she needs to secure an historic health reform vote by day’s end — capping a yearlong drive to achieve Obama’s signature legislative goal.
What's amazing here is that it is laughable for Stupak to actually think he can trust any commitment made by Barack Obama. Perhaps Representative Paul Ryan put it best:
"That is not the rule of law. That's the rule of man. One man can sign an executive order and one man can repeal that again, the president of the United States," said Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. "So for those of us in the pro-life movement and the -- and my Democrat friends who are pro-life, that doesn't cut it. A executive order is not something that is permanent law."
The irony here is that this deal Stupak made will trump all of the other special deals - Cornhusker Kickback, Louisiana Purchase, et. al. - in its significance yet its intrinsic value, unlike all those special deals is less than $0 when you consider whose signature he's relying on. Something tells me that Stupak very well may know this EO is worth nothing. This video of him at a town hall in Cheboygan, MI this past October may indicate he's been looking for nothing more than a way to tell his constituents that he fought for pro-life, knowing full well, he did no such thing. Caught on video, admitting that he would vote for a bill that allowed taxpayer funded abortions if it came down to brass tacks.

Either Bart Stupak has deceived Americans into believing he is pro-life or he is allowing himself to be deceived in order to appease them. Regardless, his name very well could live in infamy in America's history books. Despicable is far too weak of a word to describe what he's done.

h/t to Gateway Pundit for the video.

Saturday, March 20, 2010


Doesn't get much lower than this. Representative John Lewis (D-GA) made a claim that as he was walking to the Capitol after a health care meeting, he repeatedly heard Tea Party protestors call him a N****. Fellow Congressman Andre Carson (D-IN) was with Lewis and backed up his claims saying he heard the word several times. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) made the same claims.

Here is the report.
Civil rights icon and veteran Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia, said anti-health care bill protesters Saturday repeatedly yelled the "N" word at him as he left a heath care meeting and walked to the Capitol.

"I haven't seen heard anything like this in more than 40 years, maybe 45." Lewis said. "Since the march from Selma to Montgomery really."

"Yeah, but it's okay," Lewis added. "I've faced this before. So, it reminded me of the 60's. There's a lot of downright hate and anger and people are just being downright mean."
Here is a report of Carson's claim. Here is a report on Clearver's claims. Small problem.

Video of the encounter has surfaced and no evidence verifying these claims exists.


h/t to Free Republic


As clear thinking citizens increasingly wonder how America can possibly recover from the Big Government takeover of health care and, by extension, the lives of every American citizen this video from the Republican Governor's Alliance focuses on one possibility - the reclaiming of states rights from the feds.

via the RGA

h/t to Hot Air


Representative Devin Nunes (R-CA) appeared on Glenn Beck's March 19th television show to discuss what's going on with the water supply for the San Joaquin valley being partially turned on in return for the votes of blue dog Democrats Jim Costa and Dennis Cardoza, congressmen whose districts are in that valley.

Not only does Nunes confirm that this deal is taking place but he compares the Obama administration with that of both Saddam Hussein and Robert Mugabe, two leaders who also withheld water from their people. Later in the interview, Beck gives Nunes a chance to clarify what he meant by such a comparison. Nunes only re-emphasized it. Someone please explain to me how this is not soft genocide.

For more background on the situation in the San Joaquin valley, click here.

Meanwhile, here's the video of the interview Beck had with Devin Nunes, via the latter's YouTube channel:

Friday, March 19, 2010


Is it possible that the health care votes of two congressmen in California could be bought with the promise to turn the water back on for farmers in their state?

This story began in December of 2008, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service became responsible for imposing water restrictions on farmers in the San Joaquin valley in California. The reason? To prevent harm to an endangered 2" fish known as the Delta Smelt.

Via the Wall Street Journal from September 9th, 2009:
The result has already been devastating for the state's farm economy. In the inland areas affected by the court-ordered water restrictions, the jobless rate has hit 14.3%, with some farming towns like Mendota seeing unemployment numbers near 40%. Statewide, the rate reached 11.6% in July, higher than it has been in 30 years. In August, 50 mayors from the San Joaquin Valley signed a letter asking President Obama to observe the impact of the draconian water rules firsthand.
The article also cites Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's attempt to get Obama to label the region a federal disaster area to no avail. Senator Dianne Feinstein didn't or was unable to get the Department of the Interior to turn the water back on either.

I found this excerpt from the Journal particularly disturbing. I fail to see it as anything other than soft genocide.
...the livelihoods of tens of thousands of humans are also at stake. If the Obama Administration wants to help, it can take up Governor Schwarzenegger's request that it revisit the two biological opinions that are hanging farmers and farm workers out to dry.
Ok, now let's bring this up to present day. Believe it or not, there is actually speculation - no doubt fueled by the high number of bribes for health care votes - via an article from Investor Business Daily:
The water spigots are back on, at least temporarily, in California's Central Valley. Turned off to protect a tiny fish, they happen to be in the districts of two congressmen "undecided" on health care reform.

One could chalk it up to good fortune or just good constituent service. But in the middle of a contentious health care debate marked by Cornhusker Kickbacks and Louisiana Purchases, we may be forgiven if we find an announcement by the Department of the Interior regarding California's water supply a tad too coincidental.
That would be the same Department of Interior that Schwarzenegger wouldn't approach and Feinstein promised to? Now we learn that the Dept. of the Interior has decided to move up such an announcement from March 22nd to March 16th, the week of the contentious health care vote? Why? The claim is that it was due to the "urging" of politicians, two of whom are House Democrats that have been listed as "undecided" on the health care vote. The other includes Feinstein, who has allegedly been pushing for this. The timing is very curious.
According to the Interior announcement, "Typically (the Bureau of) Reclamation would release the March allocation update around March 22nd, but moved up the announcement at the urging of Senators (Diane) Feinstein and (Barbara) Boxer, and Congressmen (Jim) Costa and (Dennis) Cardoza."

Blue Dog Democrats Costa, who represents California's 20th Congressional District (Fresno), and Cardoza, who represents the 18th (Stockton to Modesto), are both listed as "undecided" in the upcoming vote on health care reform, whether it be on the Senate bill itself or the "deem and pass" resolution known as the Slaughter rule, after Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter.
Both Costa and Cardoza were "undecided" this past December as well:
To get them out of the "undecided" column in last December's House vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership promised $500 million for a new University of California-Merced Medical School. Costa and Cardoza then voted "aye."
If this is what it appears it could be, the Obama administration has had the power or influence necessary to turn the water back on all along but didn't. It would also mean the Obama administration has been holding the threat of soft genocide over the heads of Americans.

Read it all.


These kinds of stories are disturbing on a multitude of levels. Ask yourself a simple question. Why would a source of oil much closer to the shores of country A be off limits to country A, which is already in dire economic straits, while country B, a traditional cold war enemy of country A be permitted to access that oil?

Country A is the United States and country B is Russia. Via the Washington Times:
The Obama administration is poised to ban offshore oil drilling on the outer continental shelf until 2012 or beyond. Meanwhile, Russia is making a bold strategic leap to begin drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. While the United States attempts to shift gears to alternative fuels to battle the purported evils of carbon emissions, Russia will erect oil derricks off the Cuban coast.

Offshore oil production makes economic sense. It creates jobs and helps fulfill America's vast energy needs. It contributes to the gross domestic product and does not increase the trade deficit. Higher oil supply helps keep a lid on rising prices, and greater American production gives the United States more influence over the global market.
The Op-ed goes on to explain how Obama wants the United States to shun oil and go green. As we all know, Obama's claims have been that going green is necessary to save planet earth from man-made climate change. If Obama is so concerned about Al Gore's earth saving mission, why would he not raise a stink about Russia not only refusing to get on board with that mission but slapping Al Gore and the United States in the face by doing it in the Gulf of Mexico?

In fact, the likes of Obama and Gore continue to reserve their anger and derision for their own citizens who disagree with them.

Read the whole thing.


On Mark Levin's March 18th radio show, he said that if the health care monstrosity passes on Sunday, his federal complaint will be filed the same day. At issue is the use of the Slaughter Solution to pass a major piece of legislation that will take over one sixth of the U.S. economy.

Named in the suit are none other than President Barack Obama, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Attorney General Eric Holder, and Health & Human Services Director Kathleen Sebelius.

At the heart of the suit is the Slaughter Solution or "deem and pass", which permitted House members to vote on a rule that allowed them to reconcile the Senate Bill while deeming that Bill as having passed. That Senate Bill would not have passed with an up or down vote for primarily two reasons:

1.) House Democrats opposed to it, like pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak could not take the Senate at its word that it would reconcile the bill after the fact.

2.) The Bill is so unpopular with the American people that many Democrats won't vote "yes" on it but many of those same Democrats would vote "yes" on a rule that deems the bill to have passed. They are trying to hide their vote.

Levin's biggest weapon in the lawsuit appears to be Article I, Section VII, Clause II of the U.S. Constitution:
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively.
The key part within that clause is obviously the mandate that each bill must pass both Houses via "yeas" and "nays". That is really the bedrock of Levin's proposed case.

Defendants and Obama administration apologists may mock the suit as something that is inspired by an angry serf with no chance of winning but a few things to remember.

The only reason this process has dragged on as long as it has is that the American people began standing up to Big Government in the form of Tea Parties and Town Halls. Talk radio and internet blogs have been hugely responsible for rallying the American people. They have created virtual communities consisting of people who haven't met but are on the same page. Levin is a very well known talk show host whose book, "Liberty and Tyranny" was a huge best seller and was #1 for 12 consecutive weeks.

If Obama care passes because of the Slaughter Solution, look for that same huge swath of Americans - already outraged and certain to be more outraged as a result of such a scenario - to rally behind Levin. Adding certain fuel to this will also be Levin's talk radio allies. Unlike Michael Savage who - love him or hate him - has seemingly alienated fellow talk show hosts with his style. Savage is incredibly smart, entertaining, and informative, often willing to say what many others won't but has been unable to rally big name talk radio hosts to his cause when he was banned from Britain for his speech. Personally, I don't think that's reason enough for people not to stand with him but it's an inescapable reality.

Unlike Savage, Levin's allies include the #1 and #2 talk show hosts in the country - Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. If this health care bill becomes the law of the land, I expect Levin's lawsuit to take center stage in the Tea Party movement. Look for bloggers and talk radio listeners to rally behind him in a big way.

In addition to being a legal and constitutional scholar, Levin also heads a law firm. For more on why Levin should be taken very seriously, check out this article from Jeffrey Lord at the American Spectator.

Read Levin's suit here.

Thursday, March 18, 2010


And you didn't think Biden could do worse than telling a man in a wheelchair to stand up. How about, in referring to a man's mother, saying "God rest her soul" when she's still among the living? Hold your breath and wait for MSM to cover it.

Be careful not to turn blue.


It would not surprise me in the least if Obama and his handlers are regretting the interview with Fox News' Bret Baier, who has always struck me as a serviceable news anchor. No more. After this interview, I have a newfound respect for him. The way he handled Obama in this interview was unmatched. He'd done his homework and was not intimidated by Obama's repeated attempts to limit the number of questions asked by delivering his trademark rambling answers.

One might argue that Bill O'Reilly challenged Obama in that noteworthy interview but what Baier lacked in theatrics he more than made up for in substance. Obama came across as angry and Baier as persistent yet courteous, often getting Obama to appear defensive and obviously uncomfortable answering questions that got to the heart of people's problems with this health care monstrosity. Baier also read from a Fox viewer's email asking why so much arm twisting. Obama's response? He didn't respond to it. Counting all of the questions Obama didn't answer is a tall order. Good luck trying.

Note early on how Obama claims he doesn't pay much attention to the procedural rules in the House or the Senate, that he only cares about voting for health care reform. Sounds to me like Alinsky's "ends justify the means" thinking.

This interview, start to finish, is a MUST SEE.

Part 1

Part 2

Wednesday, March 17, 2010


You know it's a bad gaffe when even the Associated Press won't take up for Obama. Then again, merely hinting at even remotely offering the slightest degree of tacit support for any position that declares to lower costs by 3000% is untenable. As Rush pointed out on March 16th, lowering expenses by 100% takes it down to $0. How on earth does one account for the remaining 2900%?

Via the AP:
Buyers, beware: President Barack Obama says his health care overhaul will lower premiums by double digits, but check the fine print.

Premiums are likely to keep going up even if the health care bill passes, experts say. If cost controls work as advertised, annual increases would level off with time. But don't look for a rollback. Instead, the main reason premiums would be more affordable is that new government tax credits would help millions of people who can't afford the cost now.
Maybe Obama meant to say premiums will go down by MINUS 3000%. Let's not split hairs.

In any event, watch how clueless the crowd behind Obama is. They actually cheer at having their costs cut by 3000%.

Look, I apologize in advance, but these people are literally morons.

h/t to Gateway Pundit


It's too easy to for the mind to wander after watching this and wherever it wanders ends up at a very unpleasant destination. Not only is the visual unappealing but watching her say it isn't any better. Then she had to pile on by declaring her entire life is a "whip operation". It doesn't help things to see far left socialist Jan Schakowsky standing behind Nancy.

You know you can't resist, though.


This is really starting to shape up to be a potentially very dangerous scandal for the Obama administration. Prior to March 16th, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was questioned five different times about Pennsylvania Democratic Senate candidate Joe Sestak's claim that the White House offered him a job to drop out of his primary race with Arlen Specter. In all five instances - February 23rd, March 1st, March 9th, March 11th, and March 12th - Gibbs said he had no information and wouldn't comment further, saying only that he would "get back" to the questioners.

Interestingly, on the sixth attempt by various members of the White House press corps. to pry an answer out of Gibbs, they got more than they had to that point. Interestingly, the man who received the longest answer yet from Gibbs was none other than progressive talk show host Bill Press.

Here is the relevant excerpt from the March 16th press briefing:
Q Robert, perhaps a sore point, but Congressman Darrell Issa has accused you, Robert Gibbs, of being part of a cover-up because you will not say whether the White House offered Joe Sestak a job for not running against Arlen Specter. Guilty or not guilty?

MR. GIBBS: Look, I’ve talked to several people in the White House; I’ve talked to people that have talked to others in the White House. I’m told that whatever conversations have been had are not problematic. I think Congressman Sestak has discussed that this is -- whatever happened is in the past, and he’s focused on his primary election.


Q Did the White House Counsel’s Office look into whether this was a crime --

MR. GIBBS: I’d refer you to my previous lines.

Q Sestak says he was offered something.

MR. GIBBS: I’ll refer you to what I just said a minute ago.
Note the key points here. First, Gibbs did not deny that Sestak was offered a job. Second, Gibbs claimed there was no wrongdoing relative to the matter, which could ultimately implicate Gibbs personally if he knows the opposite to be true. Lastly, note that tactic used by Gibbs. Although he doesn't say it explicitly, he insinuates quite clearly that the White House's stance is that whatever happened is old news and that Sestak wants to focus on the primary with Specter.

The problem with this should be obvious. Even though it's not even close to being old news based on the fact that it's still in the news and growing daily, if one were to assume that it were old news, Gibbs would be the one most responsible for it becoming old news because he never got back to anybody after being asked about the matter five times, starting in late February.

Gibbs' responses seemed to indicate that he was hoping the questions would fizzle out, allowing the White House to render it "old news" as the campaign office of another person of interest in this scandal, Andrew Romanoff was quoted as saying when asked by KHOW radio host Peter Boyles to go on record to refute similar claims he was offered a job to drop out of Colorado Senate race with Michael Bennet.

More at CNSNews

Tuesday, March 16, 2010


Remember that simmering controversy about Arlen Specter's primary opponent Joe Sestak making the claim that he was offered a job - presumably Secretary of the Navy - by the Obama administration in return for his dropping out of the race with Specter? The controversy now billed as "Jobsgate" is back thanks in large part to a short yet salient quote from none other than Arlen Specter and caught by Jeffrey Lord at the American Spectator.

That quote?

"There's a crime called misprision of a felony. Misprision of a felony is when you don't report a crime. So you're getting into pretty deep areas here in these considerations."

However, the episode with Sestak, in which he outwardly admitted to being offered a job by the White House in a recorded interview, is not the only one. As Lord points out, a similar scenario allegedly played out last September in Colorado:
September 27, 2009 -- The Denver Post reports that Obama White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina allegedly offered a job in the Obama administration to ex-Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff if Romanoff dropped his planned primary challenge to incumbent U.S. Senator Michael Bennet. Romanoff refuses comment and runs anyway.
One incidence may indicate an obscure anomaly. Two may indicate a trend, especially since the behavior of White House press Secretary seems to indicate there is absolutely no desire on the part of the Obama administration to explore the matter or answer questions relative to it. By the way, Lord has an extremely interesting take on why Gibbs may not be responding to these questions. Be sure to read the whole thing.

Peter Boyles of KHOW in Denver has been doggedly attempting to get Romanoff on his program with Lord in order to respond to these claims and clear the air. As Lord reports, Romanoff's office has gone into hiding on this story: Colorado, Democratic Senate candidate Romanoff is apparently now hiding under his bed. Denver's KHOW talk radio host Peter Boyles invites Romanoff on-air to discuss the Post story with me and find out exactly what Romanoff knows and when he knew it. Romanoff's campaign refuses the opportunity to let the public in on these behind-closed door dealings, saying the issue is "old news."
Again, taken by itself, perhaps it'd just be the stench of one dead fish that could be discreetly placed in the trash by the White House but when juxtaposed with Sestak's actual admission that a job was offered to him makes this story very important. That doesn't even take into consideration all of the back room deals - bribes - made or offered during the health care debate. Perhaps the likes of Ben Nelson in Nebraska and Mary Landrieu in Louisiana may have something to contribute in this regard.

Additionally, be sure to read Lord's piece and take note of all the transcripts he cites of Gibbs being asked about this bubbling scandal in which Gibbs repeatedly seems to plead the fifth. Coincidentally, the number of times Gibbs declined to respond was five as of this writing. Although that number is likely to climb.

In response to Romanoff's claim that the story is old news, Lord points to Specter's brief, yet stinging statement about it being a felony to remain silent when aware of a felony. If correct, there could be a significant number of people in the administration on the hook here.
Days after Romanoff dodges Boyles and myself, Senator Arlen Specter says that if anyone gets such an offer -- and in this case that would be Romanoff in Colorado and Sestak in Pennsylvania -- and didn't report it, they could go to jail for committing a felony.

Stunningly, this would presumably also include anyone on the Obama White House staff who knew one of their colleagues had offered such a job -- which is to say committed a crime -- and didn't report it.
Lord goes on to make some very viable comparisons between this scandal is being handled by the administration and how the Nixon administration handled Watergate before it blew completely open. In fact, if the health care bill goes down, Obama will have a lot of angry people he'll have to deal with, people currently in his camp. Jobsgate has all the early markings of a HUGE scandal.

Earlier post here.

The cast of characters who very well could be tied to this is long indeed. Chief of staff Emanuel, Deputy Chief of Staff Messina, Anita Dunn's husband Robert Bauer, White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs, and many more. Possibly many more than what it initially appears to be.

Again, read it all.


Whenever Aaron Klein writes something, I always make a point to read it because he's out in front of so many things. Today, he writes about Barack Obama's new pastor, Rev. Jim Wallis. Obama long ago racked up a long list of radicals he affiliated with and he still got elected. Here's another one.

Klein writes:
Wallis began his activism as a protester and then later Michigan leader of the Students for a Democratic Society, the 1960's antiwar group from which Bill Ayers' Weatherman domestic terrorist organization splintered.

Discover the Networks said that as a theology student, Wallis founded an anti-capitalism magazine called the Post-American, which identified wealth redistribution and government-managed economies as the keys to achieving "social justice."
A pastor tied to Bill Ayers? How can that be possible? Wallis also founded a magazine that has published the writings of other radicals, including the man who founded the brand of theology practiced by Jeremiah Wright:
Sojourners has published a slew of radicals, including socialist activist Cornel West and James Cone, considered the founder of Black Liberation Theology, which spawned the likes of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor of nearly 20 years.
Klein ends with a quote from Wallis when he appeared on MSNBC:
"The God of the Bible is the God of justice," he said. "Though the poor are in the center of God's concern... Poverty breaks the heart of God. And it breaks the heart of the church. So, this is about Christians who may disagree on politics. Republicans, Democrats, it doesn't matter. Left or right. We have different views on the role of government. Doesn't matter, But justice is integral to the gospel."
As Glenn Beck would likely say, Wallis doesn't seem to understand charity (unless it's with other people's money). I would love to hear Wallis' interpretation of the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25.

By the way, speaking of Glenn Beck, he claimed on his radio show to have the goods on Wallis. I think another Van Jones-type shoe is about ready to drop. The video below is five minutes but the relevant portion is the 2nd half.

Via the Right Scoop:

Glenn Beck to Jim Wallis: The Hammer is Coming
Uploaded by therightscoop. - Watch the latest news videos.

WND has Klein's entire piece.
Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Doug Ross
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
News Real
Pajamas Media
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive