Like a zombie in a horror movie, ACORN is alive! Even worse, it’s still in the business of registering Mickey Mouse and dead people to vote—and the person running its get-out-the-vote operation is under indictment for felony voter registration fraud.
But first, some background.
The radical group staged an elaborate prank on April Fool’s Day by pretending to die. That’s when chief organizer Bertha Lewis said ACORN would dissolve its national structure. But the group still exists and continues to send out direct mail solicitations for funds.
Disturbingly, Project Vote, ACORN’s scandal-plagued voter registration and mobilization division, remains open for business. Project Vote has been part of the ACORN family since at least 1992 when Barack Obama ran a successful voter drive in Illinois.
Although legally separate entities, in practice the two are the same, as the congressional testimony of former ACORN/Project Vote employee Anita MonCrief can attest. They share office space, employees, and budgets. Project Vote continues to operate out of ACORN’s Washington, D.C., headquarters.
Even worse, its voter drive is being run by Amy Busefink, an ACORN employee under indictment in Nevada for violating election laws. It might be understandable for an employer not to fire an employee until she is actually convicted of a crime, but this is ridiculous. Busefink should not be running a voter drive.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
After another brawl over the 1st amendment's purpose and meaning, a winner is dclared, and it's Christine O'Donnell
...the “wall of separation” then erected wasn’t between government and religion, but between the federal government and the states. This was the point Thomas Jefferson would make in 1802 in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, saying that via the First Amendment the American people had prevented “their legislature”—Congress—from interfering in matters of religion. He re-emphasized this point in his second inaugural address, saying that he had left religion “to the discipline of state” or religious societies and in 1808, asserting that as no power over religion had been given the “general government” it “must thus rest with the states” as far as any human authority could wield it.
It’s also worth noting that, even at the federal level, there was then no strict separation between government and religion as modern secularists define it. Witness the existence in Congress of tax-supported prayers, chaplains and Thanksgiving proclamations, practices that of course continue to this day.
Among the more ironic illustrations of the Founders’ views about these matters were the actions of the Congress that adopted what would be the First Amendment religion clauses. These were voted by the House of Representatives on Sept. 24, 1789. The very next day, the House approved a resolution of prayer and thanksgiving, acknowledging “the many signal favors of Almighty God” in helping establish their new political system, and requesting that President Washington issue a proclamation to this effect, which he proceeded to do forthwith (the origin of our present Thanksgiving holiday).
In sum, liberal teachings on this subject are a farrago of ignorance, bias and disinformation. Christine O’Donnell, by contrast, knows whereof she speaks, whereas her opponents all too clearly don’t.
It’s also worth noting that, even at the federal level, there was then no strict separation between government and religion as modern secularists define it. Witness the existence in Congress of tax-supported prayers, chaplains and Thanksgiving proclamations, practices that of course continue to this day.
Among the more ironic illustrations of the Founders’ views about these matters were the actions of the Congress that adopted what would be the First Amendment religion clauses. These were voted by the House of Representatives on Sept. 24, 1789. The very next day, the House approved a resolution of prayer and thanksgiving, acknowledging “the many signal favors of Almighty God” in helping establish their new political system, and requesting that President Washington issue a proclamation to this effect, which he proceeded to do forthwith (the origin of our present Thanksgiving holiday).
In sum, liberal teachings on this subject are a farrago of ignorance, bias and disinformation. Christine O’Donnell, by contrast, knows whereof she speaks, whereas her opponents all too clearly don’t.
The Hill poll indicates GOP pickup of at least 50 House seats
Republicans are headed for a blowout election win that seems certain to seize more than enough seats to knock out the Democrats and take control of the House.
The Hill 2010 Midterm Election poll, surveying nearly 17,000 likely voters in 42 toss-up districts over four weeks, points to a massive Republican wave that, barring an extraordinary turnaround, will deliver crushing nationwide defeats for President Obama’s party.
The data suggest a GOP pickup that could easily top 50 seats (the party needs 39 for control of the House).
Of the 42 districts polled for The Hill, all but two of which are currently Democratic, 31 had Republicans in the lead. Democrats were up in just seven, and four were tied. In addition, there are some 15 Democratic districts that are so far into the GOP win column that they weren’t polled. That would suggest at least 46 GOP pickups, plus whatever the party gets out of another 40 or 50 seats that some experts believe are in play.
“We didn’t even poll in about 15 districts that are already too far gone for Democrats,” said Mark Penn, whose firm, Penn Schoen Berland, conducted the poll. “So that, along with our entire series of polls, points to something in the range of a 50-seat gain for Republicans.”
Republican voters are also more likely to have made up their minds, sccording to the data.
The Hill 2010 Midterm Election poll, surveying nearly 17,000 likely voters in 42 toss-up districts over four weeks, points to a massive Republican wave that, barring an extraordinary turnaround, will deliver crushing nationwide defeats for President Obama’s party.
The data suggest a GOP pickup that could easily top 50 seats (the party needs 39 for control of the House).
Of the 42 districts polled for The Hill, all but two of which are currently Democratic, 31 had Republicans in the lead. Democrats were up in just seven, and four were tied. In addition, there are some 15 Democratic districts that are so far into the GOP win column that they weren’t polled. That would suggest at least 46 GOP pickups, plus whatever the party gets out of another 40 or 50 seats that some experts believe are in play.
“We didn’t even poll in about 15 districts that are already too far gone for Democrats,” said Mark Penn, whose firm, Penn Schoen Berland, conducted the poll. “So that, along with our entire series of polls, points to something in the range of a 50-seat gain for Republicans.”
Republican voters are also more likely to have made up their minds, sccording to the data.
Though a minority, Republicans could run the table in Florida
TAMPA -- When the votes have been counted next Tuesday, Florida will almost certainly have come up R -- not roses, Republicans. And conservative Republicans at that.
In a state where Democrats have about five percent more registered voters than Republicans, those outnumbered Republicans are early-voting at a rate 20 percent higher than Democrats. And there's no end of the "enthusiasm gap" in sight here. Republicans also out-voted Democrats in the primary here in August.
Polls show Republicans with statistically significant to comfortable leads in every state-wide race save that for governor, where Florida CFO Alex Sink and former health care executive Rick Scott are within the margin of error. Even in this race the latest Rasmussen Poll, an outfit which had a good record of predicting races in Florida in 2008, gives Scott a six-point lead.
Republican candidates for all four Florida cabinet posts, all of whom are running on conservative platforms, are taking poll leads into the final week of the campaign. If they win, they will work with a Florida Legislature that now sports Republican advantages of 26 to 14 in the Senate and 76-44 in the House, and shows no signs of being bluer after next Tuesday.
Republican strength is being felt down the ticket as well. Two east-coast liberal Democratic Congressmen are getting strong competition from conservative challengers. Even Florida's 11th Congressional District -- Tampa and bits of St. Petersburg and Bradenton -- is in play this year. This is remarkable as Florida 11 was drawn by the Republican state legislature to be a sump to pour Democratic voters into so the adjoining districts could remain comfortably Republican. No Republican has ever represented Tampa in the U.S. House since this seat was created in 1962.
To win in Florida 11 a Republican must get all the Republicans to the polls, virtually run the table with independents, and convince some moderate Democrats to go R. Normally this would be out of the question. But 2010 is not a normal political year.
In a state where Democrats have about five percent more registered voters than Republicans, those outnumbered Republicans are early-voting at a rate 20 percent higher than Democrats. And there's no end of the "enthusiasm gap" in sight here. Republicans also out-voted Democrats in the primary here in August.
Polls show Republicans with statistically significant to comfortable leads in every state-wide race save that for governor, where Florida CFO Alex Sink and former health care executive Rick Scott are within the margin of error. Even in this race the latest Rasmussen Poll, an outfit which had a good record of predicting races in Florida in 2008, gives Scott a six-point lead.
Republican candidates for all four Florida cabinet posts, all of whom are running on conservative platforms, are taking poll leads into the final week of the campaign. If they win, they will work with a Florida Legislature that now sports Republican advantages of 26 to 14 in the Senate and 76-44 in the House, and shows no signs of being bluer after next Tuesday.
Republican strength is being felt down the ticket as well. Two east-coast liberal Democratic Congressmen are getting strong competition from conservative challengers. Even Florida's 11th Congressional District -- Tampa and bits of St. Petersburg and Bradenton -- is in play this year. This is remarkable as Florida 11 was drawn by the Republican state legislature to be a sump to pour Democratic voters into so the adjoining districts could remain comfortably Republican. No Republican has ever represented Tampa in the U.S. House since this seat was created in 1962.
To win in Florida 11 a Republican must get all the Republicans to the polls, virtually run the table with independents, and convince some moderate Democrats to go R. Normally this would be out of the question. But 2010 is not a normal political year.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Obama's speeches are now "insufferable, devoid of charisma"
The erosion of President Barack Obama's popularity has lessons in it for every American who wishes to remain interesting and current, both professionally and personally.
The real story in this election is not that America has no jobs, that the economy continues to falter or that the national debt continues to balloon. While all three are true and, more importantly, Obama has failed to fix them, it is also true that these conditions existed prior to Obama's election. Yet somehow his personal charisma and captivating charm elevated the electorate.
The real story of campaign 2010 is how boring Obama has become.
Obama, who had never run anything except a campaign in his entire life, performed an almost unprecedented conjuring act in 2008, getting the electorate to embrace him regardless of the utter absence of managerial skills.
They believed not necessarily in Obama's capacity to fix America's transient problems but in his ability to focus us on more eternal, upbeat themes like hope, faith and the future. Yet, this time his very presence seems irritating. A man whose oratory lifted him to earth's highest office can't seem to deliver a single uplifting speech.
As a connoisseur of great oratory, I used to love hearing Obama's staccato delivery, perfect timing and mesmeric self-confidence -- the mark of any great speaker -- even as I disagreed with him on many of the issues. But Obama's speeches have now become insufferable, devoid of charisma and personal magnetism.
The real story in this election is not that America has no jobs, that the economy continues to falter or that the national debt continues to balloon. While all three are true and, more importantly, Obama has failed to fix them, it is also true that these conditions existed prior to Obama's election. Yet somehow his personal charisma and captivating charm elevated the electorate.
The real story of campaign 2010 is how boring Obama has become.
Obama, who had never run anything except a campaign in his entire life, performed an almost unprecedented conjuring act in 2008, getting the electorate to embrace him regardless of the utter absence of managerial skills.
They believed not necessarily in Obama's capacity to fix America's transient problems but in his ability to focus us on more eternal, upbeat themes like hope, faith and the future. Yet, this time his very presence seems irritating. A man whose oratory lifted him to earth's highest office can't seem to deliver a single uplifting speech.
As a connoisseur of great oratory, I used to love hearing Obama's staccato delivery, perfect timing and mesmeric self-confidence -- the mark of any great speaker -- even as I disagreed with him on many of the issues. But Obama's speeches have now become insufferable, devoid of charisma and personal magnetism.
Reid staffer entered bogus marriage to admit Lebanese immigrant, then lied to feds, but was never charged with a crime
An aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid repeatedly lied to federal immigration and FBI agents and submitted false federal documents to the Department of Homeland Security to cover up her illegal seven-year marriage to a Lebanese national who was the subject of an Oklahoma City Joint Terror Task Force investigation, FoxNews.com has learned.
Diana Tejada, Reid’s Hispanic Press Secretary, admitted to receiving payment for “some of her expenses” in exchange for fraudulently marrying Bassam Mahmoud Tarhini in 2003, strictly so he could obtain permanent U.S. residency, according to court documents.
Tarhini, now 37, was held in jail and at an immigration detention center in connection with his 2009 indictment on felony charges, documents show. He pleaded guilty to entering a fraudulent marriage to evade immigration laws — a Class D felony — in November 2009, and he was deported in March 2010.
Tejada, now 28, was never charged for her role in the crime.
“We did not charge the woman, and of course we don’t discuss the reasons we don’t charge people,” said Bob Troester, spokesman for the Western District of Oklahoma U.S. Attorney’s Office, which prosecuted the case, which began as an FBI investigation out of the Oklahoma City Joint Terrorism Task Force.
“There’s multiple factors that go into charging decisions. She wasn’t charged and we can’t go beyond that.”
Immigration and Customs Enforcement would not comment on why it took five years to investigate the couple's marriage.
As recently as five weeks ago, on Sept. 21, 2010, Tejada appeared as a guest on a Spanish-language radio program in her official capacity as a spokeswoman for Harry Reid.
Monday evening, Reid’s spokesman Jim Manley said Tejada was no longer employed by Reid’s office. When asked when Tejada left Reid’s services, the spokesman had no comment.
Diana Tejada, Reid’s Hispanic Press Secretary, admitted to receiving payment for “some of her expenses” in exchange for fraudulently marrying Bassam Mahmoud Tarhini in 2003, strictly so he could obtain permanent U.S. residency, according to court documents.
Tarhini, now 37, was held in jail and at an immigration detention center in connection with his 2009 indictment on felony charges, documents show. He pleaded guilty to entering a fraudulent marriage to evade immigration laws — a Class D felony — in November 2009, and he was deported in March 2010.
Tejada, now 28, was never charged for her role in the crime.
“We did not charge the woman, and of course we don’t discuss the reasons we don’t charge people,” said Bob Troester, spokesman for the Western District of Oklahoma U.S. Attorney’s Office, which prosecuted the case, which began as an FBI investigation out of the Oklahoma City Joint Terrorism Task Force.
“There’s multiple factors that go into charging decisions. She wasn’t charged and we can’t go beyond that.”
Immigration and Customs Enforcement would not comment on why it took five years to investigate the couple's marriage.
As recently as five weeks ago, on Sept. 21, 2010, Tejada appeared as a guest on a Spanish-language radio program in her official capacity as a spokeswoman for Harry Reid.
Monday evening, Reid’s spokesman Jim Manley said Tejada was no longer employed by Reid’s office. When asked when Tejada left Reid’s services, the spokesman had no comment.
Abysmal governance drives U.S. optimism to 36-year low
Optimism in the country's system of government has dropped to a new low when measured against polls going back 36 years, and the public's belief that America is the greatest nation on earth, while still high, has fallen significantly from its level a generation ago.
These results from the latest ABC News/Yahoo News poll, coming before next week's midterm elections, suggest that public disenchantment extends beyond its economic and political roots to broader questions about the country's governance and American exceptionalism.
The bottom hasn't fallen out of national pride: Seventy-five percent call the United States "the greatest country in the world." But that's down from 88 percent when the same question was asked in 1984. And nearly a quarter, 23 percent, now take the alternative view, saying America used to be the greatest country "but isn't anymore." That's up from 9 percent.
These results from the latest ABC News/Yahoo News poll, coming before next week's midterm elections, suggest that public disenchantment extends beyond its economic and political roots to broader questions about the country's governance and American exceptionalism.
The bottom hasn't fallen out of national pride: Seventy-five percent call the United States "the greatest country in the world." But that's down from 88 percent when the same question was asked in 1984. And nearly a quarter, 23 percent, now take the alternative view, saying America used to be the greatest country "but isn't anymore." That's up from 9 percent.
TARP's overseer rips its failures and lack of accountability
A new report from Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program in the Treasury Department, says it all: Americans have "entirely legitimate concerns about the lack of transparency, program mismanagement and flawed decision-making processes that continue to plague the program." Under President Obama and his Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the department's management of TARP has made a mockery of the Freedom of Information Act, even as the program has clearly failed to accomplish its stated purposes. Barofsky cites numerous failed TARP goals, including increasing lending, alleviating unemployment, and preserving home-ownership against the foreclosure meltdown. With those failures, the public's confidence in Treasury's ability to repair the economy is sinking faster than the dollar against foreign currencies.
That should be no surprise. Barofsky's blistering report released Monday ticks off a list that would make readers' heads spin: "When Treasury refuses for more than a year to require TARP recipients to account for the use of TARP funds, or claims that Capital Purchase Program participants were 'healthy, viable' institutions knowing full well that some are not, or when it provides hundreds of billions of dollars in TARP assistance to institutions, and then relies on those same institutions to self-report any violations of their obligations to TARP, it damages the public's trust to a degree that is difficult to repair."
A very real question is whether Obama, Geithner or their Treasury accomplices care about repairing public trust. Bloomberg News said yesterday that it asked in a January 2009 FOIA request to Treasury for information on $301 billion in securities owned by Citigroup Inc. that the government had agreed to guarantee. The department gave Bloomberg 560 e-mails so heavily redacted that the legible messages are limited to those saying things like "Did you just try to call me?" and "Monday will be a busy day!" Treasury repeatedly declined to provide more explanation to taxpayers whose money it shoveled to Citigroup, while claiming that disclosure would reveal "trade secrets, personnel rules and practices, memos subject to attorney-client privilege and violations of personal privacy."
That should be no surprise. Barofsky's blistering report released Monday ticks off a list that would make readers' heads spin: "When Treasury refuses for more than a year to require TARP recipients to account for the use of TARP funds, or claims that Capital Purchase Program participants were 'healthy, viable' institutions knowing full well that some are not, or when it provides hundreds of billions of dollars in TARP assistance to institutions, and then relies on those same institutions to self-report any violations of their obligations to TARP, it damages the public's trust to a degree that is difficult to repair."
A very real question is whether Obama, Geithner or their Treasury accomplices care about repairing public trust. Bloomberg News said yesterday that it asked in a January 2009 FOIA request to Treasury for information on $301 billion in securities owned by Citigroup Inc. that the government had agreed to guarantee. The department gave Bloomberg 560 e-mails so heavily redacted that the legible messages are limited to those saying things like "Did you just try to call me?" and "Monday will be a busy day!" Treasury repeatedly declined to provide more explanation to taxpayers whose money it shoveled to Citigroup, while claiming that disclosure would reveal "trade secrets, personnel rules and practices, memos subject to attorney-client privilege and violations of personal privacy."
2/3 of Americans, 1/3 of Democrats, thumbs down on Obama
NEW YORK , N.Y. - October 25, 2010 - President Obama is spending the next week crisscrossing the country in support of Democratic candidates before this year's midterm elections. While the president may do a great job of energizing the base, he may not be able to convert any Independents who have yet to decide for whom they will vote. Currently, two-thirds of Americans (67%) have a negative opinion of the job President Obama is doing while just over one-third (37%) have a positive opinion. This continues the president's downward trend and he is now at the lowest job approval rating of his presidency.
These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 3,084 adults surveyed online between October 11 and 18, 2010 by Harris Interactive.
It's perhaps not surprising that nine in ten Republicans (90%) and Conservatives (89%) give the job the president is doing negative ratings. What may be surprising is that one-third of Democrats (34%) and Liberals (33%) also give him negative ratings, as do seven in ten Independents (70%) and six in ten
These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 3,084 adults surveyed online between October 11 and 18, 2010 by Harris Interactive.
It's perhaps not surprising that nine in ten Republicans (90%) and Conservatives (89%) give the job the president is doing negative ratings. What may be surprising is that one-third of Democrats (34%) and Liberals (33%) also give him negative ratings, as do seven in ten Independents (70%) and six in ten
New Jersey teachers caught off-guard, boasting of job security
Conservative activist James O’Keefe released two new videos in Monday in which unionized New Jersey educators appear to boast about how it’s virtually impossible to fire tenured teachers, even those who make racist statements to students.
O’Keefe, best known as the force behind last year’s ACORN scandal, said the first video was shot at a meeting of the New Jersey Education Association in August. Entitled Teachers Gone Wild, the tape shows people identified as teachers speaking in what appears to be a hotel lounge, as well as in a conference room. O’Keefe says the video was gathered by a “team of videographers,” whom he and his colleagues at Veritas Visuals hooked up with hidden microphones and cameras. O’Keefe says the journalists “weren’t in costumes.”
In one video, Alissa Ploshnick, who is identified as a special educator at Passaic Public Schools, seems to verify the worst suspicions of education reformers. “It’s really hard to fire a tenured teacher,” she says. “It’s really hard – like you seriously have to be in the hallway fucking somebody.”
O’Keefe, best known as the force behind last year’s ACORN scandal, said the first video was shot at a meeting of the New Jersey Education Association in August. Entitled Teachers Gone Wild, the tape shows people identified as teachers speaking in what appears to be a hotel lounge, as well as in a conference room. O’Keefe says the video was gathered by a “team of videographers,” whom he and his colleagues at Veritas Visuals hooked up with hidden microphones and cameras. O’Keefe says the journalists “weren’t in costumes.”
In one video, Alissa Ploshnick, who is identified as a special educator at Passaic Public Schools, seems to verify the worst suspicions of education reformers. “It’s really hard to fire a tenured teacher,” she says. “It’s really hard – like you seriously have to be in the hallway fucking somebody.”
Tea Party is a force that has had impact and has staying power
Right now, the tea party has higher favorability than either the Democratic or Republican Party. Forty-four percent of likely voters now say they are favorable to the tea party movement, compared with 38 percent for the Democrats and 30 percent for the GOP, according to a recent Zogby national poll.
More than one-third (36 percent) of Americans say that they have taken active steps to support or learn about the tea party movement, our polling revealed, one-quarter (25 percent) say they are supporters, 23 percent have attended a rally and 24 percent have given money or have friends who have given money.
These are extraordinary numbers that speak to a movement with staying power. In fact. three-quarters (75 percent) of the electorate expect the tea party movement to continue to have an active role indefinitely, and two-thirds (67 percent) say it has already had real impact on the political process.
Independent estimates have shown that the movement has the potential to elect up to 100 House members and at least potentially six new senators, from Florida, Utah, Kentucky, Colorado, Alaska and maybe and Nevada.
It is clear from our polling over the past 18 months – and certainly during this campaign – that rather than being a flash-in-the-pan, the tea party movement has the potential not only to play a big role in November, but to be decisive in the Republican nominating process in 2012. As well as in electing the next president.
More than one-third (36 percent) of Americans say that they have taken active steps to support or learn about the tea party movement, our polling revealed, one-quarter (25 percent) say they are supporters, 23 percent have attended a rally and 24 percent have given money or have friends who have given money.
These are extraordinary numbers that speak to a movement with staying power. In fact. three-quarters (75 percent) of the electorate expect the tea party movement to continue to have an active role indefinitely, and two-thirds (67 percent) say it has already had real impact on the political process.
Independent estimates have shown that the movement has the potential to elect up to 100 House members and at least potentially six new senators, from Florida, Utah, Kentucky, Colorado, Alaska and maybe and Nevada.
It is clear from our polling over the past 18 months – and certainly during this campaign – that rather than being a flash-in-the-pan, the tea party movement has the potential not only to play a big role in November, but to be decisive in the Republican nominating process in 2012. As well as in electing the next president.
Monday, October 25, 2010
WikiLeaks: Iraq did, indeed, have chemical weapons and labs
By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.
An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.
In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base.
Three months later, in northern Iraq, U.S. scouts went to look in on a “chemical weapons” complex. “One of the bunkers has been tampered with,” they write. “The integrity of the seal [around the complex] appears intact, but it seems someone is interesting in trying to get into the bunkers.”
Meanwhile, the second battle of Fallujah was raging in Anbar province. In the southeastern corner of the city, American forces came across a “house with a chemical lab … substances found are similar to ones (in lesser quantities located a previous chemical lab.” The following day, there’s a call in another part of the city for explosive experts to dispose of a “chemical cache.”
Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”
In WikiLeaks’ massive trove of nearly 392,000 Iraq war logs are hundreds of references to chemical and biological weapons. Most of those are intelligence reports or initial suspicions of WMD that don’t pan out. In July 2004, for example, U.S. forces come across a Baghdad building with gas masks, gas filters, and containers with “unknown contents” inside. Later investigation revealed those contents to be vitamins.
But even late in the war, WMDs were still being unearthed. In the summer of 2008, according to one WikiLeaked report, American troops found at least 10 rounds that tested positive for chemical agents. “These rounds were most likely left over from the [Saddam]-era regime. Based on location, these rounds may be an AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] cache. However, the rounds were all total disrepair and did not appear to have been moved for a long time.”
A small group — mostly of the political right — has long maintained that there was more evidence of a major and modern WMD program than the American people were led to believe. A few Congressmen and Senators gravitated to the idea, but it was largely dismissed as conspiratorial hooey.
But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.
An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.
In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base.
Three months later, in northern Iraq, U.S. scouts went to look in on a “chemical weapons” complex. “One of the bunkers has been tampered with,” they write. “The integrity of the seal [around the complex] appears intact, but it seems someone is interesting in trying to get into the bunkers.”
Meanwhile, the second battle of Fallujah was raging in Anbar province. In the southeastern corner of the city, American forces came across a “house with a chemical lab … substances found are similar to ones (in lesser quantities located a previous chemical lab.” The following day, there’s a call in another part of the city for explosive experts to dispose of a “chemical cache.”
Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”
In WikiLeaks’ massive trove of nearly 392,000 Iraq war logs are hundreds of references to chemical and biological weapons. Most of those are intelligence reports or initial suspicions of WMD that don’t pan out. In July 2004, for example, U.S. forces come across a Baghdad building with gas masks, gas filters, and containers with “unknown contents” inside. Later investigation revealed those contents to be vitamins.
But even late in the war, WMDs were still being unearthed. In the summer of 2008, according to one WikiLeaked report, American troops found at least 10 rounds that tested positive for chemical agents. “These rounds were most likely left over from the [Saddam]-era regime. Based on location, these rounds may be an AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] cache. However, the rounds were all total disrepair and did not appear to have been moved for a long time.”
A small group — mostly of the political right — has long maintained that there was more evidence of a major and modern WMD program than the American people were led to believe. A few Congressmen and Senators gravitated to the idea, but it was largely dismissed as conspiratorial hooey.
Examiner: "The interests of government employee unions are inextricably opposed to the public interest"
With the 2010 midterm congressional election campaign entering its final week, the fundamental divide in American politics has rarely been defined with more raw clarity than it is now.
On the one side are voters representing a vibrant private sector that creates jobs, builds prosperity and throbs with opportunity. Here are found the Tea Party movement, most congressional Republicans and a few of their Democratic colleagues, millions of independent voters, Main Street and small-business associations, and, increasingly, seniors. The other side is led by government employee unions who take from the private sector to further enrich and empower themselves and their political allies, including President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and the Democratic majority that has controlled both chambers in Congress since 2007. The unions' supporting cast includes radical Big Green environmentalists, trial lawyers, most precincts of the mainstream media, and college professors.
Obama and company have been on a demagogic spree in recent weeks, attacking the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a host of shadowy, unnamed "foreign interests" for allegedly pumping millions of anonymous dollars into U.S. politics to buy the election. The charge is demonstrably false, but that doesn't prevent its endless repetition. On Friday, however, we learned courtesy of the Wall Street Journal that the biggest political spending in 2010 is by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. AFSCME will have funneled an estimated $87.5 million into the campaign by Nov. 2, all of it going to Democrats and an amount far exceeding the chamber's $75 million. More millions are being poured into Democratic campaign coffers by other public-sector unions. On Friday, for example, the National Education Association spent $500,000 on ads aimed at helping Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak defeat former Rep. Pat Toomey, the Republican in the Pennsylvania Senate contest.
But there is a fundamental problem here that FDR understood years ago and that AFSCME President Gerald McEntee inadvertently highlighted when he told the Journal: "We're spending big. And we're damn happy it's big. And our members are damn happy it's big -- it's their money." Actually, it's not simply "their money." Every dollar paid to a unionized government worker was taxed away from somebody who earned it in the private sector. So when these unions spend millions to elect Democrats who will vote for bigger government, they are literally using money from the productive part of America to enable more government taxing and spending. FDR might well have had this inconvenient fact in mind when he wrote in 1937 that "meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government ... the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service."
The interests of government employee unions are inextricably opposed to the public interest. It's time campaign finance law recognized this truth.
On the one side are voters representing a vibrant private sector that creates jobs, builds prosperity and throbs with opportunity. Here are found the Tea Party movement, most congressional Republicans and a few of their Democratic colleagues, millions of independent voters, Main Street and small-business associations, and, increasingly, seniors. The other side is led by government employee unions who take from the private sector to further enrich and empower themselves and their political allies, including President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and the Democratic majority that has controlled both chambers in Congress since 2007. The unions' supporting cast includes radical Big Green environmentalists, trial lawyers, most precincts of the mainstream media, and college professors.
Obama and company have been on a demagogic spree in recent weeks, attacking the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a host of shadowy, unnamed "foreign interests" for allegedly pumping millions of anonymous dollars into U.S. politics to buy the election. The charge is demonstrably false, but that doesn't prevent its endless repetition. On Friday, however, we learned courtesy of the Wall Street Journal that the biggest political spending in 2010 is by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. AFSCME will have funneled an estimated $87.5 million into the campaign by Nov. 2, all of it going to Democrats and an amount far exceeding the chamber's $75 million. More millions are being poured into Democratic campaign coffers by other public-sector unions. On Friday, for example, the National Education Association spent $500,000 on ads aimed at helping Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak defeat former Rep. Pat Toomey, the Republican in the Pennsylvania Senate contest.
But there is a fundamental problem here that FDR understood years ago and that AFSCME President Gerald McEntee inadvertently highlighted when he told the Journal: "We're spending big. And we're damn happy it's big. And our members are damn happy it's big -- it's their money." Actually, it's not simply "their money." Every dollar paid to a unionized government worker was taxed away from somebody who earned it in the private sector. So when these unions spend millions to elect Democrats who will vote for bigger government, they are literally using money from the productive part of America to enable more government taxing and spending. FDR might well have had this inconvenient fact in mind when he wrote in 1937 that "meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government ... the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service."
The interests of government employee unions are inextricably opposed to the public interest. It's time campaign finance law recognized this truth.
Public employee unions underfund pensions and give lavishly to Democrat campaigns in expectation of pension bailouts
Public employee unions are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on political campaigns while estimates of underfunded rank-and-file public employee pension plans reach a staggering $3 trillion dollars.
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) has to date spent $87.5 million this election cycle, according a Wall Street Journal report, and has spent a total of nearly $360 million since the 1997-98 election cycle.
"We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."
Scanlon has run AFSCME election programs for nearly 15 years and readily admits the connection between the number of government jobs and the union's political clout.
"The more members coming in, the more dues coming in, the more money we have for politics," Scanlon told the Journal.
When Democrats in Congress sent more than $160 billion in bailouts to states over the past 20 months, as much as $100 million went to union dues from public sector employees, according to Brett McMahon, spokesman for Associated Builders and Contractors, a trade organization.
"We borrowed money from the Chinese again in order to give Democrats extra campaign help," McMahon told Human Events.
McMahon believes this sort of "hand-in-glove interest" would result in a bribery prosecution in the private sector.
"It's a really a unique situation where you have these contractual obligations that state officials negotiate with people who have supported them directly," McMahon said. "In business, for example, if I sent a big contribution to one of my customers and said, 'Hey, you think I'm going to get that job I just bid on?' I'd actually probably have to talk to a prosecutor pretty quickly after that because that would be considered bribery."
The non-partisan taxpayer watchdog group, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), noted that state and local government pensions are underfunded by a staggering $3.04 trillion when applying private-sector accounting practices to state pension funds.
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) has to date spent $87.5 million this election cycle, according a Wall Street Journal report, and has spent a total of nearly $360 million since the 1997-98 election cycle.
"We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."
Scanlon has run AFSCME election programs for nearly 15 years and readily admits the connection between the number of government jobs and the union's political clout.
"The more members coming in, the more dues coming in, the more money we have for politics," Scanlon told the Journal.
When Democrats in Congress sent more than $160 billion in bailouts to states over the past 20 months, as much as $100 million went to union dues from public sector employees, according to Brett McMahon, spokesman for Associated Builders and Contractors, a trade organization.
"We borrowed money from the Chinese again in order to give Democrats extra campaign help," McMahon told Human Events.
McMahon believes this sort of "hand-in-glove interest" would result in a bribery prosecution in the private sector.
"It's a really a unique situation where you have these contractual obligations that state officials negotiate with people who have supported them directly," McMahon said. "In business, for example, if I sent a big contribution to one of my customers and said, 'Hey, you think I'm going to get that job I just bid on?' I'd actually probably have to talk to a prosecutor pretty quickly after that because that would be considered bribery."
The non-partisan taxpayer watchdog group, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), noted that state and local government pensions are underfunded by a staggering $3.04 trillion when applying private-sector accounting practices to state pension funds.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Political careerists will still infest Michigan's legislature
One oft-repeated rap against term limits is that the legislature now consists of inexperienced "amateurs." In fact, from top to bottom, those who preside over Michigan's government establishment are political careerists. This reality is illustrated by an analysis of candidates running for the 81 open seats in the state Legislature this year: 72 of the likely winners are already members-in-good-standing of the bipartisan political class.
Here are the details: Of the 78 Democrat and Republican candidates who have at least some chance of winning one of the 52 open state House seats this year, 60 are individuals who have been immersed in government to some degree. Among these 60 are 33 current or past officeholders (five mayors, six city council members, nine county commissioners, six township trustees or supervisors, and seven school board members); eight current or past congressional, legislative or Detroit city council staffers; three relatives of current or former legislators; and one termed-out state senator. Eight more are current or past local government appointees or managers, four are current or past public school employees, and three are former state employees.
Twenty-two of these government-oriented House candidates are virtually guaranteed general election winners in "one-party" districts. In 13 of 26 competitive House races both candidates have previous government involvement, and in approximately nine of the rest the government candidate is the front-runner. That adds up to 44 open House seats where it's likely the next representative will be a government insider even before going to Lansing. (District-by-district matchups here.)
On the other side of the Capitol, at least 28 of the 29 new state Senators will also fit that description (27 of the likely winners are current or past state representatives.)
The defining characteristic of political careerists is an ambition to avoid the hard accountability of a "real job" in the private sector for the rest of their working lives. Instead, they seek to live comfortably, feel important and enjoy social benefits by progressing from one elected or appointed government position to another until retiring sometime in their 50s with a nice taxpayer-funded pension. (Note that 9-to-5 civil service jobs are not a preferred-part of this personal agenda.)
Here are the details: Of the 78 Democrat and Republican candidates who have at least some chance of winning one of the 52 open state House seats this year, 60 are individuals who have been immersed in government to some degree. Among these 60 are 33 current or past officeholders (five mayors, six city council members, nine county commissioners, six township trustees or supervisors, and seven school board members); eight current or past congressional, legislative or Detroit city council staffers; three relatives of current or former legislators; and one termed-out state senator. Eight more are current or past local government appointees or managers, four are current or past public school employees, and three are former state employees.
Twenty-two of these government-oriented House candidates are virtually guaranteed general election winners in "one-party" districts. In 13 of 26 competitive House races both candidates have previous government involvement, and in approximately nine of the rest the government candidate is the front-runner. That adds up to 44 open House seats where it's likely the next representative will be a government insider even before going to Lansing. (District-by-district matchups here.)
On the other side of the Capitol, at least 28 of the 29 new state Senators will also fit that description (27 of the likely winners are current or past state representatives.)
The defining characteristic of political careerists is an ambition to avoid the hard accountability of a "real job" in the private sector for the rest of their working lives. Instead, they seek to live comfortably, feel important and enjoy social benefits by progressing from one elected or appointed government position to another until retiring sometime in their 50s with a nice taxpayer-funded pension. (Note that 9-to-5 civil service jobs are not a preferred-part of this personal agenda.)
Pew Research finds huge GOP swings by 82% of voter groups
It’s a chart to make a Democrat’s blood run cold.
Page eight of a new poll out this week by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press shows which party 28 different categories of voters supported in 2006 – the last midterm election – and who they favor now.
In 2006, 17 categories favored Democrats, which helped them take control of the House and Senate from Republicans. Democrats picked up six Senate seats and 30 House seats.
In the Pew Poll, 23 of the 28 categories of voters now favor Republicans. What’s more, 22 of the 28 categories support the GOP by 49 percent or more. There are only four categories of voters that are under 40 percent: those making less than $30,000 a year, at 39 percent; voters who are unaffiliated with a religion, at 37 percent; black voters, at 10 percent; and Democrats, at 8 percent.
What is most remarkable is how far some categories have swung away from Democrats and toward the GOP.
Democrats have lost a significant advantage with women voters, who supported Democrats by a 48 to 41 percent margin in 2006, but who have now flipped to supporting the GOP by 49 to 43 percent.
Voters over 65 years old were for Democrats by a 48 to 42 percent margin four years ago. They now favor Republicans by 52 to 38 percent. That’s a 20 point swing.
Perhaps most damaging for Democrats, they have suffered huge losses among Independents. Democrats were up 7 points in 2006, by 42 to 35 percent. They now are down 19 points, 49 to 30 percent. That’s a 26-point swing.
That point movement matches exactly what’s happened with white voters in mainline Protestant denominations. Democrats were even with the GOP among these voters in 2006, but are now down by 26 points, 58 to 32 percent.
Geographically, the biggest swing has been in the Midwest, where voters have come back to the GOP in droves. Democrats had an 11-point advantage in the Midwest in 2006, 51 to 40 percent. This year, Republicans are up 16 points, 53 to 37 percent.
The smallest swing of any group away from Democrats – besides black voters, where Democrats have seen only a one point loss – is out West, where they were up 47 to 44 percent in 2006 but are now down 45 to 43 percent.
Even in those four categories under 40 percent support for the Republicans, there has been massive movement away from Democrats.
Page eight of a new poll out this week by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press shows which party 28 different categories of voters supported in 2006 – the last midterm election – and who they favor now.
In 2006, 17 categories favored Democrats, which helped them take control of the House and Senate from Republicans. Democrats picked up six Senate seats and 30 House seats.
In the Pew Poll, 23 of the 28 categories of voters now favor Republicans. What’s more, 22 of the 28 categories support the GOP by 49 percent or more. There are only four categories of voters that are under 40 percent: those making less than $30,000 a year, at 39 percent; voters who are unaffiliated with a religion, at 37 percent; black voters, at 10 percent; and Democrats, at 8 percent.
What is most remarkable is how far some categories have swung away from Democrats and toward the GOP.
Democrats have lost a significant advantage with women voters, who supported Democrats by a 48 to 41 percent margin in 2006, but who have now flipped to supporting the GOP by 49 to 43 percent.
Voters over 65 years old were for Democrats by a 48 to 42 percent margin four years ago. They now favor Republicans by 52 to 38 percent. That’s a 20 point swing.
Perhaps most damaging for Democrats, they have suffered huge losses among Independents. Democrats were up 7 points in 2006, by 42 to 35 percent. They now are down 19 points, 49 to 30 percent. That’s a 26-point swing.
That point movement matches exactly what’s happened with white voters in mainline Protestant denominations. Democrats were even with the GOP among these voters in 2006, but are now down by 26 points, 58 to 32 percent.
Geographically, the biggest swing has been in the Midwest, where voters have come back to the GOP in droves. Democrats had an 11-point advantage in the Midwest in 2006, 51 to 40 percent. This year, Republicans are up 16 points, 53 to 37 percent.
The smallest swing of any group away from Democrats – besides black voters, where Democrats have seen only a one point loss – is out West, where they were up 47 to 44 percent in 2006 but are now down 45 to 43 percent.
Even in those four categories under 40 percent support for the Republicans, there has been massive movement away from Democrats.
P.J. O'Rourke on what drives Democrats: "They hate our guts"
Perhaps you’re having a tiny last minute qualm about voting Republican. Take heart. And take the House and the Senate. Yes, there are a few flakes of dander in the fair tresses of the GOP’s crowning glory—an isolated isolationist or two, a hint of gold buggery, and Christine O’Donnell announcing that she’s not a witch. (I ask you, has Hillary Clinton ever cleared this up?) Fret not over Republican peccadilloes such as the Tea Party finding the single, solitary person in Nevada who couldn’t poll ten to one against Harry Reid. Better to have a few cockeyed mutts running the dog pound than Michael Vick.
I take it back. Using the metaphor of Michael Vick for the Democratic party leadership implies they are people with a capacity for moral redemption who want to call good plays on the legislative gridiron. They aren’t. They don’t. The reason is simple. They hate our guts.
They don’t just hate our Republican, conservative, libertarian, strict constructionist, family values guts. They hate everybody’s guts. And they hate everybody who has any. Democrats hate men, women, blacks, whites, Hispanics, gays, straights, the rich, the poor, and the middle class.
Democrats hate Democrats most of all. Witness the policies that Democrats have inflicted on their core constituencies, resulting in vile schools, lawless slums, economic stagnation, and social immobility. Democrats will do anything to make sure that Democratic voters stay helpless and hopeless enough to vote for Democrats.
Whence all this hate? Is it the usual story of love gone wrong? Do Democrats have a mad infatuation with the political system, an unhealthy obsession with an idealized body politic? Do they dream of capturing and ravishing representational democracy? Are they crazed stalkers of our constitutional republic?
No. It’s worse than that. Democrats aren’t just dateless dweebs clambering upon the Statue of Liberty carrying a wilted bouquet and trying to cop a feel. Theirs is a different kind of love story. Power, not politics, is what the Democrats love. Politics is merely a way to power’s heart. When politics is the technique of seduction, good looks are unnecessary, good morals are unneeded, and good sense is a positive liability. Thus Democrats are the perfect Lotharios. And politics comes with that reliable boost for pathetic egos, a weapon: legal monopoly on force. If persuasion fails to win the day, coercion is always an option.
I take it back. Using the metaphor of Michael Vick for the Democratic party leadership implies they are people with a capacity for moral redemption who want to call good plays on the legislative gridiron. They aren’t. They don’t. The reason is simple. They hate our guts.
They don’t just hate our Republican, conservative, libertarian, strict constructionist, family values guts. They hate everybody’s guts. And they hate everybody who has any. Democrats hate men, women, blacks, whites, Hispanics, gays, straights, the rich, the poor, and the middle class.
Democrats hate Democrats most of all. Witness the policies that Democrats have inflicted on their core constituencies, resulting in vile schools, lawless slums, economic stagnation, and social immobility. Democrats will do anything to make sure that Democratic voters stay helpless and hopeless enough to vote for Democrats.
Whence all this hate? Is it the usual story of love gone wrong? Do Democrats have a mad infatuation with the political system, an unhealthy obsession with an idealized body politic? Do they dream of capturing and ravishing representational democracy? Are they crazed stalkers of our constitutional republic?
No. It’s worse than that. Democrats aren’t just dateless dweebs clambering upon the Statue of Liberty carrying a wilted bouquet and trying to cop a feel. Theirs is a different kind of love story. Power, not politics, is what the Democrats love. Politics is merely a way to power’s heart. When politics is the technique of seduction, good looks are unnecessary, good morals are unneeded, and good sense is a positive liability. Thus Democrats are the perfect Lotharios. And politics comes with that reliable boost for pathetic egos, a weapon: legal monopoly on force. If persuasion fails to win the day, coercion is always an option.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
