I'll be guest-hosting for The Secretary of Logic / Logic Czar on Memorial Day, May 31st from 9am-Noon EST from Studio L. On the agenda is the latest on the BP Oil disaster, ACORN Whistleblower Anita Moncrief's new revelations on stealth socialism, Immigration in Arizona (and Texas), and the scandal involving Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Sestak. Joining us at 10:15am EST will be Jeffrey Lord of the American Spectator.
Lord has been following "Jobsgate" since it began. He will, no doubt, provide additional insight into this scandal. I'll be sure to get his take on the exchange between Darrell Issa and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell on Fox News Sunday.
Oh, we'll also be discussing another interesting Obama administration stonewall that involves Pennsylvania - The Black Panthers case.
To listen to the show LIVE, click HERE at 9am EST or go directly to Lynn's website.
You can also stream LIVE on 1400 KTEM by clicking HERE.
Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA), ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform squared off against Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell (D) on Fox News Sunday over the position offered to Rep. Joe Sestak (D) to drop out of his primary race with Arlen Specter. Rendell actually admitting that he'd done the same thing may get the most play but I thought what he said at the end of this exchange was the most absurd.
Rendell actually said, "I think Barack Obama has brought a new level of ethical standards to Washington. Has he changed some basic, hard-knuckle politics? No. You need hard-knuckle politics to succeed."
Pond scum.
Be sure to watch the entire exchange because Issa lands some heavy blows. I think Issa deserves entry into the same category as Chris Christie and Jan Brewer as politicians who are actually willing to lead.
I know it's almost laughable to think about but at some point, even the blind Obamautomaton left in this country has got to wake up to their being utterly snowed by this act. After the BP rig explosion, we learned that Obama was BP's largest recipient of campaign money. Now it's learned that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is quite cozy with BP's main PR firm - Greenberg Quinlan Rosner.
Mark Hemingway at the Washington Examiner also links to an article from the Chicago Tribune from February 24, 2009 in which it was reported that Emanuel was living in a D.C. apartment owned by the firm's Stanley Greenberg, who also happens to be married to a Democratic Representative from Connecticut, Rosa DeLauro.
From the Tribune piece last year:
WASHINGTON— White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel's Washington lodging arrangements, a rent-free basement room in a Capitol Hill home owned by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn) and her pollster husband, have inspired debate among tax experts and in Republican-leaning parts of the blogosphere.
One issue is whether Emanuel, who served in the House with DeLauro until early January, should have listed the room either as a gift or as income on his congressional financial disclosure forms. Emanuel's disclosure filings contain no mention of his use of the room.
A murkier question is whether Emanuel has a tax liability for the arrangement. The matter may have particular sensitivity in the early days of an Obama administration in which at least four picks for high posts have had confirmations delayed or derailed by tax irregularities.
A further complexity involves DeLauro's husband, Stan Greenberg, an old friend of Emanuel's whose firm had done polling work for an Emanuel campaign committee and for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which Emanuel headed in 2005 and 2006.
After putting Obama's receipt of so much BP campaign cash and Emanuel's cozy rent-free relationship with the head of BP's PR firm in the context of this rig explosion, we have quite the subplot developing. It's interesting that the longer this oil flow continues, the more connected to BP this administration appears to be.
Republican Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer is being hit on all sides over this new immigration law. Barack Obama's Assistant Secretary of State James Posner apologized to China of all places, for the new law in Arizona; Mexican president Felipe Calderon chimed in on both the White House lawn and in front of a joint session of Congress; Democrats gave him a standing ovation. Now, we learn that Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers have a problem with SB 1070 as well.
There's not a whole lot Brewer can do about those attacks but she's decided to do something about the potential conflict of interest that may exist between her state's Attorney General - a Democrat who met with Eric Holder on Friday, May 28th. Interestingly, Brewer's state legislature gave her advance approval to use outside counsel in her defense of the new law, which is expected to be challenged by the Federal government.
The L.A. Times blog reports that Arizona AG Terry Goddard is, for all intents and purposes - being taken off the case by Brewer:
On Friday, Goddard met with the Obama administration's Atty. Gen. Eric Holder in Washington, then held a news conference just hours before Brewer's handpicked attorneys were to meet with Holder, an outspoken critic of the law.
Brewer said, "I believe the federal government should use its legal resources to fight illegal immigration, not the State of Arizona."
Seeing apparent collusion between the two Democrat lawyers, Brewer pulled the plug Friday night.
Now, Holder can talk to Goddard all he wants but it will likely be in vain to do so. It's a pretty sad statement when a governor has to worry about her Attorney General violating his oath for political reasons. It's an even more ominous prospect to consider that the U.S. Attorney General would be complicit in the former's doing so. There are two politicians exhibiting true executive leadership these days. One is Brewer and the other is Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey. There are 48 other Governors that should feel free to stand up any day now.
Before the official White House memo authored by White House counsel Robert Bauer was released on Friday, Joe Sestak was interviewed on WCHE 1520 Radio out of West Chester, PA. A man named Chris Freind asked him about the comments of Illinois Senator Dick Durbin earlier in the week. The response Sestak gave wasn't exactly kind to Durbin, the #2 Democrat in the Senate. Basically, Sestak accused Durbin of being part of the 'Washington establishment'.
Earlier this week, The Hill reported that Durbin was calling on Sestak to come clean about the alleged job offer:
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said the onus is on Sestak to say more about the offer he claimed to have received from the Obama administration in exchange for dropping his primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.).
"At some point, I think Congressman Sestak needs to make clear what happened," Durbin told reporters at the Capitol.
Now for Sestak's comments on Durbin. The whole interview is worth listening to but to hear the key portion, fast forward to the 6:30 mark to hear Sestak attempt to align with the voters against people like Durbin.
Here's the transcript:
FREIND: "U.S. Senator Dick Durbin, one of the highest ranking Democcrats in the Senate, has publicly said that you need to come clean....
...Clearly, someone isn't telling the whole truth.
If this was a quid pro quo arrangement, (which by your words it would seem to be), that would be against the law....so Number 1, (if that is the case) do you let the White House get away with that crime, and Number 2, could your silence be construed as obstruction, of aiding and abetting?
SESTAK: I don't really care what Dick Durbin says....he's the Establishment of Washington, D.C. I appreciate Dick Durbin. But I've already demonstrated that when the Establishment thinks it can dictate what's right for Pennsylvanians....who have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs...I'm not going to let Washington or anyone else dictate what I'm going to speak about....
I answered this question honestly. Others have to stand up for their accountability and what their role is..."
FREIND: Do you think they (the White House) committed a crime?
The memo from Robert Bauer, White House Counsel insists that Joe Sestak was not offered a paying job but an unpaid appointment to a presidential advisory Board. If the job had been a paid one, it would have been far more egregious. Is it too much of a stretch to ask whether the claim in Bauer's memo is untrue and an attempt to diminish the charge by implying that an unpaid position isn't a 'thing of value' - a phrase I'm sure the public will grow increasingly familiar with?
The claim made in this memo is that the administration didn't want Sestak to leave his congressional seat so they sweetened the pot to get him to drop out of his primary with Arlen Specter; a position he could hold while remaining a sitting congressman was then offered. Small problem. The position he is suspected of being offered isn't to be held by a government employee which, as a congressman, Sestak would continue to be.
Byron York at the Washington Examiner makes the catch and links to the page on the White House website that clarifies it. Here's what it says in the very first paragraph:
The Board consists of not more than 16 members appointed by the President from among individuals who are not employed by the Federal Government. Members are distinguished citizens selected from the national security, political, academic, and private sectors. The Board is a nonpartisan body, independent of the Intelligence Community, free from day-to-day management or operational responsibilities, and with full access to the complete range of intelligence-related information.
Reports have been - and Sestak has since given them further credence with his subsequent statements - that the position in question was on this Intelligence Advisory Board. If this is in fact the position Sestak was offered, the White House has a new legal dilemma to deal with.
York points out that - like he did initially by admitting the White House offered him a job to drop out - Sestak may have said too much (VIDEO BELOW) when asked about the alleged position he was offered after Bauer's memo was released:
The statement from White House counsel Robert Bauer did not specifically mention the intelligence board, but speaking to reporters Friday, Sestak said of his conversation with Clinton, “At the time, I heard the words ‘presidential board,’ and that’s all I heard…I heard ‘presidential board,’ and I think it was intel.” In addition, the Times reported that “people briefed on the matter said one option was an appointment” to the intelligence board. But the White House could not legally have placed Sestak on the board.
As for why a position such as this one would be off limits to a congressman, it seems obvious on its face. It's a conflict of interest and could lead to corruption. It could short circuit the checks and balances so critical to our Constitution. Aren't we seeing an Executive Branch already sucking power right out of Congress?
One last thing here. Ever since this scandal began, Sestak has attempted to use his ill-advised admission that he was offered a job by the White House as a demonstration of his honesty and integrity. In subsequent responses about the matter, he continued to say, "I answered (the question) honestly". With that in mind, have a look at this excerpt from the statement released by Sestak after the Bauer memo came out:
He (Clinton) said that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had spoken with him about my being on a Presidential Board while remaining in the House of Representatives. I said no. I told President Clinton that my only consideration in getting into the Senate race or not was whether it was the right thing to do for Pennsylvania working families and not any offer.
Sestak's revelation after the Bauer memo that he thinks the position offered was in "intel" may have been something he answered honestly but it may have been something - again - the White House wishes he wouldn't have said. Sestak may be proving that he's a bad liar. That's good for America but increasingly looking like it's NOT good for the Obama administration.
This entire video worth watching but fast forward to hear Sestak talk about the type of Presidential Board position he was offered; he actually does it twice. At the 9:20 mark, he says it was either "Intelligence or Defense". At the 12:40 mark, he says, "I think it was intel".
The White House memo signed by the husband of Mao fan Anita Dunn - Robert Bauer - identified Bill Clinton as the person who approached Joe Sestak. Inconsistent with Sestak's repeated claims that he was offered a high ranking job in the Obama administration to drop out of the primary race, the memo claims he was offered a non-paying Board position he could serve on while remaining a congressman.
As was the case in Watergate, the cover-up was much worse than the act itself. Enter Bill Clinton. If there is nothing to this and no illegal activity took place, why dodge questions? Here, Clinton not only dodges them but he completely ignores them. Wouldn't it be something if Bill Clinton ends up finishing off his own legacy AFTER he left office?
After the very liberal paper - the Austin American Statesman - printed reader letters expressing opposition to the Austin city council's boycott of Arizona over SB 1070, it heard from Barack Obama's Organizing for America (OFA). OFA was going astroturf against the Statesman by encouraging all of its members to write to the paper. Why? Because there were no letters expressing support of the boycott and the Statesman and OFA saw it as a matter of unfairness that had to be righted.
I decided to write the Statesman to express my support for them, despite their very storied liberal bent. If the Community Organisms were going identify them as a target to be intimidated, they should be supported regardless of how ideological they are.
On May 28th, my letter appeared in the Statesman, strategically placed right above an editor's note that seemed to be an attempt to dismiss the offer:
As a radio talk show host and producer for "The Lynn Woolley Show," I would like to express solidarity with the American-Statesman with respect to the paper being the target of intimidation from Organizing for America. Stand strong and know that you did nothing wrong by publishing reader letters (May 19) in opposition to the recent City Council resolution calling for an Austin boycott of Arizona.
Ben Barrack
benbarrack@yahoo.com
Georgetown
Editor's note: Organizing for America (www.barackobama.com) has borne no pressure on the American-Statesman, either directly or via letters that the organization might have encouraged. We have received a high volume of letters about Arizona's immigration law and the Austin City Council's resolution to stop doing business in Arizona, especially after we published 20 letters against the Austin boycott on May 19.
— Tom Widlowski, Letters editor
As with most of these newspaper guys, they're clever with how they word things, leaving much up to reader interpretation. If Widlowski is making the claim That OFA did not attempt to intimidate or pressure the Statesman, he's not being truthful (see image of OFA Austin flyer). If Widlowski is saying that OFA Austin attempted to organize an astroturf campaign that wasn't successful, he should have said that.
There were two emails I received in response to the letter above which I found interesting. The first serves as a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
From: Jeff Subject: funny To: benbarrack@yahoo.com Date: Friday, May 28, 2010, 9:55 AM
That was so funny how the Austin American-Statesman called you on your lie in today's Letters column. This is a great example of what we all know (but many refuse to admit) that right-wing talk show hosts do best: make stuff up!
cheers, Jeff
Calling what I wrote a lie is easily refuted by looking at the OFA flyer. Then again, perhaps Jeff's view comes from a misleading editor's note.
My personal favorite came from Michael. Keep in mind what the Arizona boycott is supposedly about - racism and discrimination as you read it.
From: Michael Subject: Hate radio To: benbarrack@yahoo.com Date: Friday, May 28, 2010, 12:18 PM
Thanks for giving a name to just some of the hate radio right here in Central Texas. 9/11 happened on Bush and Chaney's watch...never forget!!
And just because you are a host and producer of some redneck talk show doesn't mean your words are truth for all!
Proud Native Texan senior,
Michael
Wouldn't you love to know what Michael thinks of the term "redneck" in light of the debate over the new Arizona law.
h/t to Hot Air for posting about the OFA Astroturf effort. That is how I became aware of it.
Eric Holder's Department of Justice has found itself on the receiving end of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit over its decision not to prosecute the now infamous - and lingering - Black Panther case. Most know the story about the inexplicable decision by the Justice Department to drop the case despite having a clear cut example of voter intimidation caught on video and the defendants - all Black Panthers - not responding to the complaint. U.S. Attorneys had won a default judgment and were ordered to stand down.
Due to the egregiously blatant nature of that decision, what happened with the FOIA requests by Judicial Watch is not all that surprising.
Judicial Watch filed its original FOIA request on May 29, 2009. The Justice Department acknowledged receiving the request on June 18, 2009, but then referred the request to the Office of Information Policy (OIP) and the Civil Rights Division. On January 15, 2010, the OIP notified Judicial Watch that it would be responding to the request on behalf of the Offices of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, Public Affairs, Legislative Affairs, Legal Policy, and Intergovernmental and Public Liaison.
On January 15, the OIP also indicated that the Office of the Associate Attorney General found 135 pages of records responsive to Judicial Watch’s request, but that all records would be withheld in full. On January 26, the OIP advised Judicial Watch that the Office of Public Affairs and Office of Legal Policy completed their searches and found no responsive documents. On February 10, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division indicated that after an extensive search it had located “numerous responsive records” but determined that “access to the majority of the records” should be denied. On March 26, the OIP indicated that the Office of Legislative Affairs and the Office of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison completed searches and found no documents.
Welcome to the Eric Holder led Justice Department. First, 135 pages found to be responsive but the decision was made to withhold them. Then, there were none responsive at all. That was followed by the location of "numerous" documents that were responsive but that most of them should be held. Then, lastly, the decision was made that none were responsive. That old saying, "Tell the truth because it's the easiest thing to remember" comes to mind.
This lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch coupled with an investigation into the Black Panther case by the U.S. Commission on Civil RIghts has definitely brought to bear, significant pressure on the DOJ. One attorney there has already resigned because he was not cooperating with the Commission's probe or FOIA requests. The attorney was obviously being directed by someone not to cooperate but was incurring great personal expense because the DOJ was not declaring Executive Privilege for withholding the documents so the attorney had no reason to withhold them - that is, no overt reason. It would seem to indicate that the practice of throwing people under the bus is not reserved solely for the president. More on the resigning attorney HERE.
Michelle Malkin has a great take on all this in the context of what's going on with Jobsgate - the scandal involving the White House and Joe Sestak. The stonewalling there is not at all dissimilar from that witnessed in the Black Panther case. Unlike the Sestak case however, public outrage at the stonewalling hasn't risen to the level requiring Obama to respond; Obama announced at yesterday's news conference that an official statement on Sestak would be released "shortly".
As this Black Panther case continues to take a similar path to Jobsgate - a slowly percolating scandal that could explode - look for it to one day get a similar level of attention. The probes by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights along with Judicial Watch's lawsuit, along with the ongoing repercussions like the resignations of attorneys, could blow this open as well.
Democrats control both Houses of congress and there is no way Eric Holder is going to launch an investigation. Joe Sestak's opponent, Pat Toomey has the ability to be a lightning rod in this scandal. No one person in the media can control it. The scandal will either have a life of its own or it won't. Toomey, on the other hand, has the power to make hay over it.
The only way this scandal continues becoming a big deal is if public opinion drives it. Right now, the media is driving public opinion by continuing to cover it so Toomey's input can remain minimal. If the story dies down in the media, Toomey will have to drive it again.
So far, he is chiming in on the scandal and is calmly stating that something stinks here. That's exactly what he should be doing and he does so again on MSNBC'S Morning Joe.
An excellent point made by Toomey in this exchange is his Senate run in 2004 and the Republican establishment wanting him to drop out of that race because it had thrown its support behind Arlen Specter. Toomey says that he was never offered a job to drop out.
Time Magazine's Rick Stengel appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe and came across as being nearly completely ignorant of the scandal involving Rep. Joe Sestak and the Obama administration. Mika Brzezinski actually had to say Sestak's name several times because Stengel looked like a deer in the proverbial headlights on the story.
As for the magazine, they should change their name to, "TIME TO QUIT".
This is a follow up story to the interview Megyn Kelly conducted with Assistant D.C. Metro Chief Patrick Burke and Captain of Montgomery Police Department Paul Stark. Stark's account disputed Nina Easton's claims that three police officers on the scene said they didn't want to arrest the lawbreakers for fear of inciting a riot. Easton is standing by her story, which is much more believable than Stark's claims. Go HERE to watch that interview.
Nina Easton has appeared on several Fox News shows as a panelist and she is far from being known as politically conservative. She often comes across as a moderate-to-left leaning pundit. It is refreshing to see her standing up like this. She should be commended and supported. Her awakening could be a foreshadowing of things to come as SEIU and other community organisms continue to unmask themselves. In addition to that, the man whose home these thugs descended on belongs to a Democrat.
As for the claims of both the D.C. Metro and Montgomery County police officials, I'm sure they are none too happy about Easton going public. Her being a neighbor to Bauer is likely viewed as a very unfortunate reality they weren't expecting.
Check out the videos of Easton responding to the claims of Burke and Stark as well as the smear campaign being levied against her by none other than Media Matters.
WOW! While doing a feature on a 103 year-old black woman named Miss Flamer, who not only still appears to have all her faculties left but drives a cadillac through town, CNN ended the segment with rap music in the background while showing video of Miss Flamer getting into her car before pulling away to tool around. There was a small problem with the lyrics.
As CNN showed Miss Flamer, viewers also heard a song that contained the lyrics, "Punk Ass N*gga".
This story has a stench rivaled only by one of the dead fish Rahm Emanuel dropped in the mailbox. On Sunday, May 16th, SEIU thugs loaded up into several buses in Washington, D.C. and went to the home of a Bank of America attorney Greg Baer, which was in Maryland's Montgomery county. They picketed outside Baer's home with only the attorney's fourteen year-old son inside. The boy was terrorized by the community organisms.
No arrests were made. Not one. Two police officers appeared on Megyn Kelly's show on the Fox News Channel to make their case. The representative from D.C. Metro was Patrick Burke, Asst. Chief of police there. The man from the Montgomery County police was Captain Paul Stark. Of the two, Stark's answers to Kelly's questions were the most bizarre. His explanations and accounts simply didn't add up. The fact that inconsistencies expressed by Stark were coming from the mouth of a police captain were equally stunning.
BACKDROP: D.C. Metro police allegedly followed fourteen SEIU buses to the Montgomery County border in Maryland and alerted Montgomery County police who then sent three police officers to the home of Baer. The most suspect claim from Stark about why no arrests were made is that by the time his officers arrived, the thugs were leaving and nothing unlawful had been witnessed. He completely dismisses the notion that the protesters were on the property for an hour, saying it was only minutes.
This is simply not believable. As Mike Flynn at Big Government points out, the notion that the following all happened in the span of minutes and before police arrived - police who had been notified prior to the arrival of these protesters - is simply not possible.
1. Fourteen buses would have to park 2. 500 protesters would have to get off the buses, collectively grabbing their signs in unison 3. 500 protesters would have to walk onto Baer's lawn 4. At least one protester gets up on Baer's porch and uses a megaphone to whip up her comrades into a frenzy 5. A fourteen year-old boy is sufficiently terrorized enough to lock himself in a bathroom
I find the most noteworthy portion of this clip to be Kelly's mention to Stark of the claim made by Fox News Contributor Nina Easton, who actually lives in Baer's neighborhood. Easton actually wrote a column about the whole experience and it is very much worth reading. You can read it HERE. Easton wrote:
Intimidation was the whole point of this exercise, and it worked-even on the police. A trio of officers who belatedly answered our calls confessed a fear that arrests might "incite" these trespassers.
Note what Easton says here. All three of the officers conceded that arrests might "incite" the protesters. The most telling part of Stark's answer was what he DIDN'T say. He did NOT call Easton a liar or imply that she was wrong. He simply said that he understood it differently.
Probably the biggest reason why I believe Easton over Stark is that intimidating authorities into this exact thing is straight out of the Community Organism playbook. Rule #9 to be exact:
Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.
This tactic EXACTLY speaks to Easton's claims about what she said those three cops told her. No one likes to admit to cowardice or succumbing to intimidation, especially the police. That may explain why Stark is dismissing the charge.
Pennsylvania Senate candidate Pat Toomey (R) appeared on Sean Hannity's television show and discussed the 'Jobsgate' scandal involving his opponent Joe Sestak and the White House. I thought Toomey did well in publicly talking about the issue and hinting that he believes there is a legitimate problem. That said, Hannity pressed him a bit on the statement released by Toomey's office, saying that he thought it should have been tougher.
As this scandal heats up, Toomey should lead the charge to blow it open. To Hannity's credit, after reading the statement from Toomey's office (below the video), he was right to push Toomey on it. At this point, I think Toomey did fine in his appearance. As long as the media continues to run with the story, he can probably sit back a little but if it shows any sign of dying down, he needs to whip out the bellows and get it going again. As I wrote HERE, this scandal is much bigger than Toomey's personal aspirations.
HERE is Toomey's statement referred to by Hannity in the above interview.
For Immediate Release—May 24, 2010
Contact: Nachama Soloveichik • Communications Director • 484.809.7994 • 646.528.1029 Contact: Kristin Anderson • Deputy Communications Director • 484.809.7994 • 612.280.5196 Contact: Tim Kelly • Press Secretary • 484.809.7994
Allentown, PA – U.S. Senate candidate Pat Toomey issued the following statement today about allegations that the White House offered Rep. Joe Sestak a job in exchange for exiting the U.S. Senate race:
“From day one, our campaign has been focused on the critical issues facing Pennsylvania, like jobs, the economy, and a federal government that’s on an out-of-control spending spree. That’s where our focus will remain. To that end, Congressman Joe Sestak’s support for the policies that are bankrupting our country and killing jobs is of much greater concern to me than whatever deal-making was done between him and the White House.
“Having said that, by virtue of the nonstop inquiries coming into our campaign from members of the media, we are compelled to respond to what is now being commonly referred to as ‘job-gate.’ My response is simply this: Congressman Sestak should tell the public everything he knows about the job he was offered, and who offered it. To do otherwise will only continue to raise questions and continue to be a needless distraction in this campaign. Joe and I disagree on many important issues, from health care, to bailouts, to the unprecedented debt being racked up in Washington. That’s what our campaign should be about, rather than these other matters. Joe can clear that all away by simply disclosing all the facts that he knows, and I urge him to do that.”
Hannity addressed that statement perfectly with Toomey. He lightly pressed him and then got him to publicly admit this is a big deal. Toomey did a very decent job of answering the questions but he needs to be prepared to help drive this scandal, not because it will help him defeat Sestak but because it's the right thing for him to do for his country.
Talk about a perversion. Communists, Socialists, and Marxists assembling on a busy street in New York City to protest in support of illegal aliens who break the law. Bertha Lewis, Executive Director of the Association of Community Organisms for Reform Now is arrested and led away in handcuffs while her fellow Socialists actually have the gall to sing the Star Spangled Banner.
Here's a photo of Bertha emphasizing one of her pointless points some time ago. See if you can spot her in the video. Word of Caution: Unless you have an interest in listening to people who can't sing belt out, "We Shall Overcome" over and over and over again, fast forward to the 7:30 mark.
That's when the Socialists decide to change their tune to America's national anthem. Aside from utterly butchering it, apparently lost on all of them is the fact that it represents everything they're protesting against - an America free from tyranny and the rule of law.
This truly is Twilight Zone stuff. Keep watching to see Bertha led away in handcuffs.
As Verum Serum points out, it wasn't all that long ago that Bertha spoke to the Young Democratic Socialists - a group with strong ties to Communists and Marxists. Look no further than THIS page of the the YDS website. It starts out with, "Dear Comrade".
This thing is - metaphor alert - BLOWING UP. CNN's John King, to his credit, continues to press David Axelrod about Joe Sestak's claim that he was offered a job by the White House in return for dropping out of his race with Arlen Specter. At one point, King actually refers to the charge as a "felony" and Axelrod has to deal with it.
He does so by conceding that if Sestak's charges are true, it would be very serious. That may seem innocuous but it almost eliminates a possible future course of action for the White House to take. If the claim is true, the White House will not be able to minimize it and say it's just politics. Axelrod eliminated that potential by saying it would be serious.
Another revelation given by Axelrod here appears to be the elimination of himself as the source of the job offer. If it was Axelrod, why would he put himself on the hook by saying - as he did in this exchange - that he wasn't involved in the conversations?
Sestak is on video, countless times saying that he answered "honestly" the question about being offered a job by the White House as a bribe. Axelrod tells King there is "no evidence of that". Unless I'm wrong, that's the equivalent of calling Sestak a liar.
This exchange is VERY damaging to Obama's administration.
While it is certainly noteworthy when anyone at MSNBC asks a member of the Obama administration about 'Jobsgate' - a scandal involving allegations that Joe Sestak was offered a bribe, this exchange between Chuck Todd and David Axelrod, while brief, is revealing.
Axelrod changed the subject quickly but it's how he did it that struck me as a possible microcosm for the tactics used by the Obama administration to co-opt the media in general. Watch as Axelrod abruptly changes the subject while mysteriously having a copy of the Washington Post on hand, featuring a story about Chuck Todd.
Axelrod proceeds to heap praise on Todd, who embarrassingly melts in front of the audience.
UPDATE: In the context of that video and the rubbing of Todd's belly by Axelrod, take a look at Todd the next morning on MSNBC'S Morning Joe. In this exchange, Chuck couldn't be any more of an apologist for the administration. Is it a coincidence that shortly after receiving fawning praise by Axelrod, he's defending the White House?
On November 13th, 2008 Debbie Schlussel posted a very compelling story on her website that involved Barack Obama's alleged Selective Service registration form and some extremely disturbing inconsistencies with it. A retired federal agent, using a Freedom of Information Act request, spent over a year attempting to get Obama's Selective Service information. Schlussel wrote about what was found on Obama's documentation and I remember it being incredibly newsworthy.
CLICK ON EACH IMAGE TO ENLARGE
The first item of interest had to do with the Document Locator Number (DLN) at the top right of Obama's SS form. Via Debbie Schlussel. You're urged and encouraged to read the whole thing. Unlike many other claims, it provides hardcore inconsistencies:
In the upper right hand corner of the Selective Service form SSS Form 1, there is the standard Bates-stamped DLN, in this case “0897080632,” which I’ve labeled as “A” on both the SSS Form and the computer printout document. On the form, it reflects a 2008 creation, but on the printout, an extra eight was added in front of the number to make it look like it is from 1980, when it was actually created in 2008.
Also on that printout is the date of September 4th, 1980 as well Obama's SSS Number, which is listed as 61 1125539. Please go HERE to read about all that was uncovered by that retired federal agent and Schlussel because it's worth much examination but I brought it up because of new revelations about Barack Obama's social security number and Selective Service information. The latest discovery only serves to bolster Schlussel's findings.
Fast forward to present day. WND first broke the story about two private investigators claims' - using separate databases - that Barack Obama was using a social security number issued by the state of Connecticut. More on that HERE. Now, we're learning that the Selective Service is blocking access to Obama's registration information thanks to this story on WND. Using the various data about Obama available, including the Connecticut-issued Social Security number allegedly belonging to Obama, the following image appeared:
Take note that both the date of September 4th, 1980 and the Selective Service number issued to Barack Obama exactly match the printout posted by Schlussel in November, 2008.
As you could have guessed - and not surprisingly - the Selective Service has since pulled that information and Obama's registration information is no longer accessible. WND points out that the answer for the now unvailable information was given by a spokesman for the Selective Service. Basically, when too many people attempt to access the same person's records, everyone is locked out for security reasons. That explanation, especially if it's an automatically engaged restriction actually does seem reasonable.
The way I see it, the matter of the information being available before but not being available now may or may not be a legitimate concern. What I find far more compelling is the research that was done by Schlussel nearly two years ago being corroborated by these latest findings. Specifically, the Selective Service number for Barack Obama and the date it was issued as indicated on a form obtained via an FOI request in 2008 match exactly the number and date after entering a Social Security number for Obama that was issued by the state of Connecticut.
I long ago stopped paying attention to the birth certificate story but this story about Obama's Selective Service and Social Security information is something more than just a little tangible and questions definitely need to be answered.
The flashpoint of the immigration debate known as Arizona is starting to spawn political earthquakes in the other southern border states. The latest rumbling is from California gubernatorial candidate Steve Poizner, who is running against Meg Whitman for the nomination on June 8th. Whitman is on the wrong side of the American people and is to the left of Poizner, who exploits Whitman's words on immigration in this ad, comparing her to Felipe Calderon.
Support for Arizona's SB 1070 continues to grow, in part because the state is increasingly becoming a huge underdog thanks to the Obama administration. Poizner is trailing Whitman but is closing the gap. This video can only help him in his effort to continue that trend. The Independent Voter Network website is reporting that Whitman's support has been plummeting since March:
According to the 41st “Californians & Their Government” report, “Support for Meg Whitman has plummeted 23 points since March” and the competition between Whitman and Poizner is at its closest level yet. 38 percent of those polled will probably vote for Whitman, while 29 percent said they would probably vote for Poizner. This is in striking contrast to previous Whitman polling leads of between 30 and 50 percent.
This ad is certain to sour the pro-immigration enforcement crowd on Whitman but more importantly, it could energize them to support Poizner. If the immigration issue helps Poizner actually overcome what is now a 9 point deficit with Whitman, it could have reverberations that will be felt in the state with the longest border with Mexico.
In Texas, both Governor Rick Perry and Lt. Governor David Dewhurst are shunning the possibility of an Arizona style immigration law in their state. They wouldn't want to be compared to Felipe Calderon now, would they?
The latest installment of Joe Sestak's continuing misprision of an alleged felony occurred on Meet the Press with David Gregory. Like several others before him, Gregory tried to get the Democratic candidate for Arlen Specter's Senate seat to come forward with the name of who from the White House offered him a job to drop out of his race with Specter and what the job was. Like CNN's Rick Sanchez, Gregory seemed nearly apoplectic - by the mainstream media's standards - over Sestak's obfuscation with questions that necessarily must have very simple answers.
The play this scandal is suddenly getting is quite interesting.
After Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 into law, much of the political talk around here has been focusing on whether a similar bill would pass in Texas. Two state Reps in my state - Leo Berman and Debbie Riddle - plan to introduce such a bill in the next legislative session, which begins in January, 2011. Both Governor Rick Perry and Lt. Governor David Dewhurst have publicly stated they don't believe a law like that would be right for Texas.
CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE
It soon became my view that we Texans who support Arizona should NOT bow to this soft intimidation; if public approval for a Texas SB 1070 reaches 80% and a bill makes it to Perry's desk, it's my belief that he would sign it after Dewhurst bowed to the same level of public outrage by introducing it in the state Senate. All these words from Perry and Dewhurst do is provide air cover for the Texas legislature; it is air cover I have chosen to ignore.
On May 4th, I began the arduous process of calling every single one of the state Reps here in Texas and asked them how they would vote if Berman/Riddle were introduced. Most Chiefs of Staff would not answer for their boss but many of those who did gave predictably political answers. I can at least respect Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer (D-San Antonio) for being forthright enough to come out against any such bill. I may disagree with him but I at least know where he stands. The same can't be said for my own state Representative, Diana Maldonado (D-Georgetown) of District 52.
Attached is a letter I received from her after twice attempting to get an answer from her office on the matter of immigration. I've underlined the parts of the letter that caused me to either shake my head or just plain scoff. First, note how she hides behind Rick Perry's comments on the E-Verify system. Then she used that oh, so famous code word Democrats love to use for Amnesty - "comprehensive".
My personal favorite is this line....
I also think that we must continue to do a thorough job of enforcing the current laws pertaining to illegal immigration.
Continue? Think about this. In order for us to continue to thoroughly enforce the law, we must already be doing it. Rep. Maldonado is operating on an extremely flawed premise. To prove my point, check out this video of Rick Perry at a Midland County Republican Women's Luncheon on November 12th, 2009. Pay attention when he talks about the Feds bringing illegal aliens from Nogales, AZ to Presidio county, Texas.
Fortunately, Maldonado's opponent - Larry Gonzalez - in November appears to be tough on immigration enforcement based on what is posted on his website:
Immigration and Border Security
Terror, and those who sow the seeds of terror, exists in every part of our world today, extending across many ethnic groups, posing a constant threat against our country – threats which use our Southern border as a corridor into our lives. Larry knows our border patrol agents, sheriff’s deputies, and local law enforcement officers have their hands full. He also knows our state and local leaders are left to deal with the costs – both fiscal costs and costs to our personal safety and well being.
Larry believes it’s time we secure our borders and give law enforcement the authority to do their job and allow them to enforce our laws, helping to stop transnational gangs from spreading their violence. It’s also important we protect our system of legal immigration – America is a nation of immigrants, but it’s also a nation built on the rule of law, and we must stand up and defend that principle.
Also encouraging is the fact that Democrat Maldonado only won her seat in 2008 by a paltry 851 votes according to the Austin American Statesman:
Maldonado's narrow victory in 2008 — by 851 votes — has given the GOP hope that it can take back the district. Republican Mike Krusee held the seat for 16 years before Maldonado was elected. She was unopposed in the Democratic primary.
Gonzalez has become the Republican candidate since that article and we will be working to get him on both my show and the Lynn Woolley show to discuss the immigration issue. Rep. Maldonado will be welcome as well but based on the letter I received from her office, I'm not counting on it.
My latest column is posted over at the American Thinker and is about the percolating scandal involving Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) and his admission in February that the White House offered him a job in return for his dropping out of the primary with Arlen Specter. Sestak's defeat of Specter presents a significant problem for both himself and the White House because if his claim - which he refuses to explain in detail - is true, it would implicate the White House in the commission of a felony.
After writing the column, I noticed that I referred to Sestak being interviewed on KDKA 1020 in Pittsburgh by Mike Pintek but didn't give any details of it. For the record, on May 19th, Pintek confronted Sestak on this issue for two minutes - after having interviewed Pat Toomey - and Sestak bungled it; big time. I will be playing those two minutes on my May 23rd show so be sure to check the radio show archives and download the podcast.
May 23, 2010 Will Toomey Play Hardball with Sestak? Ben Barrack
When Joe Sestak defeated Arlen Specter to secure the Democratic nomination for Senator of Pennsylvania, you could almost feel the White House cringe. Although it's too early to say that Sestak's loose lips in a February media interview with Larry Kane could sink the Obama administration's ship, his primary win almost certainly has the White House scrambling for sandbags to reinforce the stonewall.
Sestak clammed up in that interview after admitting that someone in the administration offered him a job in July to drop out of the primary -- presumably, that job was Secretary of the Navy. The problem is that the claim implicates the administration in the commission of at least one felony and Sestak could be implicating himself in the misprision of a felony as long as he remains silent about what job was offered and who offered it.
Republican candidate Pat Toomey is now running against Sestak and told KDKA radio's Mike Pintek on May 19th that he will run his campaign like he's twenty points down in what is, on paper a close race. If he means that, perhaps he should shine the spotlight on this scandal now that he is on a national stage.
On its face, a strategy that involves calling national media attention...
Would someone PLEASE put Darrell Issa in touch with Pat Toomey? Issa, the ranking Republican member of the House Oversight Committee is going for the jugular on Jobsgate. The neck that jugular is rapidly pulsating in is a hybrid of political careers involving that of Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) and several people in the Obama administration. Sestak is now in a race with Pat Toomey (R) for the seat currently held by Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. Issa's office has produced a BLISTERING ad about this scandal that could and should catch fire.
This reaches all the way up to the top levels of the White House and it is a scandal that is easily understood. Sestak admitted in February that he was offered a job by the White House in July to drop out of his primary race with Arlen Specter. That is a felony and so is Sestak's refusal to disclose.
Stonewalling by this White House is nothing new. In fact, it's SOP. The unknown variable here is Sestak's opponent, Republican Pat Toomey. He has a national stage and can blow this scandal WIDE OPEN if he chooses to do so. It will come down to whether he's willing to put the good of the country ahead of his own aspirations for U.S. Senate - It's just that big.
The takeaway line from this ad is delivered by Sestak and looped by Issa.
"I answered it honestly." - Sestak's response to questions about his claims.
Of course, if he DID answer the question honestly, the White House is guilty of a felony.
Wow.. Just, wow. h/t to Hot Air Pundit for posting the video.
Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution, or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Jeffrey Lord has been writing about this scandal extensively at the American Spectator, starting on February 22nd.
The protagonist in the film, 'Machete' is played by Danny Trejo. His character is a hero to the illegal aliens in the United States. In the film, he is recruited to assassinate a U.S. Senator - played by Robert DeNiro - who is cracking down on illegal immigration. Trejo ends up being shot himself and proceeds to take out his vengeance on those who did him wrong. The film was directed by Robert Rodriguez and shot in Austin, TX.
The trailer served as a lightning rod for controversy, starting off with Trejo delivering a Cinco de Mayo message to Arizona. The fallout from that has been significant. Rodriguez is known for his controversial statements and films but it appears the heat from the backlash may be getting to him.
Breitbart's Big Hollywood has the story courtesy of an interview with Rodriguez that involved questions about the trailer:
Rodriguez’s response to the uproar that followed the release of this trailer?: Just kiddin’! According to him, it’s not the actual movie that’s all about ginning up racial divisions … just the trailer, I guess.
You know, three minutes of race baiting, but thankfully not ninety.
You gotta love the way the Hollywood mind works.
But as with all things Leftist Hollywood, you have to look and read closely. The backlash was obviously unexpected and so Rodriguez poses as the innocent and tries to laugh the whole thing off as a misunderstanding. But buried deep in a rather tortured explanation and disguised as a throwaway is the real story:
RODRIGUEZ: I will admit that there were a few scenes that became so real in the past month because of what’s going on that they’ll be best left as a fascinating case study for the DVD extras. This will be my best DVD special features to date, that’s for sure.
Be sure to read it all because Rodriguez demonstrates that he is quite uncomfortable when held accountable. For far too long, these far left whack jobs have experienced no real consequences for their actions. We're seeing that there is a level of public pressure that can have an impact on these people. Go figure. It doesn't involve intimidation or threats - just truth and accountability.
There are times when O'Reilly has my head spinning as I watch the no-spin zone - the culture warriors and the body language lady come to mind. Then there are times like this with State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley when he knocks it out of the park and redeems himself. It truly is moments like these when O'Reilly is at his best and he needs to continue bringing them to his viewers.
When Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner visited China last week, he - on his own - brought up the Arizona immigration law while discussing human rights violations; he apologized for one of the states in his own country to the leaders of another country. In this case, China.
Conspicuously silent on this matter has been Posner's boss, Hillary Clinton who has said nothing, which makes these comments by State Department spokesman Crowley those of Hillary herself.
While interviewing Crowley, O'Reilly focuses not so much on Posner's comments in China but why he was hired in the first place. Watch as he asks Crowley why Posner was even hired and follows it up with, "Was Raul Castro not available?"
That small country of Honduras was in the news quite a bit between June 28th, 2009 and November elections there. It was high stakes and high drama for an underdog nation that was taking on the world. Sitting president of that country, Manuel Zelaya attempted to install himself as dictator; the Constitution was followed by the other branches of government, thereby preventing it.
The Obama administration sided with the world against interim leader Roberto Micheletti, who stuck to his guns and his principles to defeat the world. Regardless of what people might say or how it is spun, Obama's Alinsky-ite / Community Organizing tactics failed to bully Honduras on a world stage.
The AP reported just this past April 30th that the U.S. Ambassador to Honduras basically conceded defeat but in true Obama fashion, blamed someone else. In this case, that someone else was Zelaya himself. In fairness, Zelaya was a certifiable kook but the White House lost an international battle when everything BUT Zelaya was stacked in Obama's favor.
U.S. officials who voiced strong opposition to Honduras' coup last June now say the ousted president took an "erratic and imprudent course of action" in the months leading up to his overthrow.
The comments from U.S. Ambassador Hugo Llorens mark the first time U.S. officials have so directly criticized former President Manuel Zelaya for his pre-coup actions.
Llorens told about 300 community leaders at a Thursday meeting of the Honduran Cities Association that the November election of President Porfirio Lobo was a crucial step toward putting this poor Central American country back on track.
"We understood very well that former President Zelaya pursued an erratic and imprudent course of action in the management of the country, and the growing opposition to his polarizing style," Llorens said.
Did Llorens actually concede defeat while citing "growing opposition to (a) polarizing style"? Perhaps Mr. Llorens should step back and look at how his boss in the White House fits that description. The irony here is that Zelaya is being blamed for Obama's loss in Honduras while his attributes that are allegedly responsible for that defeat are very much applicable to how Obama is governing his own country. Can anyone say health care and immigration? Two instances of many in which Obama has shown that he can generate growing opposition to a polarizing style.
It is awesome to see that Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) will not be letting up when it comes to getting to the bottom of the alleged job offer given to Rep. Joe Sestak by the White House in exchange for Sestak's dropping out of his race with Arlen Specter, who has since lost the nomination for the Senate seat he has held for decades in Pennsylvania. If the White House was cringing when Sestak admitted in February to Larry Kane that he was offered a quid-pro-quo deal, it is doubling over now.
A leading House Republican is threatening to file an ethics complaint against Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) if he doesn’t reveal who in the White House offered him a job to drop out of the Pennsylvania Senate primary.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the top Republican on the Oversight and Government Reform committee, said Sestak needs to explain what job he was offered and who at the White House was involved. Sestak, who beat Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) in the Democratic Senate primary on Tuesday, said on a Philadelphia radio station in February that the White House offered him a job to drop out of the race.
Let's not forget Issa's recent grilling of Attorney General Eric Holder on this issue. Holder was defenseless and clueless - shocker.
This level of childishness coming from a presidential administration is most certainly the lowest of any previous one. John Morton, head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is openly telling Arizona that his agency will not process illegal aliens handed over to it by Arizona law enforcement officials who attempt to follow their state's law. By expressing his opinion in this way, while not being fired, Morton is obviously telegraphing the fact that this message is being sent straight from the White House.
John Morton, assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, made the comment during a meeting on Wednesday with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, the newspaper reports.
"I don't think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution," Morton told the newspaper.
The best way to reduce illegal immigration is through a comprehensive federal approach, he said, and not a patchwork of state laws.
The law, which criminalizes being in the state illegally and requires authorities to check suspects for immigration status, is not "good government," Morton said.
This is coming straight from Obama, who is openly admitting that he will not follow the rule of law if he disagrees with it. It doesn't take a rocket science to connect the dot between Morton and Obama. If Obama disagreed with Morton saying something so blatantly egregious, he would fire him. The reverse necessarily has to be true. Morton likely risked job loss if he didn't make such a statement. The problem is that he should have resigned rather than make it.
When a public official willingly carries out an unlawful order or performs an unlawful act or omission instead of stepping aside, that individual becomes complicit in the perpetuation of that illegal behavior. It's long been established that the defense of, 'I was just following orders' does not let that person off the hook when the order is illegal. Fox's Charles Krauthammer perhaps said it best when he called the administration "lawless".
The Community Organisms have almost inexplicably targeted one of the most liberal newspapers in America - I know because I used to have it delivered. Why? Apparently, because of the paper's biased coverage of the Austin City Council's decision to boycott Arizona. I actually canceled my subscription because of how liberal the paper is.
Here is an image of the Organizing For FA Austin's appeal to the local community orgs.
Well, uh, actually OFA Austin seems to have a problem with the Statesman publishing letters from readers that express disapproval with the City council. According to OFA, the Statesman published 20 letters from readers and none of them were in support of the city council's decision.
I guess it never occurred to the community organisms that the paper didn't have any positive letters to publish. Maybe OFA should have checked the Spanish edition of the Statesman.
While this attack on the Statesman would seemingly be ill-advised because of its already-liberal bent, it should also be a wake up call to both the Statesman and any left wing media entity. This unequivocally shows that, like the title of Hillary Clinton's senior thesis, "There is Only the Fight", Community Orgs will not be satisfied with silencing conservatives. This shows that they are willing to go after media outlets that are generally sympathetic when they get a little off track.
HERE is the link to the Statesman page that includes letters from readers that the Community Orgs find objectionable. Take note that the email addresses of some of the letter writers have been published as well. I wonder how many of them are being harassed by the Orgs.
OFA Austin also links to the Statesman email page and asks its lemmings to send them a letter. I took the liberty of doing so myself and this is what I sent to them:
As a radio talk show host and producer for the Lynn Woolley Show, I would like to express solidarity with the Statesman with respect to your paper being the target of intimidation from Organizing for America. Stand strong and know that you did nothing wrong by publishing reader letters in opposition to the recent city council resolution calling for an Austin boycott of Arizona.
I discussed the matter of the Austin boycott at length on my May 16th program. HERE is a link to the podast.
The results of the Pennsylvania primary may just be a precursor to a very difficult road for the White House. According to Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), who just won his party's nomination for Senate, he was offered a job by someone in the White House in July of 2009 to drop out of his race with incumbent Arlen Specter. Sestak made that claim during an interview in February of 2010.
If true, there are felonies involved. On May 19th, the day after Sestak defeated Specter, KDKA radio host Mike Pintek asked Sestak about the scandal. Sestak did not do well with his responses. Just prior to the interview with Sestak, Pintek spoke with former U.S. congressman Bob Beauprez about the implications of Sestak's claims.
Surprisingly, one day later, CNN's Rick Sanchez also pressed Sestak on the bubbling scandal and Sestak bungled the issue there too. If the White House wanted Sestak out of the race last July and committed a felony in pursuit of that, imagine how badly they wish he'd have lost to Specter now. As this scandal continues - and as Sestak continues to bungle his answers to questions about it, the White House is increasingly vulnerable.
Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan has been bending over backwards to ingratiate himself with the Islamic community and he did so yet again this week - on two occasions. First up is his reference to the city of Jerusalem by the name given to it by Muslims. That name is "Al Quds" and refers to what that city was called during the Ottoman Empire.
This is very bad stuff and Brennan very well may be exposing himself as a godless human being.
If that's not enough, how about Brennan's claim that despite Hezbollah being on the list of terrorist organizations - a designation that precludes cooperation or negotiations with the United States - we must reach out to the more moderate elements of that group.
When I first saw this trailer a few weeks ago, I was quite disturbed by it but decided not to post it. I've changed my mind for several reasons, not the least of which is the charge that taxpayer dollars may be funding it. As the Arizona law continues to fuel controversy, this film is likely to fuel more than that. If ever there was an example of yelling fire in a crowded theater, this film might just do it without anyone in the audience saying a word.
The name of this disgraceful film is, "Machete" and it was produced by Robert Rodriguez. It was filmed in Austin and has that Quentin Tarantino feel to it but with an anti-American, pro-Illegal alien theme. Those familiar with Tarantino's work know what kind of explosive combination that is.
The Texas Film Commission is a taxpayer funded entity overseen by the Governor of that state - Rick Perry. HERE is a link to a page on TFC's website that actually mentions Machete.
Here is the relevant excerpt:
Texas Film Commission Director BOB HUDGINS joins us for a conversation and Q&A, during which he'll give us an update on production in Texas and our new and improved incentives program for film, tv, commercial and video game makers -- who should definitely attend! Thus far, the Texas Moving Image Industry Incentive Program has helped bring films like Machete, Predators and True Grit to Texas, along with television series like Friday Night Lights, The Deep End and Code 58, as well as numerous video game and commercial productions. In fact, after our legislation (HB 873) was signed last April, the program awarded over $22 million in production incentives through 2009, generating $184.5 million in Texas production spending and nearly 11,000 Texas cast and crew jobs by year's end. Don't miss your chance to hear the latest from Bob on how we're doing so far in 2010, and what's on the horizon this year.
Big Hollywood has more about confirming that taxpayer dollars via the Texas Film Commission actually helped fund this film.
A website called the Morrison Report is encouraging people to fax their complaint to Rick Perry and TFC Bob Hudgins. The link provided also includes an e-fax template, making the process easy. Perry, governor of the largest border state with Mexico has not exactly been standing with Arizona, a state that is increasingly needing support. All Perry says is that Arizona's law wouldn't be right for Texas. When you couple that with the prospect that the TFC could be subsidizing a film that actually singles out Arizona by name in the trailer below while placing the state in the crosshairs of an increasingly heated debate, Perry has some 'splaining to do.
The cast of this despicable film includes the following individuals who, by their very participation will likely be complicit in inflaming racial tensions.
* Robert DeNiro * Don Johnson * Lindsay Lohan * Jessica Alba * Cheech Marin * Steven Seagal
TRAILER FOR 'MACHETE' **LANGUAGE WARNING**
h/t to ACT! For America in Austin as well as Big Hollywood
Lord has been following "Jobsgate" since it began. He will, no doubt, provide additional insight into this scandal. I'll be sure to get his take on the exchange between Darrell Issa and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell on Fox News Sunday.
