Countdown: 1251 DAYS
Egypt Meltdown Doesn’t Deter John Kerry’s Kiteboarding Adventure!
Things have got to be tense at the U.S.
State Department as countries like Egypt and Syria continue to spiral
into total chaos. More than 700 people have been reported dead
since violent clashes began in Egypt on Wednesday, including at least
64 on Friday, and the department will face several key decisions in the
near future that will have far-reaching implications for the United
States.
So how does the man who heads the State
Department unwind during a stressful time like this? He goes
kiteboarding in Nantucket, Mass.
TheBlaze has obtained exclusive photos
of Secretary of State John Kerry’s kiteboarding adventure in Nantucket –
and at 69-years-old, you have to admit, his skills are pretty
impressive:
President Barack Obama was still on vacation on Martha’s Vineyard on Friday. He opted for the ground over the sea:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/16/exclusive-pics-egypt-meltdown-doesnt-deter-john-kerrys-kiteboarding-adventure/
Obama Suspends the Law. What Would Lincoln Say?
The current president's hero tried to abide by the Constitution and enlist Congress's support.
The Obama administration announced last month via blog post that the president was unilaterally suspending ObamaCare's employer mandate—notwithstanding the clear command of the law. President Obama's comments about it on Aug. 9—claiming that "the normal thing [he] would prefer to do" is seek a "change to the law"—then added insult to constitutional injury. It also offers a sharp contrast with a different president who also suspended the law.On April 27, 1861, President Lincoln unilaterally authorized his commanding general to suspend the writ of habeas corpus so that he could detain dangerous rebels in the early days of the Civil War. Lincoln's order was constitutionally questionable. The Constitution provides that "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
A rebellion was in progress, so suspension was permissible. But the Constitution doesn't specify who can suspend the writ in such circumstances. Since the Suspension Clause appears in Article I of the Constitution, which is predominantly about the powers of Congress, there is a strong argument that only Congress can suspend the habeas writ.
Lincoln's order was legally dubious, but what he did next showed remarkable constitutional rectitude. On July 4, 1861, he delivered a solemn message to Congress, in which he did everything possible to square his action with the Constitution. In this message, he set forth the best possible constitutional arguments that he had unilateral power to suspend the writ. These arguments may have been wrong, but they were serious, and they were presented seriously, in good faith.
Lincoln also made a powerful argument about the necessity of his action. Even if he was wrong, and only Congress had the power to suspend the writ, surely the circumstances had to be considered: Congress was in recess and the South was in open rebellion. "The whole of the laws which were required to be faithfully executed, were being resisted, and failing of execution, in nearly one-third of the states," Lincoln said to Congress.
Should Lincoln have refrained from suspending habeas, if doing so meant that the republic would fall? As he put it: "[A]re all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?"
Lincoln also invited Congress to ratify his actions: "Whether there shall be any legislation upon the subject, and, if any, what, is submitted entirely to the better judgment of Congress." On Aug, 6, 1861, Congress did indeed retroactively ratify "all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President . . . respecting the army and navy of the United States." And later, on March 3, 1863, Congress expressly authorized the president to suspend the writ.
Scholars have debated whether Lincoln exceeded his power by suspending the writ and whether Congress's retroactive ratification cured any constitutional infirmity. Whatever one's answer, this is a case of a president—himself a constitutional lawyer—trying, under impossible circumstances, to be as faithful to the Constitution as possible.
Contrast all of this with President Obama's announcement that he is unilaterally suspending part of the Affordable Care Act. Like Lincoln, Mr. Obama is a constitutional lawyer. And like Lincoln's action, Mr. Obama's was a unilateral executive suspension of the law. But in every other way, the president's behavior could not have been more different from Lincoln's.
First, Lincoln's action was at least arguably constitutional, while Mr. Obama's is not. The Constitution has a provision for suspending habeas. It has no general provision for executive suspension of laws. English kings used to suspend laws, but the Framers rejected that practice: The president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
Second, Lincoln volunteered an articulate constitutional defense of his action. Mr. Obama seemed annoyed when the New York Times dared to ask him the constitutional question. When the reporter asked whether he had consulted with lawyers about the legality of the mandate's delay, he declined to answer.
As for Republican congressmen who had the temerity to question his authority, Mr. Obama said only: "I'm not concerned about their opinions—very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers." Mr. Obama made no mention of Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin—a Democrat, a lawyer and one of the authors of ObamaCare—who said: "This was the law. How can they change the law?"
Third, Lincoln offered a brilliant and compelling argument about the necessity of his action, given that the republic was in imminent danger. Mr. Obama's official version of the constitutional-necessity argument was nothing more than a breezy blog post attributed to an assistant secretary for tax policy. The title? "Continuing to Implement the ACA in a Careful, Thoughtful Manner."
Fourth, and most strikingly, Lincoln promptly looked to Congress to ratify his unilateral action. Congress agreed with Lincoln, and the president welcomed and signed new legislation. President Obama says only that he wishes he could follow the same course. Last week, he said he would like to "simply call up the Speaker" of the House to request a "change to the law" that would achieve his desired delay.
In fact, as the president knows, he doesn't even need to pick up the phone: On July 17, the House of Representatives passed the Authority for Mandate Delay Act (with 229 Republicans and 35 Democrats voting in favor). This would authorize President Obama's desired suspension of the law, just as Congress ratified Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus.
But unlike Lincoln, President Obama doesn't welcome this congressional ratification. He has called the House bill that fixes the constitutional problem he created "unnecessary," and he threatened to veto it. Why? Because the House also passed a companion bill that would delay the individual mandate too. For political reasons, the president doesn't want to be in the inconvenient position of signing one bill that would give companies a reprieve from ObamaCare, while vetoing another that would grant individuals the same delay. The Democratic-controlled Senate will quietly kill the House bill and save Mr. Obama the awkwardness of having to veto it.
Faced with military exigencies, Lincoln did everything possible to enlist Congress's support—and thus to follow the Constitution. Mr. Obama, faced with mere political and bureaucratic inconveniences, spurned Congress's support and flouted the Constitution.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324769704579006594068764238.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
"I've Never Had A Job That I Was Better Than"
For many years I've made a fundamental assertion about the American culture. There is a divide within the U.S.A. that is more divisive than homosexuality, abortion, and just about any left/right debate that can be imagined.The trouble is it shouldn't be.
The singular difference that separates the two halves of America is repulsive, but it is dressed up as compassion. The issue creates enslavement, but the reality is--it should be liberating. It is manipulated by "civil rights" leaders, though they profit directly from the slavery. It is held in silence in America's pulpits less someone think that in discussing it a pastor comes off as too self righteous.
It is the only thing that separates the income levels people achieve.
And it is the solution to nearly every problem that Washington DC seems to take great delight in making aggressively worse these days.
People will be labeled racist for merely bringing it up, though it has zero to do with the origin, race, nationality, ethnicity, or biology of a person.
In many ways this issue is both a sign of hope, and a sentence of death for the nation that America could become. So what are we to do about it?
The issue is a mindset, a way of viewing the world, when Americans awake in the morning.
It divides us somewhat like this:
On one hand a man swings his legs over the side of his bed, plants his feet on the floor, first thing in the morning and makes a personal vow to himself that his children, wife, and self will not eat unless he does his job. That the true success of their family depends on him, and he knows that he must take personal responsibility for them in order to survive.
On the other hand is a man who swings his legs over the side of his bed, plants his feet on the floor, first thing in the morning and makes a public proclamation that the reason he can't get ahead is because the world is stacked against him, he needs President Obama's help, his Obamaphone, federally provided health care, welfare, food stamps, and more.
Not all humans fit neatly or perfectly as one or the other, but their way of thinking does. One sees himself as humble, responsible, and morally obligated to serve his family for the good things in life to be enjoyed. The other sees those who have more than himself as people who are the problem and should be forced to pay for his suffering, misery, and failure.
Typically progressive leftists prop up many of those types as political pawns to enjoin votes from the disaffected masses.
Which makes the words that Ashton Kutcher said to the Teen Choice Awards so profound.
Kutcher is a celebrated actor....
When he was honored by the Teen Choice Awards he even rebuffed their courtesy by saying he was the "old guy."
But it was his assertion following that joke that stood out in the viral internet noise this week.
He told the teens that to him "opportunity" in life, looked to him a lot like "hard work."
He told of a series of jobs he had before getting into acting--all of them manual labor, all of them non-ideal, and then he added what may be the most profound thing to be said by a member of Hollywood... ever.
He said, "I've never had a job I'm better than!"
Meaning he found dignity in the opportunity to work a job... any job... every job, and to provide for himself.
The fact that the video has gone viral with thousands of copies racking up millions of views across the web, only serves to reinforce how rare this message is today.
And yet he couldn't be more correct.
There is a dignity that comes from working hard, sometimes in life working even harder than what you believe is endurable, but with it comes the confidence that you will be prepared for a better opportunity (more hard work) when it is presented to you.
If every American adopted this mentality, we could become a debt-free economic machine that could feed every family in our borders and pour philanthropy across the globe.
But while we have administrative handouts, disguised as "programs that help people", we won't gain freedom--but rather extended enslavement.
And that is a sad picture of America's new tomorrow!
A tomorrow--we no doubt believe--we are better than.
http://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmccullough/2013/08/18/ive-never-had-a-job-that-i-was-better-than-n1667083/page/full
The High Entitlement Mind
Recently, a thirty-something daughter wanted me to evaluate her fifty-something mother for disability.
She wanted her mother to leave her job at a bank. "I don't want my
momma slavin' in no bank." The mother worked as a supervisor, and she
seemed proud of her position. Her worst stress came from her 16-year-old
grandson who was living with her. He had been expelled from school for
fighting and had recently pushed her into a wall because she refused to
drive him to the mall.
I reflected on the young woman's formulation that going to work was "slavin'" and the significance of that term to her as an African-American. Did she feel entitled to turn her mother into free in-home supervision for her son? She had felt entitled to have a son whom she could not afford to raise. When the fatherless boy grew into a violent teenager she responded by trying to get her own mother on disability. Coincidentally, the older lady's job called her while she was in my office. She instantaneously transformed from a slumped, tearful huddle to a professional woman. She said crisply, "I have to take this," and walked out.
The ego is a prolific pulp fiction writer that churns out countless volumes, This is Why I Am Special and This Is Why I Am More Deserving than You. That is the ego's job, and it serves a survival purpose. Egos also tenaciously adhere to other egos spinning similar yarns. A new form of group grievance has arisen in America, which I call the "high entitlement mind." The "high entitlement mind" results from a self-image of victimization based on identification with a group grievance narrative. These group narratives are much stronger than individual narratives because group members reinforce each other's fictions. The high entitlement mind claims restitution not for actual suffering but for indoctrinated identification with the "borrowed" group suffering of others; it hungers after pay without work as compensation for imaginary injuries.
Most mental illness results from chronic false valuation of a self-important ego trying to get what it wants rather than what it needs, and Americans face a challenge within a challenge regarding special entitlement. The assumption that human beings originate in God-given, unalienable equality is a protection from the machinations of man and places American egos under an extra duty to question the rightfulness of one's wants, especially if somebody else has to pay for them.
Historically, intergroup exploitation was rationalized on assumptions about group superiority: "Because my group is superior to yours I can exploit and abuse you." Since the 1960s, American entitlement fallacies have reversed: "Since I was a tyke I've been taught that your group abused mine in the past so I deserve special rights to exploit and abuse you."
Attaining goals against the odds is a tempering process in which the mind moves beyond anger -- which provides energy for the struggle -- to acceptance, forgiveness, and gratitude. When people's lives are defined by counterfeit victimization and unearned emoluments, like the young woman in my office, there can be no growth. The mind becomes stuck in permanent hostility. This is why the high entitlement mind is always angry and has difficulty forming a relationship outside its false narrative. It is why the young woman in my office could not recognize the needs of her mother.
Alfred Adler is a psychological theoretician who transformed the way modern man views himself. He was considered the dummkopf of Freud's circle, but he may be the most influential of the founders of depth psychology. His theories about inferiority set the stage for the modern understanding of the importance of self-esteem, and they are the best psychology for understanding the high entitlement mind. Adler theorized that the unconscious perception of inadequacy forms the basis of a sense of inferiority. At every developmental stage the healthy unconscious mind works to convert feelings of inferiority to healthy superiority or "completeness" by successfully achieving developmentally appropriate goals. Mental disorder develops as a retreat from developmental challenges into the discouragement of inferiority, or as an overcompensation of neurotic superiority. Adler stressed the individual's need for progressive developmental achievement: "As long as this striving is expressed in work it does not lead to false valuations, which are the root of mental disease."
Adler's ideas help explain how groups aggregate into inferiority/superiority relationships. Low entitlement groups project inferiority on high entitlement groups, and high entitlement minds unconsciously experience feelings of inferiority or "compensatory superiority" as they struggle to justify special privileges and as their achievements dwindle. This dynamic has been exacerbated by progressive indoctrination, especially of our children. American childhood is no longer sugar and spice and puppy dogs tails, but helpless worries about racism, gender bending, and the whole world burning up. Our children are taught to live in futile reaction against prejudices that no longer define American life. They are indoctrinated to see America as a place where some groups have always been hated and others always privileged. This mental abuse is not just on Harvey Milk Day but every day, in school, on television, everywhere. High entitlement youth (Blacks, Hispanics, illegal aliens, and sex minorities) are taught they are victims of inequality and deserve special privileges. They should not have to work as hard or follow the same rules. Low entitlement children (that is, Whites) are taught that they are perpetrators of inequality. They are publicly punished for expressing their identities, for vigorous masculinity, or for loving Jesus.
When the young woman in my office said, in effect, "My mother is too good to work in a bank," she was projecting a compensatory superiority that dishonors her mother's achievement and derails the positive cycle of work and earned respect. Michelle Obama was 44 years old when she said, "For the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country." This is a statement of almost psychotic compensatory superiority. She was really saying, "It was only when Barack and I were contenders for the White House that America was good enough for me." She didn't bring herself to this self-assessment. Her ingratitude and self-importance grew in serial false valuations, from a childhood free of institutionalized discrimination, to racial preferences, to an underwritten Ivy League education, culminating in her publicly financed in-your-face opulence.
Adler developed his psychology when the inferiority/superiority complexes were considered neuroses. That term was voted out of the diagnostic manual in the 1970s and replaced by 'personality disorder'. In neurotic states, people often realize they have a problem and seek help. With personality disorders, people don't have a problem, they are the problem. No matter how much harm they do they almost never try to change. The high entitlement mind is a functional personality disorder, unable to question its demand for special privilege, and why high entitlement grievance is so difficult to overcome.
The high entitlement fallacy explains why the Obama administration believes it is above the law, invariably bestows favor on its grievance group, and punishes the B-listers: conservatives, devout Christians, Constitutionalists, and all other low entitled "folks." It explains why our president and first lady cannot form a healthy relationship with many Americans beyond a fictitious racial narrative. The Obama's genuine and unique privilege is to live in a beautiful house Americans pay for. But in the ingratitude and hostility of the high entitlement mind, they slammed the door to the White House in our faces.
I reflected on the young woman's formulation that going to work was "slavin'" and the significance of that term to her as an African-American. Did she feel entitled to turn her mother into free in-home supervision for her son? She had felt entitled to have a son whom she could not afford to raise. When the fatherless boy grew into a violent teenager she responded by trying to get her own mother on disability. Coincidentally, the older lady's job called her while she was in my office. She instantaneously transformed from a slumped, tearful huddle to a professional woman. She said crisply, "I have to take this," and walked out.
The ego is a prolific pulp fiction writer that churns out countless volumes, This is Why I Am Special and This Is Why I Am More Deserving than You. That is the ego's job, and it serves a survival purpose. Egos also tenaciously adhere to other egos spinning similar yarns. A new form of group grievance has arisen in America, which I call the "high entitlement mind." The "high entitlement mind" results from a self-image of victimization based on identification with a group grievance narrative. These group narratives are much stronger than individual narratives because group members reinforce each other's fictions. The high entitlement mind claims restitution not for actual suffering but for indoctrinated identification with the "borrowed" group suffering of others; it hungers after pay without work as compensation for imaginary injuries.
Most mental illness results from chronic false valuation of a self-important ego trying to get what it wants rather than what it needs, and Americans face a challenge within a challenge regarding special entitlement. The assumption that human beings originate in God-given, unalienable equality is a protection from the machinations of man and places American egos under an extra duty to question the rightfulness of one's wants, especially if somebody else has to pay for them.
Historically, intergroup exploitation was rationalized on assumptions about group superiority: "Because my group is superior to yours I can exploit and abuse you." Since the 1960s, American entitlement fallacies have reversed: "Since I was a tyke I've been taught that your group abused mine in the past so I deserve special rights to exploit and abuse you."
Attaining goals against the odds is a tempering process in which the mind moves beyond anger -- which provides energy for the struggle -- to acceptance, forgiveness, and gratitude. When people's lives are defined by counterfeit victimization and unearned emoluments, like the young woman in my office, there can be no growth. The mind becomes stuck in permanent hostility. This is why the high entitlement mind is always angry and has difficulty forming a relationship outside its false narrative. It is why the young woman in my office could not recognize the needs of her mother.
Alfred Adler is a psychological theoretician who transformed the way modern man views himself. He was considered the dummkopf of Freud's circle, but he may be the most influential of the founders of depth psychology. His theories about inferiority set the stage for the modern understanding of the importance of self-esteem, and they are the best psychology for understanding the high entitlement mind. Adler theorized that the unconscious perception of inadequacy forms the basis of a sense of inferiority. At every developmental stage the healthy unconscious mind works to convert feelings of inferiority to healthy superiority or "completeness" by successfully achieving developmentally appropriate goals. Mental disorder develops as a retreat from developmental challenges into the discouragement of inferiority, or as an overcompensation of neurotic superiority. Adler stressed the individual's need for progressive developmental achievement: "As long as this striving is expressed in work it does not lead to false valuations, which are the root of mental disease."
Adler's ideas help explain how groups aggregate into inferiority/superiority relationships. Low entitlement groups project inferiority on high entitlement groups, and high entitlement minds unconsciously experience feelings of inferiority or "compensatory superiority" as they struggle to justify special privileges and as their achievements dwindle. This dynamic has been exacerbated by progressive indoctrination, especially of our children. American childhood is no longer sugar and spice and puppy dogs tails, but helpless worries about racism, gender bending, and the whole world burning up. Our children are taught to live in futile reaction against prejudices that no longer define American life. They are indoctrinated to see America as a place where some groups have always been hated and others always privileged. This mental abuse is not just on Harvey Milk Day but every day, in school, on television, everywhere. High entitlement youth (Blacks, Hispanics, illegal aliens, and sex minorities) are taught they are victims of inequality and deserve special privileges. They should not have to work as hard or follow the same rules. Low entitlement children (that is, Whites) are taught that they are perpetrators of inequality. They are publicly punished for expressing their identities, for vigorous masculinity, or for loving Jesus.
When the young woman in my office said, in effect, "My mother is too good to work in a bank," she was projecting a compensatory superiority that dishonors her mother's achievement and derails the positive cycle of work and earned respect. Michelle Obama was 44 years old when she said, "For the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country." This is a statement of almost psychotic compensatory superiority. She was really saying, "It was only when Barack and I were contenders for the White House that America was good enough for me." She didn't bring herself to this self-assessment. Her ingratitude and self-importance grew in serial false valuations, from a childhood free of institutionalized discrimination, to racial preferences, to an underwritten Ivy League education, culminating in her publicly financed in-your-face opulence.
Adler developed his psychology when the inferiority/superiority complexes were considered neuroses. That term was voted out of the diagnostic manual in the 1970s and replaced by 'personality disorder'. In neurotic states, people often realize they have a problem and seek help. With personality disorders, people don't have a problem, they are the problem. No matter how much harm they do they almost never try to change. The high entitlement mind is a functional personality disorder, unable to question its demand for special privilege, and why high entitlement grievance is so difficult to overcome.
The high entitlement fallacy explains why the Obama administration believes it is above the law, invariably bestows favor on its grievance group, and punishes the B-listers: conservatives, devout Christians, Constitutionalists, and all other low entitled "folks." It explains why our president and first lady cannot form a healthy relationship with many Americans beyond a fictitious racial narrative. The Obama's genuine and unique privilege is to live in a beautiful house Americans pay for. But in the ingratitude and hostility of the high entitlement mind, they slammed the door to the White House in our faces.
PK'S NOTE: Guys, he's running for president in 2016. He is NOT a conservative.
Gov. Christie Wants Firearms ID Card for Purchase of All Ammunition
On August 16, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R) vetoed some gun bills and sent others back to the state legislature with "recommendations." One such recommendation is "requiring a New Jersey firearms identification card for the purchase of all ammunition."Christie also wants physicians and screeners overseeing involuntary commitments to inquire about firearm ownership. This information could be obtained through a provision in the bills for a firearms identification card.
Christie vetoed the .50 caliber rifle ban, saying he wanted to ban long range Barrett .50 calibers, not all .50 calibers in general.
He also vetoed a bill aimed at overhauling the state's gun permit system.
The bill, sponsored by Senate President Steve Sweeney (D), would link a digital smartcard to all firearms purchases and law enforcement records. Access to the card would be available to state police, the Motor Vehicle department, mental health facilities, and ammunition retailers.
Christie said the technology for a "smart card" does not even exist. He likened the card to a "smart gun" requirement proposed in 2002, saying that smart gun technology is still not here, 11 years after it was proposed as a law.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/17/CNN-Gov-Christie-Wants-Firearms-ID-Card-For-Purchase-Of-All-Ammunition
RNC to House: Pass Immigration Reforms to Help U.S. Employers
In an apparent nod to the donor class, the Republican National Committee (RNC) has called on lawmakers in the House of Representatives to pass an immigration bill aimed at helping companies that say they need immigrant workers.Time’s Zeke Miller reported Friday that the RNC has passed a resolution at its annual event in Boston that calls on lawmakers to pass an immigration bill in 2013. The measure reads:
Resolved, that the Republican National Committee calls upon both Democrat and Republican members of Congress and the President to immediately authorize and complete construction of the double fence along our southern border that was approved in 2006 and is still not completed and sufficient law enforcement or military personnel to patrol; and create an effective means of enforcement for legal visitors who have not followed the terms of their entry into the country; and step up the penalty for illegally entering the United States from misdemeanor to felony.The RNC also called on Congress and President Barack Obama “to implement immigration reform during the 2013 session based upon a merit system that emphasizes the economic contribution of each working immigrant can add to our nation.” The GOP similarly called on Congress and Obama to “create a new class of work permit that allows illegal immigrants who were brought into our country as minor children, and who have not violated any other laws of the U.S. to come forward and register and be allowed to remain and work in the U.S."
"This new class of legal worker permit holders will not result in an application for citizenship or to petition citizenship for family members," the party stated. "The work permit will require renewal every five (5) years and will require proof of employment or attendance in school during that period.”
The last part of the policy proposal the RNC demands is for Obama and Congress to “create a new work permit program that will allow foreign nationals who are currently in the country and have not violated any other laws of the U.S. to come forward and register and be allowed to remain and work in the U.S. The work permit will not result in application for citizenship nor any family members entering the U.S. and will require renewal every two years upon proof of continuous employment with no more than two (2) months per two (2) year period unemployed or convicted of a crime.”
Among other reasons, the RNC determined the necessity for this resolution it passed is because the U.S. needs to update its immigration system so it “focuses on the needs of United States employers.” The RNC says nothing in its resolution about having a focus on out-of-work Americans and ignores the massively negative impact such a policy position would have on American workers, especially minorities.
The fact that the RNC is now passing resolutions advocating specific policy proposals is an apparent reversal of a longstanding edict from chairman Reince Priebus that it would not actually handle such matters, and would focus its energy on beating Democrats. “He [Priebus] has been clear that's its [sic] not the job of the RNC to do policy,” an RNC spokesman told Breitbart News a little over a month ago when pressed repeatedly for an answer on whether Priebus supports the Senate’s “Gang of Eight” immigration bill.
The RNC’s decision to take positions on such controversial issues, and from its pulpit advocate for specific policies that many Republicans disagree with, could hurt GOP candidates in their bids against Democrats too. For instance, Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR) is running against Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) for U.S. Senate on a platform he told Breitbart News is specifically geared against exactly what the RNC is now pushing for. Cotton said his opposition to amnesty, and Pryor's vote for the Gang of Eight bill, is going to be a "central issue" of the campaign.
National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Bill Murphy told Breitbart News earlier this week that “all issues are on the table” in beating Democrats, but it is unclear thus far if the RNC proper will act in much the same manner. Despite having been asked two days ago whether the RNC will take the same stance as the NRSC that “all issues are on the table,” an RNC spokesman has still not answered.
In addition to those issues with the RNC’s stance here, the policy positions it takes actually go further than the Senate’s Gang of Eight bill by calling for providing legal status and worker permits to all those in the country illegally or legally, a classification that would seemingly include people here on student visas and other visas that do not currently allow them to work inside the United States. The discussion of how a “work permit” would be given to those who can show they have been in attendance in school during a five-year period would include that amount. Even the Senate bill does not provide work authorization to those in the U.S. on student visas and keeps them from being able to compete for already-scarce American jobs without obtaining another different visa.
The RNC stance does reject a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens, but legal status is still considered amnesty and a step on the road towards citizenship by most immigration hawks.
The RNC’s move comes as Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist, an advocate of this type of policy, said on Friday that it appears House Republicans may not do any immigration bills until nine to 12 months from now; House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy and Speaker John Boehner have also been showing signs they may oppose an amnesty plan after all.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/16/RNC-Goes-Further-Than-Senate-Bill-in-Call-for-Immigration-Legislation-Focused-on-Employers-Needs
Investigation: ACORN receives HUD cash despite ban on federal funding
In recently obtained documents from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an "Inside the Beltway" public-interest group reported on Thursday that it discovered that on Feb. 12, 2013, Sarah Gerecke, HUD's assistant secretary for Office of Housing Counseling, may have violated federal law.According to officials at Judicial Watch, Gerecke requested that more than $200,000 be removed from the coffers of the disbanded Affordable Housing Centers of America (AHCOA), an ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) affiliate, and added to the coffers of HUD intermediary Mission for Peace “to specifically pay for the activities of former AHCOA affiliates.”
"Just as criminals change their aliases, ACORN is changing its name," Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said in a press statement.
"But make no mistake about it, just because they change their name, doesn't mean anything has really changed at all," the lawmaker said. The congressman said ACORN's announcement -- that it was closing down all activities and branches -- was just another scheme to get its hands on taxpayer funds.
During an investigation of ACORN by the FBI and GOP lawmakers, President Barack Obama’s spokespersons claimed he had a limited relationship with ACORN.
However, the record shows that “[Obama] says he is drawn to politics, despite its superficialities, as a means to advance his real passion and calling: community organization. … In 1992 Obama took time off to direct Project Vote, an ACORN program said to be the most successful grass-roots voter-registration campaign in recent [Chicago] history,” according to an Accuracy in Media report by Jim Kouri on Nov. 12, 2010.
According to the documents, obtained through Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed on May 16, 2013, the Gerecke memo requesting the transfer appears to have been in violation of the first continuing resolution of FY 13.
That resolution continued funding levels under the FY 2012 appropriations bills, which provided that no HUD funds “made available under this Act may be distributed to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) or its subsidiaries.”
The Gerecke memo stated:
In March 2012, HUD’s Program Support Division (PSD) received notice that Affordable Housing Centers of American (AHCOA) had closed and would no longer participate in the HUD Housing Counseling Program. Upon closing, AHCOA had a balance of $201,222.07 in its account.
The Office of Housing Counseling (OHC) is requesting to transfer, under the ‘replacement grant” rule, the AHCOA balance of $201,222.07 to MOP to specifically pay for the activities of the former AHCOA affiliates. PSD met with the Office of the General Counsel and the Office of Budget and Field Resources to confirm transfer was allowable."According to records obtained by Judicial Watch dated Feb. 19, 2013, the funds were to be transferred to Mission of Peace President and CEO Reverend Elmira Smith-Vincent in Flint, Michigan. A Line of Credit Control System Treasury Detail memo obtained by Judicial Watch confirmed that the transfer had been made on February 25, 2013," the non-profit watchdog noted.
"After a series of scandals triggered the collapse of ACORN in late 2009, what was previously called ACORN Housing was renamed Affordable Housing Centers of America in early 2010. Former ACORN Housing president Alton Bennett retained the same position with AHCOA, as did executive director Mike Shea and vice president Dorothy Amadi. Public affairs director Bruce Dorpalen was formerly ACORN Housing’s loan director," stated Judicial Watch on Thursday.
“Barack Obama is truly the president from ACORN -- as this illegal funding by his administration of these ACORN fronts shows,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
http://www.examiner.com/article/investigation-acorn-receives-hud-cash-despite-ban-on-federal-funding
Report: Fracking 'Brings Breathtaking Economic, Environmental Benefits'
A new report in the Manhattan Institute publication, City Journal, says fracking “brings breathtaking economic and environmental benefits” to the places that have embraced the “shale revolution.”James Panero catalogs powerful fracking facts, including:
- According to the federal government’s Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, by 2035, 80% of America’s domestic gas supply will come from shale and other unconventional sources.
- A 2012 study by forecasting firm HIS Global Insight found that shale oil and gas generated $87 billion in domestic capital investments; by the end of the decade, that figure is expected to jump to $172.5 billion and could reach $5.1 trillion by 2035.
- By 2025, PricewaterhouseCoopers projects lower costs of shale gas will produce 1 million domestic manufacturing jobs and tack on .5% to America’s GDP.
- Between 2012 and 2015, shale gas will save American households an average $900 annually on heating and electricity.
- From 2011 to 2012, the rise of natural gas use has reduced U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions 5.3%.
- A study by Columbia Law School’s Thomas Merrill and David Schizer concluded that “there is little evidence so far that subterranean fracturing activity can directly contaminate groundwater, and this risk may never materialize.”
Still, despite Obama’s telegraphing of the inevitability of fracking’s growth and importance, some states like New York continue to resist the industry—opposition that neighboring states like Pennsylvania are happy to exploit in the form of poaching high paying jobs and industry-generating state revenues.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/17/Report-Fracking-Brings-Breathtaking-Economic-Environmental-Benefits
Oklahoma's ban on Sharia law thrown out by federal judge
An Oklahoma constitutional amendment that would bar the state's courts from considering or using Sharia law was ruled unconstitutional Thursday by a federal judge in Oklahoma City.
In finding the law in violation of the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause, U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the certification of the results of the state question that put the Sharia law ban into the state constitution.
"While the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out, the Court finds that the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual's constitutional rights," the judge wrote.
Muneer Awad, a Muslim and American citizen who was executive director of the Oklahoma Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations at the time, filed the lawsuit on Nov. 4, 2010, seeking to block the so-called "Save Our State" constitutional amendment that had been approved by 70 percent of Oklahoma voters two days earlier.
Awad claimed that State Question 755 violated the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Miles-LaGrange issued a temporary restraining order on Nov. 8, 2010, finding that enjoining the certification of the election results for SQ 755 would not be adverse to the public interest.
On Nov. 29, 2010, she issued a preliminary injunction, finding that Awad had legal standing and that SQ 755 likely violated both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause.
Miles-LaGrange also found then that the balance of harms weighed strongly in favor of Awad, that the alleged violation of Awad's First Amendment rights constituted irreparable injury and that the public interest demanded protection of these rights.
On Jan. 10, 2012, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Miles-Grange's preliminary injunction ruling, and on July 29, 2012, the lawsuit was amended, adding four additional plaintiffs.
In her opinion Thursday, Miles-LaGrange noted that the 10th Circuit wrote in January 2012 that "when the law that voters wish to enact is likely unconstitutional, their interests do not outweigh Mr. Awad's in having his constitutional rights protected."
Miles-LaGrange found "that any harm that would result from permanently enjoining the certification of the election results is further minimized in light of the undisputed fact that the amendment at issue was to be a preventative measure and that the concern that it seeks to address has yet to occur."
She pointed out in a footnote that attorneys defending the amendment at the November 2010 preliminary injunction hearing admitted that "they did not know of any instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures."
Miles-LaGrange also rejected the argument that the amendment could be salvaged by severing certain language that specifically mentioned Sharia law. That option would have retained less precise wording saying that Oklahoma courts "shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures."
The judge wrote in her order that "it is abundantly clear that the primary purpose of the amendment was to specifically target and outlaw Sharia law and to act as a preemptive strike against Sharia law to protect Oklahoma from a perceived 'threat' of Sharia law being utilized in Oklahoma courts."
She added that the plaintiffs "have shown that the voters would not have approved the amendment without the unconstitutional provisions."
She noted that "the public debate, public discussions, articles, radio ads and robocalls" regarding SQ 755 all primarily and overwhelmingly focused on Sharia law. "Given this context, the court finds any reasonable voter would have perceived SQ 755 as a referendum on Sharia law," she wrote.
Awad moved to New York City in August 2012 to accept a position with another CAIR affiliate, according to Thursday's opinion.
On Thursday night, Adam Soltani, the current executive director of CAIR's Oklahoma Chapter and a fellow plaintiff in the lawsuit, issued a statement in which he said: "As Oklahomans, we are incredibly thrilled at the decision and applaud the judicial system for upholding our constitutional rights. This is a victory not only for Oklahoma Muslims, but for all Oklahomans and all Americans."
Ryan Kiesel, executive director of the ACLU of Oklahoma, issued a written statement saying: "This law unfairly singled out one faith and one faith only. This amendment was nothing more than a solution in search of a problem. We're thrilled that it has been struck down."
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt said in the wake of the appellate court decision in January 2012 that his office "will continue to defend" the state's position.
However, spokeswoman Diane Clay said Pruitt would have no comment on Thursday night.
Despite the legal setbacks for SQ 755, Gov. Mary Fallin signed House Bill 1060 into law last April. Proponents said that without specifically mentioning Sharia law, the measure would prohibit the application of foreign laws when it would violate either the Oklahoma Constitution or the U.S. Constitution.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Oklahomas_ban_on_Sharia_law_thrown_out_by_federal_judge/20130816_11_A1_CUTLIN219102
Obama: Health Insurance a ‘Right’
Good news. President Obama has vastly expanded the concept of “rights” in America by decree. He told a radio audience in his weekly address that health insurance is now a “right” that every American enjoys:
Your health insurance isn’t something to play politics with. Our economy isn’t something to play politics with. This isn’t a game. This is about the economic security of millions of families.
See, in the states where governors and legislatures and insurers are working together to implement this law properly – states like California, New York, Colorado and Maryland – competition and consumer choice are actually making insurance affordable.
So I’m going to keep doing everything in my power to make sure this law works as it’s supposed to. Because in the United States of America, health insurance isn’t a privilege – it is your right. And we’re going to keep it that way.Before we get to whether a commercial product is actually a “right,” perhaps we should explain what the president forgot to mention when he said he was “doing everything in my power to make sure the law works as it’s supposed to.”
The truth is, the president is doing everything in his power — as well as claiming powers he doesn’t possess. By unilaterally waiving some requirements of Obamacare without congressional consent, the president is basically ruling by decree. He is claiming executive authority to make law — a dubious, and dangerous, precedent. He is doing so because implementing the law as written would add to the chaos surrounding the law already present at the state and federal levels.
And to say that insurance is “affordable” in states that are cooperating with him is an outright lie. Just because premiums are going to increase at a slower rate than expected doesn’t make insurance any more “affordable” for anyone. If it wasn’t “affordable” before Obamacare, why should an increase in premiums mean it’s more “affordable now”?
In fact, this study by the National Center for Public Policy Research shows the economic advantages to “young invincibles” of not purchasing insurance under the individual mandate:
Millions of young people could save hundreds of dollars a year by avoiding Obamacare’s insurance exchanges and paying the penalty, a new report examining the law’s financial incentives finds.
About 3.7 million people between the 18 and 34 years old will save at least over $500 next year if they do not buy health insurance through the exchanges, according to the study by National Center for Public Policy Research health care policy analyst David Hogberg. Of those, just over 3 million will save over $1,000 per year.
While the law has put in place two primary incentives to encourage people to buy insurance—subsidies and the individual mandate—these are not enough to make the subsidies economically worthwhile for many young people, Hogberg contends.
The report highlights a weakness with the structure of the Obamacare exchanges. If the exchanges are unable to attract enough younger people, the insurance pool will shrink and the premiums will rise, setting off a “death spiral” and potentially leading to a collapse of the exchanges.
“You need enough of these [young] people in the exchanges to in effect cross-subsidize people who are older and sicker,” Hogberg said in an interview with the Free Beacon.
The financial incentive to avoid the exchanges will be even greater in 2014 because the penalty for not buying insurance will be higher in subsequent years, the report said. The penalty in 2014 will be either $95 or one percent of one’s income, whichever is greater. This penalty will rise to $695 or 2.5 percent by 2016.
While the “Affordable Care Act” was originally designed to make health insurance more affordable, even those close to the poverty line can save over $500 by not buying insurance in 2014, the report noted. The $500 savings for an 18 year old starts at 163 percent of the poverty line and for a 30 year old at 178 percent. In 2016 the level will rise to closer to 300 percent.
There will be some people for whom buying insurance will be economically rational, Hogberg explained, but not many.
“For some people the subsidy will cover most of the cost of a bronze plan, and even when it doesn’t cover the full cost, it may cover enough so that forgoing the insurance and paying the fine is not the rational way to go,” he said.The perverse incentives of the law may lead to its death. Without millions of healthy people buying insurance, the flood of sick people purchasing insurance on the exchanges will cause premiums to skyrocket. This could lead to either unaffordable insurance for millions or, if the government refuses to grant insurance companies the ability to raise rates in order to make a profit, the wholesale flight of insurers from the state exchanges.
The president’s decree that insurance is now a “right” of the American people would then necessitate the federal government moving in and establishing a single-payer system. But is health insurance a right? If so, the sky is the limit for making other commercial products a “right” as well.
How about the “right” to own a car? A phone? An Xbox? By massively expanding the very definition of a “right,” placing insurance in the same pantheon of rights as free speech, freedom of worship and assembly, and other constitutional guarantees, the president trivializes and dilutes the very concept of the rights of Americans under the Constitution, while inviting a vast expansion of federal power to “guarantee” those rights.
It’s hard to imagine anything more injurious to personal liberty.
You might say that health care is a right. But one can receive health care without being guaranteed health insurance. The political decision to supply health insurance to those who can’t afford it can be be hashed out by the people’s representatives in Congress. That’s what they’re there for. But a president who decrees rights that are not stated or implied in the Constitution is treading on dangerous ground.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/08/17/obama-health-insurance-a-right/?singlepage=true
Obama's Quality of Leadership
Egypt is vital strategically to U.S. interests and security in the Middle East. Yet the United States stands by, powerless, as mayhem reigns there and instability simmers dangerously elsewhere. What has happened to our influence in the world? A clue can be found in President Barack Obama's own words, his recent response to Russia's grant of asylum to NSA-leaker Edward Snowden:I have not called [Russian President Vladimir Putin] personally and the reason is...number one, I shouldn't have to.
This is a disturbing window on the mind of our president. What responsible CEO facing a crisis would make this kind of statement? What dedicated leader would avoid taking all necessary steps to try to secure a crucially important victory?
Real leaders embrace their role. They are willing to confront a crisis head-on ("damn the torpedoes") and do whatever it takes to prevail. A true leader is engaged, directing the action from within the fray, not from above it. Leaders exhibit courage, grit, guts -- call it what you like -- and they dismiss pretense. While they leverage the power of their office, taking pains to preserve and enhance that power, leaders also make whatever personal contribution they must to secure the win.
Instead, we have a president whose attitude in a crisis seems to be one of pettiness, detachment and petulance.
But surely Barack Obama has never been anything more than a figurehead. He was elected on pure charisma, not on the strength of his accomplishments or qualifications. On the day he secured the Democratic nomination for president, he called it "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Obama telegraphed his naïveté and his hubris well in advance of his election.
Those of us who work for a living have all worked for boneheads at one time or another -- prople who are high on their position, who see their superior role as one of giving orders, who refuse to get their hands dirty because actually doing the work is beneath their dignity. Frequently "leaders" such as these also lack sufficient knowledge for the job.
This, unfortunately, is our president. His resume and background -- to the extent that we know it -- reveal an individual who has never had serious responsibility, who has never been challenged or tested as a leader, and whose concept of leadership is deeply deficient. Worse, he is surrounded by enablers and adored by the press, factors that serve only to reinforce his flawed qualities.
No wonder the Middle East is out of control, and no wonder sober Western leaders are privately alarmed at the decline of U.S. leadership. The world sees that we have a lightweight president who thoroughly misunderstands the obligations of the job and who, along with inept Secretaries of State, has repeatedly mishandled critically important issues of global security. We clearly are not reaping the benefits of a "new climate" and "a new era of engagement" that warranted awarding the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to Obama. Instead, we and our allies fear for the state of the world in which the U.S. president is completely out of his league.
And our enemies? Leaders like Vladimir Putin are not beguiled by charisma. Obama's promised "Russian reset," now a shambles, was always a fantasy, a delusion. It is not difficult to imagine the Russian president, perhaps while out hunting bear, chuckling in amazement at the weakness of the ostensible "Leader of the Free World." Amazement that is sadly echoed around the world.
Top 5 Inaccuracies in 'The Butler'
The new political drama Lee Daniels' The Butler takes its cues from a Washington Post article about a black servant named Eugene Allen who worked in eight presidential administrations.That part of the story is essentially unchanged. The rest of the film, a movie stuffed with politics, historical re-creations and presidential imitations, is rife with inaccuracies that should be corrected.
Note: Some story spoilers ahead ...
- President Ronald Reagan was indifferent to the suffering of people of color. Breitbart News reported this week that Reagan biographer Craig Shirley shredded this notion by detailing the president's legislative achievements and personal outtreach to his black peers.
- The Democrats helped pass the Civil Rights Act: This is more of an inaccuracy by omission. The film showcases how both Presidents Kennedy and Johnson rallied on behalf of civil rights, but what's left out is the voting record on the historic Civil Rights Act. Turns out "80 percent of the “no” votes in the Senate came from Democrats, including the late Robert Byrd (W.Va.) and Albert Gore (Tenn.), father of the future vice president," so Republicans teamed up with President Johnson to pass the legislation.
- President Nixon dismissed black Americans--save for their votes: The film shows Nixon (John Cusack) promoting his upcoming election battle with John F. Kennedy by giving campaign buttons to the butler and his fellow black servers. Later, Nixon talks up black enterprise but only with an eye on winning votes. Moviefone.com notes Nixon's record on school integration outpaced his predecessors, and Allen has spoken fondly of Nixon in press interviews.
- The Butler disliked President Reagan: The real Eugene Allen has expressed affection for all the presidents he served, noting he voted for each when they were inhabiting the White House. A framed picture of the Reagans was displayed on Allen's living room wall, and he noted that Nancy Reagan gave him a warm hug when he finally retired. Hardly sounds like the character in the movie, played by Forest Whitaker, who appeared to be fed up with the Reagans and quit for that very reason.
- The Butler met Obama: The film uses a framing device of the titular Butler waiting to meet personally with President Barack Obama. There's no official record of such a meeting, although Allen was a VIP guest at Obama's swearing in.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/08/16/top-5-butler-inaccuracies
What Has Mark Levin Wrought?
Evidence is emerging that powerful Republican K Street lobbyist Tom Korologos is the main factor behind the failure of the House of Representatives to do its duty and investigate the activities of Al Jazeera on U.S. soil. Korologos has been described as a Republican “heavy hitter” who can work his will on Capitol Hill. His clout explains why Rep. Michael McCaul (TX), Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has failed to open hearings on Al Jazeera.
Big money has bought access to the U.S. media market for the latest version of terror television. And Republicans who should be on guard against this have sold out.
The channel has Arabic and English versions, and works hand-in-glove with the Muslim Brotherhood and its associated terrorist groups, including al Qaeda and Hamas. The channel is well-funded by the regime in Qatar, where the country’s citizens are denied freedom of speech and press and there has been no “Arab Spring.” Indeed, a poet got life in prison in Qatar for insulting the emir, a multi-billionaire.
The official launch of Al Jazeera America is less than two weeks away, on August 20. Upon its launch, the new channel reports that Al Jazeera English will no longer be available in the U.S. on television or as an online stream.
Asked for an explanation as to his inaction, McCaul’s press spokesman Mike Rosen had no comment.
But the involvement of Korologos explains a lot. A former Ambassador under President George W. Bush and now a “strategic adviser” to lobbying firm DLA Piper, Korologos gave an amazing interview on March 14 to Brian Lamb of C-SPAN in which he acknowledged his work for Al Jazeera, but said that he was “not really” concerned about the channel’s ownership by the terrorist-supporting government of Qatar.
Korologos said, “I’m a journalist. I was born and raised in journalism. I got a graduate degree from Columbia Journalism School, one of the Pulitzer traveling fellows for finishing number one, two or three, whatever, pick your choice, in the class. I’m for freedom of the press, the more the merrier. Al Jazeera America is not Al Jazeera English nor is it Al Jazeera Arabic. They’re going to have bureaus all over the country. They’re going to have news outlets today. Today you can go watch Fox or NBC or one of those and it’ll show on the bottom of the screen, Al Jazeera reporting. That fire they had where all those people were killed in South America and Chile, I think it was, had Al Jazeera reporting. They’ve got more bureaus than networks do.”
Korologos went on to compare Al Jazeera to the BBC and the Voice of America. “Those guys [at Al Jazeera] are going to be journalists,” he claimed.
Since he made these comments, Al Jazeera has been completely discredited in Egypt, as its propaganda activities on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood have been exposed for the world to see. A mutiny among its staff occurred and Al Jazeera has been ostracized by most of the Egyptian media. Even before this transpired, Al Jazeera English had been heavily criticized, even by American liberals, for ignoring the sexual assault on CBS News correspondent Lara Logan during the Egyptian revolution. At the time, Al Jazeera was cheering the overthrow of pro-American Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak.
Still, Rep. McCaul has consistently refused to investigate the launch of Al Jazeera America, even after it paid Al Gore and his partners $500 million in a questionable transaction for ownership of the American television company Current TV. The deal gets Al Jazeera America into 40 to 50 million homes.
Yet, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey has said, in regard to Al Jazeera, “I think if an American medium is controlled by a political force from abroad, that’s a proper subject for inquiry.
”
As AIM has reported, Al Jazeera’s current operations in the U.S. are illegal, since its broadcasts are not labeled as foreign propaganda, as required under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The law was originally enacted to discourage pro-Nazi agents from spreading propaganda inside the United States but it applies in general to agents of foreign governments and foreign political powers.
Meanwhile, Rep. Tim Murphy’s (R-PA) letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) about the need to review Al Jazeera in the context of “foreign ownership of media outlets” in the U.S. received a belated response. William T. Lake, chief of the FCC’s Media Bureau, simply told Murphy the agency has no jurisdiction over the matter.
However, former FCC commissioner Michael Copps told me in an interview that the activities in the U.S. of Al Jazeera, Russia Today, and other foreign propaganda networks were a proper subject of inquiry by the FCC. “I think you conduct a thorough inquiry to understand what’s going on,” he said about these channels. He wondered about their impact on existing media and communities in the U.S.
Broadcaster Jerry Kenney has filed an FCC complaint about Al Jazeera programming being illegally aired on taxpayer-supported public TV stations. He has received no response from the FCC.
AIM has also reported that Al Jazeera evaded the law requiring federal approval for foreign investments in America that have national security implications. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) is under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department and is responsible for analyzing the transaction.
CFIUS investigated and approved China-based Dalian Wanda Group Corporation’s purchase of AMC Entertainment, one of the nation’s largest movie theater chains.
The writer Zach Coleman has noted, “News broadcasting is more politically sensitive than cinema operation and Al Jazeera is a much more controversial acquirer than Dalian Wanda, which was previously unknown in the U.S.”
In his C-SPAN interview, Korologos discussed his lobbying on Capitol Hill on behalf of various Republican presidents and said, when asked about his work for Al Jazeera, that “…I’m still working because I haven’t got anything else to do. I’d like to go be a ski instructor which I’ve been, we have a place outside of Aspen and by the way, we own an art gallery out there.”
Korologos is one-half of a “power couple” that includes his wife, Ann McLaughlin, who was previously married to commentator John McLaughlin. The art gallery is called the “Ann Korologos Gallery.”
This exchange about his firm DLA Piper then took place
Brian Lamb: You’re with a company called DLA Piper, 3,400 lawyers worldwide, 64 offices in this country or worldwide?
Korologos: Worldwide.
Lamb: Senator Mitchell, Senator Daschle, others that are…
Korologos: Congressman Castle.
Lamb: Berl Bernhard, who used to work for Senator Muskie, you’re in this business, have been in it for years. Is this a good thing that people come to Congress, then go downtown?
Korologos: Of course it is, somewhere, you’ve got to go somewhere. You don’t want to be a hillbilly all your life in this town. What’s a hillbilly? Someone who just goes to the Hill and gravitates and stays there. I should correct you, since we came in, I think the number is up to 3,800 lawyers. It keeps growing. They’re all over the…
Lamb: Who owns that company?
Korologos: It’s a conglomerate of law firms that they have been buying and expanding. Their motto is, Everything Matters, so we do everything, from here to China to Singapore to South America. It’s a big firm and what I do, I’m a strategic adviser over there. What does that mean? Well it means that they come to me and ask for strategic advice and I give it to them. They wanted to make me senior adviser and I said that implies old, so I became strategic. Yes, everybody is entitled to representation. It’s in the Constitution.
This is how Korologos justifies his work on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood channel.
DLA Piper not only represented Al Jazeera in the acquisition of Gore’s Current TV, but is also active in the “Islamic financial services industry” in the Middle East.
Big money has trumped homeland security.
http://www.trevorloudon.com/2013/08/big-money-buys-access-for-al-jazeera/
Nancy Pelosi demands GOP take down 'Slap Hillary' site it doesn't own
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., demanded Friday that Republicans take down a "Slap Hillary" site that features a flash game where players can slap the former Secretary of State, Twitchy reported."'Slap Hillary' site isn't a game, it isn't funny. Like all violence against women, it's sick. GOP needs to grow up and take this site down," she tweeted Friday.
There's only one problem. The GOP has nothing to do with the page or the game.
Talking Points Memo said the game was posted by The Hillary Project -- an organization that plans to "wage war on Hillary Clinton's image" -- and has been around since 2000.
TPM said some on the left have criticized the game, saying it condones violence against women.
But it seems Pelosi's outrage is somewhat selective.
The California Democrat said nothing about a "Slap Palin" site that encourages those on the left to "Slap some sense into Sarah Palin." We did not link to the page as it includes a sexually-explicit Photoshopped image portraying the former Alaska governor.
"Does @NancyPelosi want us holding her accountable for what fringe morons on her side put up on the Internet?" asked Twitter user "RB."
"Why don't you insist Filthy Fingers Filner resign or complain about THIS," Examiner.com's Harriet Baldwin asked, referring to the anti-Palin page.
"The slap Palin site has been up since Oct 2008. Shameless hypocrite Pelosi has said nothing about it," another person tweeted.
Emily's List put up a petition demanding GOP candidates refuse any money raised by The Hillary Project. A search of the site did not find a similar petition demanding the anti-Palin page be torn down.
Twitchy said that holding the GOP responsible for a site it doesn't run or own would be like holding Pelosi responsible for the actions of San Diego Mayor Bob Filner, a Democrat who recently sparked outrage after numerous reports of sexual harassment.
http://www.examiner.com/article/nancy-pelosi-demands-gop-take-down-slap-hillary-site-it-doesn-t-own
No comments:
Post a Comment