Pages

Saturday, June 9, 2012

Obama Administration Admits To “Hundreds” Of Closed-Door Meetings With CAIR…

CAIR’s long-list of documented ties to terrorism apparently not an issue for the White House.
President Barack Obama’s deputies are holding “hundreds” of closed-door meetings with a jihad-linked lobbying group that is widely derided by critics as a U.S. arm of the theocratic Muslim Brotherhood.
The admission of meetings with the Council on American-Islamic Relations came from George Selim, the White House’s new director for community partnerships, which was formed in January to ensure cooperation by law enforcement and social service agencies with Muslim identity groups in the United States.
“There is hundreds of examples of departments and agencies that meet with CAIR on a range of issues,” he told The Daily Caller, after being asked if his office refuses to meet with any Muslim groups.

Continue Reading : http://weaselzippers.us/2012/06/08/obama-administration-admits-to-hundreds-of-closed-door-meetings-with-cair/

Supreme Court casts doubt on Obama’s immigration law claim


Supreme Court justices took a dim view of the Obama administration’s claim that it can stop Arizona from enforcing immigration laws, telling government lawyers during oral argument Wednesday that the state appears to want to push federal officials, not conflict with them.
The court was hearing arguments on Arizona’s immigration crackdown law, which requires police to check the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally, and would also write new state penalties for illegal immigrants who try to apply for jobs.
The Obama administration has sued, arguing that those provisions conflict with the federal government’s role in setting immigration policy, but justices on both sides of the aisle struggled to understand that argument.
“It seems to me the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said at one point.
The Arizona law requires all police to check with federal officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. The government argues that is OK when it’s on a limited basis, but said having a state mandate for all of its law enforcement is essentially a method of trying to force the federal government to change its priorities.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer talks to reporters in front of the Supreme ... more >
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said the federal government has limited resources and should have the right to determine the extent of calls it gets about possible illegal immigrants.
“These decisions have to be made at the national level,” he said.
But even Democratic-appointed justices were uncertain of that.
“I’m terribly confused by your answer,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials call.

The Obama administration was on its firmest ground when it argued Arizona should not be allowed to impose state penalties such as jail time against illegal immigrants who try to seek jobs.
Federal law chiefly targets employers, not employees, and Mr. Verrilli said adding stiffer penalties at the state level is not coordination. He said Congress’s 1986 immigration law laying out legal penalties was meant to be a comprehensive scheme, and Congress left employees untouched — and Justice Sotomayor seemed to agree.
“It seems odd to think the federal government is deciding on employer sanctions and has unconsciously decided not to punish employees,” she told Paul D. Clement, who argued the case on behalf of Arizona.
A decision is expected before the end of the court’s term this summer.
Only eight justices were present for the arguments. Justice Elana Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because she was the Obama administration’s solicitor general in 2010, when the law was being debated in Arizona.

Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the measure into law, was present for the arguments, as were members of Congress who follow the immigration issue: Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, the top Democrat on the House immigration subcommittee, and Rep. Steve King, an Iowa Republican who has fought for an immigration crackdown.
Story Continues →
View Entire Story



Iranian general: Our finger on war trigger

by: Reza Kahlili

With Western pressure growing on Bashar Assad over the latest massacres of defenseless women and children in Syria, Iranian officials again are warning the world against any action against the Middle East dictator.
The pro-Assad “resistance” has its finger on the trigger and the aggressors will not survive the conflict, a senior commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Brig. Gen. Massoud Jazaeri, told Mashregh, a media outlet run by the Guards. Iranian officials often refer to Iran, Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon as the resistance front.
Mashregh reported in March that Iran’s armed forces had formed a joint war room that included officers from Syria, Iran and Hezbollah for a coordinated military response to an attack on Syria.
“A conflict in Syria will engulf the region and its main victims will be the people of Syria themselves,” Jazaeri warned the protesters. “The Zionist regime and the interests of the enemies of Syria are all within range of the resistance fire.”
Citing a conspiracy to weaken the resistance front and that foreign hands were involved in the events in Syria, Jazaeri said, “At the right time, people of the region will retaliate against these actions. The defeat of the enemy at this stage will be a big event and, God willing, we will witness that.”
There have been several reports alluding to the Revolutionary Guards’ involvement in the Syrian suppression. Recently the deputy commander of Iran’s elite Quds Force, Cmdr. Esmail Ghani, said his forces have been playing a “physical and nonphysical” role in Syria.

The Guards last year called Syrian protesters “rabble-rousers” who are “puppets of Zionists and the United States” and that their chanting slogans against Iran and Hezbollah “will be their last stand.”
On Thursday, U.N. observers were fired upon as they tried to reach the site of the latest massacre of civilians, many of them women and children, who were shot or stabbed, the fourth such massacre in two weeks. More than 10,000 civilians have so far lost their lives in the brutal suppression ordered by Assad and abetted by Iran and Hezbollah.

Meanwhile, the head of Iran’s Basij militia made clear that Iran will not tolerate the fall of Assad.
Brig. Gen. Mohammad Reza Naqdi, who has been sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department for human rights abuses in Iran, told Lebanese TV Al Manar, “After the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and the disruption to their defensive posture in protecting the Zionist regime, America in order to defend the regime of the occupier of the Quds (Jerusalem) is after a new scenario in Syria. … But they will be defeated.” The Basij commander warned Israel against any attack on Iran or Syria, stating, “Today all the people of the region are ready for wiping out this cancerous tumor, and reaction to any aggression will be the freedom of Quds.”
Naghdi also said the West was wrong in believing that international sanctions against Iran will force the Islamic republic to accept demands that it yield on its clandestine nuclear program.

“Sanctions have had a lot of effect on Iran, but one positive one is the growth of science and internal production. … If the American president did not have his hands in the blood of nations of the world, specifically Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine, and had not embraced torture, we would have given him a national medal for his service to the Iranian nation for imposing sanctions.”
Naghdi predicted that America will be forced to pack up and leave the region, taking with it all of its forces.
The mullahs ruling Iran, based on centuries-old hadiths, believe that an attack on Syria and Iran and an ensuing counterattack on Israel will trigger the coming of “Mahdi,” the Shiites’ 12th imam and the last Islamic messiah. Both those events are looking increasingly likely as Assad continues to murder his own people and Iran continues its quest for nuclear weapons.

See a video on the situation:




Friday, June 8, 2012

The Nation’s Top “Progressives” … And Socialists And Communists

Flag of the Soviet Union5499 The Nation’s Top “Progressives” … and Socialists and Communists 
By
Editor’s note: A longer version of this article first appeared at American Spectator.
The left-leaning magazine The Nation has published a list of what it deems America’s all-time, most influential progressives. The list, which you can review for yourself, is very revealing.

For starters, it’s fascinating that The Nation leads with Eugene Debs at number 1. Debs was a socialist. It was 100 years ago this year, in 1912, that Debs ran for president on the Socialist Party ticket.
Today’s progressives get annoyed if you call them socialists. Well, why is a pure socialist the no. 1 “progressive” on The Nation’s list?
Of course, progressives really get annoyed if you suggest they bear any sympathies to communism. That being the case, two other “progressives” on The Nation’s list are quite intriguing: Paul Robeson and I. F. Stone.

Paul Robeson was a proud recipient of the “Stalin Prize.” Even the New York Times concedes Robeson was “an outspoken admirer of the Soviet Union.” When Robeson in 1934 returned from his initial pilgrimage to the Motherland, the Daily Worker thrust a microphone in his face. The Daily Worker rushed its interview into print, running it in the January 15, 1935 issue under the headline, “‘I Am at Home,’ Says Robeson At Reception in Soviet Union.”
The Bolsheviks, explained Robeson, were new men. He was bowled over by the “feeling of safety and abundance and freedom” he found “wherever I turn.” He discovered sheer equality under Joseph Stalin.
When asked about Stalin’s purges, Robeson retorted: “From what I have already seen of the workings of the Soviet Government, I can only say that anybody who lifts his hand against it ought to be shot!”
Yes, Robeson was deadly serious.

Robeson told the Daily Worker that he felt a “kinship” with the USSR. So much so that he moved his family there.
He also joined Communist Party USA. In May 1998, the centennial of Robeson’s birth, longtime CPUSA head Gus Hall hailed Robeson as a man of communist “conviction,” who “never forgot he was a communist.”
None of this is mentioned in The Nation’s profile, which blasts anyone who dared consider Robeson a communist. Instead, The Nation insists that Comrade Paul was a “progressive.”
And that brings me to I. F. Stone.
Stone is listed at number 26 on The Nation’s list. Stone has been hailed by liberals for decades as the literal “conscience” of journalism—a hero of impeccable honesty. In fact, we now know that Stone, at one time, was a paid Soviet agent.

In their latest Yale University Press work, historians John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr, and Alexander Vassiliev conclude that Stone (from 1936-39) was a “Soviet spy.” Also closely studying Stone’s case is Herb Romerstein. In The Venona Secrets, Romerstein likewise concluded that “Stone was indeed a Soviet agent.” One of the stronger confirmations from the Soviet side is retired KGB general Oleg Kalugin, who reported: “He [Stone] was a KGB agent since 1938. His code name was ‘Blin.’ When I resumed relations with him in 1966, it was on Moscow’s instructions. Stone was a devoted communist.”
None of this appears at Stone’s “progressive” profile at The Nation.
And speaking of progressives with communist sympathies, also on The Nation’s list is Margaret Sanger. The Planned Parenthood matron sojourned to Stalin’s Potemkin villages in 1934. “[W]e could well take example from Russia,” Sanger advised Americans upon her return, “where birth control instruction is part of the regular welfare service of the government.”

The Planned Parenthood founder was stunned by the explosion in abortions once legalized by the Bolsheviks. No fear, though. Sanger offered this confident prediction: “All the [Bolshevik] officials with whom I discussed the matter stated that as soon as the economic and social plans of Soviet Russia are realized, neither abortions nor contraception will be necessary or desired. A functioning Communistic society will assure the happiness of every child, and will assume the full responsibility for its welfare and education.”
This was pure progressive utopianism, an absolute faith in central planners.
Overall, the socialists, communists, and Soviet sympathizers on The Nation’s list are dizzying: Upton Sinclair, Henry Wallace, W. E. B. DuBois, Norman Thomas, Lincoln Steffens, Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, Tom Hayden, Barbara Ehrenreich, and John Dewey—founding father of American public education.
Thus, I’m compelled to ask: Is this “progressivism?” Is progressivism synonymous with liberalism, or is it much further to left, closer to communism?

I plead with progressives: This is your ideology … Could you better define it, if that’s possible? Or is the definition of progressivism always progressing? Actually, it is always progressing; that’s precisely the problem with this train-wreck of an ever-elusive ideology. The Nation’s list of leading American “progressives” is truly a teachable moment.




The Truth About Obamacare From Someone Who Actually Read It

Constitution SC 248x300 The Truth about Obamacare From Someone Who Actually Read It
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.
However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices.

Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.
The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide…
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law It doesn’t stop there though.
The 9th Amendment that provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights.
Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution.” If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.



New Mexico Court Says Christian Photographer Must Violate Faith or Pay Hefty Fines

by: Giacomo
The New Mexico Court of Appeals just made a landmark decision that could affect every Christian business person in America.
Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin of Albuquerque, New Mexico are the owners of Elane Photography.  They also happen to be Christians who do their best to live and run their business by their Christian values.
In 2006, Vanessa Willock contacted Elane Photography and asked they would photograph her ‘commitment ceremony’ with her lesbian partner.  Elaine Huguenin refused to accept the request based upon her Christian belief.  Both Elaine and Jon felt strongly that the message being presented by the lesbian ceremony was against their Christian faith and therefore it would be wrong of them to participate in any fashion.

At the time, same-sex marriages and civil unions were not recognized as being legal in the state of New Mexico.  Willock and her partner were attempting to do the next best thing in their minds by having a commitment ceremony.
After Elaine turned down the request, Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission.  The complaint stated that the Huguenins had discriminated against Willock because of her sexual orientation.  In the meantime, Willock secured another photographer to photo their sinful and perverse ceremony.

In 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled that the Huguenins engaged in sexual orientation discrimination and ordered them to pay Willock $6,639.94 in legal fees.  The case then went before a trial judge who upheld the commission’s decision.
In 2009, the Alliance Defense Fund appealed the court’s decision which moved the case before the New Mexico Court of Appeals who just rendered their decision to also uphold the commission’s ruling.  Contained in the 45 page ruling, the court said that the photography business is a public accommodation and as such cannot use their faith to discriminate against others based upon sexual orientation.  Part of the ruling read,
“The owners of Elane Photography must accept the reasonable regulations and restrictions imposed upon the conduct of their commercial enterprise despite their personal religious beliefs that may conflict with these governmental interests.”

Jordan Lance, senior counsel and senior vice-president of the Office of Strategic Initiatives for the Alliance Defense Fund commented about the ruling saying,
“Americans in the marketplace should not be subjected to legal attacks for simply abiding by their beliefs.  Should the government force a videographer who is an animal rights activist to create a video promoting hunting and taxidermy? Of course not, and neither should the government force this photographer to promote a message that violates her conscience. Because the Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling artists to promote a message they disagree with, we will certainly appeal this decision to the New Mexico Supreme Court.”
If this ruling is upheld by both the New Mexico Supreme Court and US Supreme Court, it could be used as the legal precedent for any homosexual to sue a Christian business if they believe they have been discriminated against in any form.  It will also be used to force any Christian operating a business that is open to the public to do things that are against their faith or face a lengthy court battle and end up having to pay hefty fines and legal fees.

I’ve said this time and time again, that homosexuals do not want equal treatment, rather they want preferential treatment above and beyond what everyone else gets.  They want special rights, not equal rights and they are succeeding in securing them at the cost of Christian’s rights.  The only way for homosexuals to gain their rights is to strip Christians of theirs and that is exactly what is happening.  And it’s happening because too many Christians in America have been too complacent and have done nothing to protect our Christian rights.
If what is happening to Elaine and Jon Huguenin disgusts and upsets you, then get off your butt and do something about it.  Contact your own local, state and federal politicians and urge them to protect America’s Christian rights and values.  Get out and help campaign for those men and women who will work to protect our rights.  When November comes around, get out and vote for those candidates who will do what’s right.
Most importantly, pray, pray and pray some more.  Prayer is the most powerful tool and weapon a Christian has.  If every Christian earnestly prayed for our nation and its leaders, we would see a remarkable change in our country.   I wish every Christian would post 2 Chronicles 7:14 in their homes and memorize it and teach it to their children.  If we want to save our nation, we need to follow God’s instructions when He said,
“If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and heal their land.”

Amen! Amen! Amen!


Obama’s Third-Party History

by: Stanley Kurtz

On the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism. In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party. The issue remains as fresh as today’s headlines, as Romney argues that Obama is trying to move the United States toward European-style social democracy, which was precisely the New Party’s goal.

In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.
Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:
Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.
Consistent with this, a roster of the Chicago chapter of the New Party from early 1997 lists Obama as a member, with January 11, 1996, indicated as the date he joined.
Knowing that Obama disguised his New Party membership helps make sense of his questionable handling of the 2008 controversy over his ties to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). During his third debate with John McCain, Obama said that the “only” involvement he’d had with ACORN was to represent the group in a lawsuit seeking to compel Illinois to implement the National Voter Registration Act, or motor-voter law. The records of Illinois ACORN and its associated union clearly contradict that assertion, as I show in my political biography of the president, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism.
Why did Obama deny his ties to ACORN? The group was notorious in 2008 for thug tactics, fraudulent voter registrations, and its role in popularizing risky subprime lending. Admitting that he had helped to fund ACORN’s voter-registration efforts and train some of their organizers would doubtless have been an embarrassment but not likely a crippling blow to his campaign. So why not simply confess the tie and make light of it? The problem for Obama was ACORN’s political arm, the New Party.

The revelation in 2008 that Obama had joined an ACORN-controlled, leftist third party could have been damaging indeed, and coming clean about his broader work with ACORN might easily have exposed these New Party ties. Because the work of ACORN and the New Party often intersected with Obama’s other alliances, honesty about his ties to either could have laid bare the entire network of his leftist political partnerships.
Although Obama is ultimately responsible for deceiving the American people in 2008 about his political background, he got help from his old associates. Each of the two former political allies who helped him to deny his New Party membership during campaign ’08 was in a position to know better.

The Fight the Smears website quoted Carol Harwell, who managed Obama’s 1996 campaign for the Illinois senate: “Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.” Drawing on her testimony, Fight the Smears conceded that the New Party did support Obama in 1996 but denied that Obama had ever joined, adding that “he was the only candidate on the ballot in his race and never solicited the endorsement.”
We’ve seen that this is false. Obama formally requested New Party endorsement, signed the candidate contract, and joined the party. Is it conceivable that Obama’s own campaign manager could have been unaware of this? The notion is implausible. And the documents make Harwell’s assertion more remarkable still.





Hannity Moderates Heated Clash Between Michelle Malkin And Sally Kohn

by: Noah Rothman

Sean Hannity hosted a discussion on his radio program on Thursday between Sally Kohn, a liberal columnist, and conservative pundit Michelle Malkin. A fight over a column by Kohn that took Malkin to task for “hypocrisy” quickly escalated into a series of personal attacks between the two pundits.
Kohn took on Malkin’s assertion that Mitt Romney’s campaign was being too nice in his campaign against President Barack Obama. She said that there was a measure of hypocrisy in her suggestion that Romney get more aggressive while at the same time admonishing the left for exhibiting a lack of civility.
“I think we can disagree without being disagreeable,” said Kohn. No sooner did she make this assertion than the conversation descended into a name calling and screaming between the two pundits.


“I think that Sally has made quite a nice name and career for herself casting herself as the voice of reasonableness and mistaking her own smugness as civility,” responded Malkin. “I really don’t need lectures from her or anybody else about having to get along with liberals and progressives.”
Malkin said that her blue state residence affords her a measure of credibility on how she is able to communicate with liberals civilly.

“What she wants to do is cast me as a hypocrite for calling out liberals for their rape jokes, death threats, serial misogyny against conservative women,” said Malkin. She defended her comments about liberals that some find offensive as being “funny.”
“look, you want to call it moral equivalence and dismiss it that way, that’s fine,” said Kohn. “I’m not going to have the fight with you. I’m just not.”
“You’re the one that accused me of hysterical hyperbole,” Malkin said to Kohn. She detailed a number of times when she considered “conservative dissent” to be “demonized and criminalized” by organizations and individuals on the left – she said this justifies Romney running a stronger campaign.
“You’re a coward,” Malkin said.

“I’m not entirely sure I know how to respond,” Kohn replied. She apologized to Malkin but her apology was rejected. “I’m a na├»ve idealist who believes in America that we can uphold the tradition of our founders that we can disagree with each other,” said Kohn.
Hannity did say that Malkin should accept Kohn’s apology, but she refused. “This is all kabuki theater,” said Malkin. “She’s not going to be happy until we are all completely politically and ideologically lobotomized and only speak in dulcet tones the way that NPR hosts do.”






Chinese threat: Shutdown of telecoms

WASHINGTON – Chinese companies apparently have a covert capability to remotely access communications technology sold to the United States and other Western countries and could “disable a country’s telecommunications infrastructure before a military engagement,” according to former and current intelligence sources cited ina report in Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.


The Chinese also have the ability to exploit networks “to enable China to continue to steal technology and trade secrets,” according to the open source intelligence company Lignet, which is comprised of former U.S. intelligence analysts.
The issue centers on the Chinese firm Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., which U.S. intelligence sources say has direct links to the Chinese government and the People’s Liberation Army, or PLA. These sources assert that Huawei and other Chinese telecommunications firms such as ZTE Corp. have “electronic backdoors” to telecommunications technology sold to the U.S. and other countries.

Revelation of China’s electronic backdoor capability into U.S. and Western telecommunications networks comes on the heels of recent WND/G2Bulletin revelations that China has been manufacturing counterfeit components that have made their way into sensitive U.S. weapons systems.
The problem of fake Chinese electronic components, which were installed by defense contractors without prior testing and are operating in U.S. military systems, is far more widespread than originally thought.
These parts don’t just come directly from China but also from suppliers in Britain and Canada who redirect Chinese products to U.S. defense contractors.
These counterfeit components have been found in sensitive U.S. missile systems meant to thwart the potential of a Chinese missile attack, in night vision devices and in various military aircraft.

“We do not want a $12 million defense interceptor’s reliability compromised by a $2 counterfeit part,” Gen. Patrick O’Reilly, director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said.
Huawei, suspected of exploiting electronic telecommunications backdoors, continues to sell communications technology in the U.S. and other countries despite a supposed ban on the company that was supposed to keep it from bidding on cellular networks and government contracts, a current intelligence source said.
The electronic backdoor capability reportedly could allow the Chinese government through Huawei and ZTE to access information traveling through telecommunications networks or even sabotage electronic devices, Lignet said.

With this capability, China would be in a position to sabotage critical U.S. weapons systems and sensitive cyber sites and could include intelligence or systems used by defense contractors doing work on behalf of the U.S. government.
With cyber espionage on the rise and increasing attacks aimed at U.S. government computer systems, these sources contend that Huawei has achieved that capability on behalf of the Chinese government.
Sources say that Huawei can use its backdoor access to reach into foreign telecommunications company systems without its knowledge or permission.
Keep in touch with the most important breaking news stories about critical developments around the globe with Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence news source edited and published by the founder of WND.
For the complete report and full immediate access to Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, subscribe now


Thursday, June 7, 2012

Same-Sex Ceremony On Military Base Sparks Outrage

FORTPOLK 300x225 Same Sex Ceremony on Military Base Sparks Outrage
A same-sex ceremony between a lesbian couple in the base chapel at Fort Polk in Louisiana has created a storm of controversy among conservative religious leaders and a growing number of lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
“The liberal social experiment with our military continues,” Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) told Fox News Radio. “A same-sex marriage-like ceremony should not have occurred at Fort Polk, especially since the people of Louisiana have made it abundantly clear that our state does not recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions.”
Fort Polk is in Fleming’s congressional district. The Fort Polk Public Affairs Office and the Army did not return numerous calls seeking comment.
The ceremony was conducted about three weeks ago by a chaplain for the Disciples of Christ, according to Ron Crews, executive director for the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty.
“It was kept quiet,” Crews told Fox News Radio. He said the service was conducted in the military chapel, under the authorization of the chaplain’s denomination.
Read More at Fox News. By Todd Starnes

Senator Asks DOJ To Investigate Attacks On Conservative Bloggers

SWAT SC 275x300 Senator Asks DOJ to Investigate Attacks on Conservative Bloggers
A number of conservative bloggers allege they have been targeted through the use of harassment tactics such as SWAT-ting (fooling 911 operators into sending emergency teams to their homes), in retaliation for posts they have written, and now Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., has stepped into the matter. He has sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder urging him to investigate the SWAT-ting cases to see if federal laws have been violated.
“I am writing with concern regarding recent reports that several members of the community of online political commentators have been targeted with harassing and frightening actions. Any potentially criminal action that incites fear, seeks to silence a dissenting opinion, and collaterally wastes the resources of law enforcement should be given close scrutiny at all levels,” Chambliss wrote in the letter.

“Regardless of any potential political differences that may exist, threats and intimidation have no place in our national political discourse. Those who choose to enter into that political discourse should not have to worry about potential threats to their or their family’s safety,” Chambliss continued. “While I am certain that local law enforcement is reviewing each of these instances, I am asking you to please look into each of these cases as well to determine if any federal laws may have been violated. Future targets of SWAT-ting, whether engaged in political speech or not, may not be so fortunate as to escape physical harm.”

ABC News spoke with two prominent conservative bloggers who were victims of SWAT-ting, a hoax tactic used by some hackers to infiltrate a victim’s phone system, often through voice over IP (VOIP) technology to make calls appear as if they are coming from a residence. The perpetrators call police to report a violent crime at that home to which the police respond, sometimes with SWAT teams.
Just after midnight on July 1, 2011, Patrick Frey, a deputy District Attorney in Los Angeles and a conservative blogger who writes under the name “Patterico,” heard a pounding at his door as sheriff’s deputies arrived to investigate a call from Frey’s home about a man who claimed he had killed his wife. But no one in Frey’s home had been killed, and no one had made a phone call to the police.
Read More at ABC News. By Arlette Saenz.

Barack Obama’s “Julia” Is A Lie…

The fairy-tale life of “Julia” created by Obama is NOT what it’s cracked up to be. PolitiChicks talks with today’s emerging Black leaders about the cradle-to-grave mentality being pushed by the Left on the African-American community to keep them voting for and dependent on government handouts.

Oprah's career 'tanking because of Obama'

by: Joe Kovacs
Oprah Winfrey’s virtual vanishing from America’s airwaves is the direct result of her political support for Barack Obama, according to the nation’s top-rated radio host.
“Oprah threw away her TV career for Obama,” Rush Limbaugh said this afternoon. “If you want to know why Oprah’s not on television anymore, it’s because she supported Obama. If you want to know why Oprah is flailing away on a cable network that nobody watches, it’s because of Obama.”
Oprah is best-known for her self-titled TV talk show, which became the highest-rated program of its kind in history and was nationally broadcast from 1986 to 2011.
But her latest venture, the cable channel OWN: Oprah Winfrey Network, is flirting with disaster, struggling to attract viewers since its debut in January 2011.
Find out everything you wanted to know about the REAL Oprah Winfrey in “O God” personally autographed by authors Josh McDowell and Dave Sterrett.

Last month, Bloomberg reported OWN may have lost a staggering $330 million since its inception.
“The company needs to provide investors with a roadmap for this business,” said Paul Sweeney, senior analyst with Bloomberg Industries. “Specifically, how long will they stomach these losses before they make a serious change in strategy?”
Limbaugh says Winfrey’s fall is not difficult to trace.
“Oprah decided that she would let her racial association take precedence over her television and broadcasting knowledge,” he said.
“When she decided that … she had Obama on [her show] and made him a millionaire. She put him on TV to sell his first book. It made him an overnight millionaire. It helped establish him as a rising figure in the Democrat Party. It helped get his biography out there. OK, that’s all well and good. There ought to be some gratitude from Obama for that.

“Then Oprah basically throws away her career by endorsing Obama. That’s when her likability number (the Q number, favorable number) started plummeting, along with her ratings. Because it was at that point that Oprah’s audience began to ask themselves – maybe suspect – ‘You know, maybe race matters to her more than all this other stuff that she talks about.’”
Limbaugh says prior to Oprah’s public support for Obama, race was not a big deal with her.
“She was about self-improvement and all that yin-yang that her program was about,” he said.
“But people started now questioning all of that and how sincere it was. So she’s out on the campaign trail, and she sacrificed herself. This is not a sympathy play for Oprah. I’m just telling you what happened. Because in the process of doing all of this for Obama, where’s Oprah now? They don’t even let her in the White House because Michelle hates her, according to [Ed Klein's book, 'The Amateur'].”
“And Oprah is quoted in this book as saying that Michelle doesn’t like fat people ‘waddling around the White House,’ and Michelle felt threatened by Oprah because Obama liked Oprah. The bottom line is, Obama and Michelle ought to have eternal gratitude for Oprah Winfrey, and they don’t. And Oprah gave up a lot for ‘em. And by the same token, Obama ought to have a little gratitude for people that came before – and he doesn’t. He’s a lone wolf; he’s a lone player.”



CNN 'birther buster' report 'perpetrates fraud'

by: Jerome R.Corsi
On the heels of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse’s investigative trip to Hawaii, CNN pulled out old material – including microfilm misrepresented as Barack Obama’s birth certificate – to run a report called “Busting the Birther Conspiracy Theory.”
In the segment, broadcast May 30, reporter Gary Tuchman declared his intention to refute conclusively the contention Obama’s birth certificate is fraudulent.
Some careful observers, however, objected that the Tuchman report was a rebroadcast of material that CNN originally broadcast last year and possibly even earlier.
Does anyone really know where Obama is from? Find out the startling truth from New York Times best-selling author Jerome Corsi.
Moreover, CNN showed a microfilm copy of a birth certificate as if it were Obama’s original 1961 record. But it turned out to be someone else’s birth certificate.

At approximately the 1:22 mark of the segment, CNN displayed a microfilm copy of what viewers were led to believe was Obama’s birth certificate.
Close examination of a screen capture as seen in Exhibit 1 makes clear that the document is not Obama’s.


  Exhibit 1: CNN portrayal of “Obama birth certificate”

As seen in Exhibit 2, when the microfilm birth certificate is enlarged, the number appears to end with the digits “000,” while the computer-generated long-form birth certificate displayed on the White House website on April 27, 2011, bears the number “10641.”

Exhibit 2: CNN portrayal of “Obama birth certificate,” enlarged

After an extensive textual comparison between Exhibit 1, as broadcast by CNN May 30, and the Obama PDF posted on the White House website, blogger PixelPatriot declared CNN’s broadcast “fraudulent.”
“One does not have to look very far to know that a news organization can perpetrate ‘Fraud” on a level such that its impact on the American public is enormously widespread and devastating both to the organization committing an act of ‘Fraud,’ which is a crime, and to the public having been harmed,” PixelPatriot wrote, charging that CNN’s display of a false birth certificate was equivalent to the Jayson Blair scandal at the New York Times and the Killian document controversy that led to CBS anchor Dan Rather’s resignation.
As WND has reported, the Hawaii Department of Health has refused Arpaio’s request to release the microfilm record of Obama’s birth.
Old news
At 23 seconds into the report, Tuchman interviews the former director of the Hawaii Department of Health, Chiyome Fukino. The screen displays the subtitle “Gary Tuchman found proof in Hawaii in April 2011,” suggesting the interview with Fukino was most likely a year old.
“Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to Be President,” published by WND May 17, 2011, discusses thoroughly on pages 262-264 two statements by Fukino regarding Obama’s birth record.
Yet, the CNN May 30 broadcast completely ignored the questions raised in the WND book published a year ago.

Sign the petition now to show members of Congress how many Americans demand constitutional integrity.
What is clear is the content of Fukino’s interview added nothing new to statements she had made to the press dating back to 2008, when the Hawaii Department of Health was still supporting the short-form certification of live birth as the only Obama birth document that Hawaii law permitted the agency to make available to the public.
“In October 2008 and again in July 2009, Hawaiian officials reported that they had personally verified that Barack Obama’s original birth certificate was in the Hawaii State Department’s files,” Snopes.com wrote at that time in an entry now scrubbed from the site.
In an attempt to dispel the birth certificate controversy, FactCheck.org reported in 2008, “The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 (2008) that Obama was born in Honolulu.”
FactCheck.org cited Associated Press reports that Fukino and Alvin Onaka, the Hawaii registrar of vital statistics, had personally verified that the health department “holds Obama’s original birth certificate” – the identical claim Fukino made in the May 30 CNN interview with Tuchman.
A close look at Fukino’s statement of Oct. 31, 2008 makes clear that it was carefully worded to give the impression that the Department of Health possessed Obama’s “original birth certificate,” even though that is not precisely what she said.

Here is the press release in question:




What Fukino said was that she had “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
The key phrase was the qualification “in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
That phrase was left out of the CNN report, and Tuchman did not press Fukino on the discrepancy.
The question remains whether the Hawaii Department of Health has on file in its vault a 1961 original, type-and-ink paper document that matches the PDF the White House posted on its website April 27, 2011.
Because Fukino’s statement of Oct. 31, 2008, was qualified, questions persisted. Eight months later, on July 27, 2009, she felt it necessary to issue a second statement:
What Fukino said precisely in the subsequent statement was that she had seen “the original vital records maintained by file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born citizen.”
But what are these records?
Fundamentally, the Hawaii Department of Health only has verified that the short-form and long-form birth certificates are “abstracts” of Obama birth records the department has on file.
So far, the Hawaii Department of Health has withheld from public inspection the original 1961 Obama birth records the agency claims to hold on file.

Birth announcements
The CNN May 30 broadcast displayed the 1961 announcements of Obama’s birth that were published in the two Honolulu newspapers, presenting them as if they were proof Obama was born in Hawaii.
The report ignored refutation of this contention presented in “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” on pages 74-76.
The book points out Hawaiian law in 1961 allowed registration of an unattended birth based on personal testimony, not documentary evidence a baby had been born in Hawaii.
The law in effect at the time of Obama’s birth was the Revised Laws of the Territory of Hawaii, 1955.
Chapter 57, “Vital Statistics,” in Section 57-9 opens the door for a family to make a false claim and obtain a Hawaii birth certificate for a child born outside the state, possibly even in a foreign country.
The section provides that in instances in which an unattended birth occurs outside a hospital, if neither parent of the newborn is available to prepare a birth certificate, “the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the necessary birth certificate.”

Clearly, Obama’s maternal grandparents could have presented themselves to a local registrar to obtain a birth certificate for the child, even if the child had actually been born in a foreign country.
The address in the two newspaper birth announcements, 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, was of the grandparents not the parents, who apparently never shared an address as a married couple.
The birth announcements published in the Hawaii newspapers prove only that Obama’s birth was registered in Hawaii, not that he was actually born there.

At approximately three minutes into the May 30 broadcast, Tuchman interviewed “long-time newspaper reporter in Honolulu” Dan Nakosa, without informing the viewers that Nakosa has not worked as a newspaper reporter in Honolulu for two years.
Nakosa correctly tells Tuchman that the newspaper published the birth announcements from records provided by the Hawaii Department of Health, not from advertisements placed by the parents or the families of the newborn children.

What Tuchman and Nakosa fail to discuss is the evidence provided on page 77 of “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” indicating:
Neither newspaper had an editor that handled birth announcements;
Both newspapers merely published birth announcements, directly as received, from information published in Hawaii DOH vital statistics announcements;
Hawaiian hospitals did not report to newspapers any birth announcement information; Hawaiian Certifications of Live Birth do not typically list hospital of birth or attending physician information;
Neither newspaper independently checked the truthfulness or accuracy of birth announcement information from Hawaii DOH vital statistics records;

Errors and misstatements in birth announcements published in the two Hawaiian newspapers can and do result from incorrect information recorded in vital statistic information published by the Hawaiian DOH.
Moreover, the 1961 publication of birth announcements by the two Honolulu newspapers was haphazard at best.
The papers apparently published the announcements when space needed to be filled in the paid classified advertisement section.

Many birth announcements were published in one newspaper and not the other; birth announcements were rarely published the same day in both newspapers; and many hundreds of births were never reported in the newspapers at all, especially if the child was born to an unmarried woman.
No birth announcement listed where the birth occurred, meaning unattended births were reported identically as if the birth had occurred in a hospital attended by a physician.

Memories of baby Obama?
At 3:42 into the May 30 report, Tuchman interviews Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who has asserted he knew Obama’s parents, remembers the birth and visited with they young family when Obama was an infant.
Again, CNN failed to review the discrepancies in Abercombie’s recollections of Obama’s birth and infancy in Hawaii.
WND has documented that shortly after the baby’s birth, Obama’s mother left Hawaii with her infant son and moved to Seattle, where she enrolled in night courses at the University of Washington.
WND has further documented that Ann Dunham did not return to Hawaii with her son until after Barack Obama Sr. left the islands in 1962 to attend graduate school at Harvard.

In an interview published by the New York Times Dec. 24, 2010, Abercrombie distinguished that he did not see Dunham and her newly born son at the hospital. But he claimed to remember the couple bringing the baby to social events, which is unlikely if Dunham was in Seattle, not Hawaii, and Dunham and Obama Sr. never lived together.
CNN also did not report Abercrombie’s much publicized failure after he first took office to fulfill his promise to find the authentic 1961 original Obama birth certificate and show it to the American public.











Let's turn the tables on the Democrats and recall one of theirs instead. Recall Harry Reid!


Fellow Conservative,
Obama and his labor union buddies tried to recall my Governor Scott Walker this week and they lost.

Big.

Now we can turn the tables.  Let's win the Senate and recall Harry Reid instead.  Join us.

The Democrats are reeling from their defeat yesterday.  They were counting on defeating Scott Walker to gather momentum for Obama's re-election campaign.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee is running a multi-million dollar campaign to defeat Reid and his cronies and replace him with Conservative leadership for the Senate.

We're setting an ambitious goal this month to send a message to Harry Reid. $1,000,000 from grassroots donors like you. 

The political world will be watching as Harry Reid's Democrat committee reports FEC fundraising numbers and we can't let him show any signs of momentum.

I have contributed to their efforts and I'm asking you to pitch in $25, $50 or $75 as well.

We have a great chance to end Reid's reign in the Senate.  With your support, we can end his time in Senate leadership and replace him with the kind of people who will move our country in the right direction.

Now is the time.  Join us today.

Regards,



Senator Ron Johnson, Wisconsin

P.S. Let's turn the tables on the Democrats and recall one of theirs instead.  With your support we can end Reid's reign.  Please give what you can.

Is the Rogue Nature of the DOJ About to End?


Eric Holder 3 SC Holder Declares War On States Rights  


Grassfire Nation Update
Grassfire has just learned that Attorney General Eric Holder will appear before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today (June 7). It is expected Chairman Darrell Issa will confront Holder with explosive new evidence regarding the botched "Fast and Furious" gun tracking scandal. Please see alert below and take fast action with Grassfire.

Patriot,

With contempt charges moving forward, and word out now linking the murder of a prominent Mexican attorney to the botched "Fast and Furious" weapons debacle, it's not been a very good week for Attorney General Eric Holder -- and it just got worse ...

Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee, Rep. Darrell Issa dropped a bombshell of his own with claims that secret wiretap documents show Holder's people knew all about "Fast and Furious".

As told in LibertyNews.com, Issa said the wiretap applications by 'top DOJ officials inidcat[es] that they knew about, and should be held responsible for, not stopping the most controversial aspect of the botched gun-tracking operation".

This latest evidence runs counter to Holder's longstanding claims that the DOJ was unaware of what was happening in the botched gun walking scandal. But most surprising was the DOJ's response. When confronted by Issa, DOJ officials had the audacity to ask where he got the applications since they were supposed to be sealed by a court order.

Patriot, thanks to efforts of Rep. Issa and continued grassroots pressure calling for justice the shroud is lifting on this scandal -- one that has claimed the lives of hundreds of Mexican nationals, a U.S. Border agent and now Mexican attorney Mario Gonzalez Rodriguez, the the brother of the former Chihuahua state attorney general.

In the latter incident, the DOJ waited 8 months before alerting the Mexican government about the tie to operation "Fast and Furious."

+ + Is the Rogue Nature of the DOJ About to End?

Our nation's "runaway Justice Department" must be brought in line. Issa's daming evidence must result in top down accountability!
In a letter to Holder, Issa writes, "the application discussed -- in no uncertain terms -- the reckless tactic used in Operation Fast and Furious, in light of the information contained in these wiretap applications, senior Department officials can no longer disclaim responsibility for failing to shutdown Fast and Furious because they were unaware of the tactics used."
With this evidence, will this scandalous chapter be brought to a close? Will those responsible be brought to justice? Will the families of the slain victims finally have closure?

Only if "We the People" demand it.

If you've already signed our national petition and even if you haven't--  we're asking you now to fax your two Senators, your Representative and key leaders in Congress demanding they too demand accountability and justice.

Go here now to schedule your faxes.

http://www.grassfire.com/1191/offer.asp?Ref_ID=600062

Holder and his people have wiggled around the law for months, but now it appears he is pinned to the mat. Now it is up to us to turn up the heat -- to demand our elected leaders in Congress get on board with Issa and bring this sordid chapter to a close.

But it won't happen unless we grassroots patriots demand it. With this compelling new information in hand, you have an opportunity to play a key role in bringing this to an end by faxing your personal comments directly to your elected lawmakers as well as key leaders in Congress.

Let them know you want justice. Go here to schedule your faxes for fast delivery.

Obama just caught in big lie?

by: AAron Klein
Has Barack Obama been caught in a lie that could become a major issue in the upcoming election?
During the 2008 presidential election campaign, Obama’s camp categorically denied he was ever a member of the New Party, which sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda.
The  denial came amid reports of Obama’s participation with the party, including several articles by WND.
WND previously reported on newspaper evidence showing Obama was listed as a member of the New Party in the group’s own literature.
WND also conducted an exclusive interview with Marxist activist Carl Davidson, a founder of the New Party, who recounted Obama’s participation.
In 2010, John Nichols, Washington correspondent for The Nation magazine, recalled speaking with Obama at New Party events in the 1990s.
In 2010, John Nichols, Washington correspondent for The Nation magazine, recalled speaking with Obama at New Party events in the 1990s.
Aaron Klein’s “Red Army: The Radical Network That Must Be Defeated to Save America” exposes Obama’s presidential agenda
“When we spoke together at New Party events in those days, he was blunt about his desire to move the Democratic Party off the cautious center where Bill Clinton had wedged it,” wrote Nichols in a January 2009 piece published at Progressive.org.

Now, researcher and author Stanley Kurtz, writing at National Review Online today, reports on documentation from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society that “definitively establishes” that Obama was a member of the New Party.
Kurtz reported Obama also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.
In 2008, Obama’s Fight the Smears campaign website quoted Carol Harwell, who managed Obama’s 1996 campaign for the Illinois Senate, as stating: “Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.”
Fight the Smears conceded the New Party did support Obama in 1996 but denied that Obama had ever joined.

According to documents from the Democratic Socialists of America, the New Party worked with ACORN to promote its candidates. ACORN, convicted in massive, nationwide voter fraud cases, was a point of  controversy for Obama during his 2008 campaign for president.
Becoming a New Party member requires some effort on behalf of the politician. Candidates must be approved by the party’s political committee and, once approved, must sign a contract mandating they will have a “visible and active relationship” with the party.
If Obama indeed signed the contract, not only would his campaign be caught in a lie but it could prove highly embarrassing for him at a time when he is fighting claims, including from Mitt Romney’s camp, that his policies are socialist.
Also, Obama’s 2012 campaign slogan of “Forward” has been criticized for its use of a historic socialist slogan.
Socialist goals
The socialist-oriented goals of the New Party were enumerated on its old website.
Among the New Party’s stated objectives were “full employment, a shorter work week and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal ‘social wage’ to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth; and like programs to ensure gender equity.”

The New Party stated it also sought “the democratization of our banking and financial system – including popular election of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets [and] community-controlled alternative financial institutions.”
Many of the New Party’s founding members were Democratic Socialists of America leaders and members of Committees of Correspondence, a breakaway of the Communist Party USA.
Last month, WND reported on a 1996 print advertisement in a local Chicago newspaper that shows Obama was the speaker at an event sponsored and presented by the Democratic Socialists of America, the DSA.
WND first reported on the event in 2008.

Obama listed as New Party member
While Obama’s campaign in 2008 denied the then–presidential candidate was ever an actual member of the New Party, print copies of the New Party News, the party’s official newspaper, show Obama posing with New Party leaders, listing him as a New Party member and printing quotes from him as a member.
The party’s spring 1996 newspaper boasted: “New Party members won three other primaries this Spring in Chicago: Barack Obama (State Senate), Michael Chandler (Democratic Party Committee) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).”
The paper quoted Obama saying, “These victories prove that small ‘d’ democracy can work.”
The newspaper lists other politicians it endorsed who were not members but specifies Obama as a New Party member.

New Ground, the newsletter of Chicago’s Democratic Socialists of America, reported in its July/August 1996 edition that Obama attended a New Party membership meeting April 11, 1996, in which he expressed his gratitude for the group’s support and “encouraged NPers (New Party members) to join in his task forces on voter education and voter registration.”
The New Party, established in 1992, took advantage of what was known as electoral “fusion,” which enabled candidates to run on two tickets simultaneously, attracting voters from both parties. But the New Party disbanded in 1998, one year after fusion was halted by the Supreme Court.




Barack Obama’s Unwelcome Jubilee Present to Britain

by: Nile Gardiner

Barack Obama was all smiles in his carefully scripted message of congratulation to Queen Elizabeth II on her Diamond Jubilee. But at the same time as he recorded his message, his administration was actively undermining Great Britain at the annual meeting of the Organisation of American States (OAS), held in Bolivia. The OAS General Assembly, which includes the United States, has just re-adopted the 2010 “Declaration on the Question of the Malvinas Islands,” which backed Argentina’s call for negotiations between London and Buenos Aires over the Falkland Islands.

ANNOTATED AGENDA FOR THE
FORTY-SECOND REGULAR SESSION OF THE
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
(Approved at the first plenary session held on June 4, 2012)
The Question of the Malvinas Islands
Under the provisions of resolution AG/RES. 669 (XIII-O/83), the General Assembly decided to continue to examine the Question of the Malvinas Islands indefinitely.
Thus, at its fortieth regular session, the General Assembly adopted AG/DEC. 65 (XL-O/10), which, as at the previous regular session, reaffirmed the General Assembly’s commitment “to continue to examine the topic at subsequent sessions until a definitive settlement was reached.”
AG/DEC. 65 (XL-O/10)
DECLARATION ON THE QUESTION OF THE MALVINAS ISLANDS
(Adopted at the fourth plenary session, held on June 8, 2010)

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,
CONSIDERING its repeated statements that the Question of the Malvinas Islands is a matter of enduring hemispheric concern;
RECALLING its resolution AG/RES. 928 (XVIII-O/88), adopted by consensus on November 19, 1988, in which it requested the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume negotiations in order to find, as soon as possible, a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute;
BEARING IN MIND that in its resolution AG/RES. 1049 (XX-O/90), it expressed satisfaction over the resumption of diplomatic relations between the two countries;
RECOGNIZING that the accreditation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, under CP/RES. 655 (1041/95), as a permanent observer of the OAS reflects principles and values shared by that country and OAS member states, which facilitate greater mutual understanding;

NOTING with satisfaction that the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland maintain important political, cultural and trade ties, share common values and are also engaged in close cooperation both bilaterally and in international fora;
BEARING IN MIND that, despite those ties and shared values, it has not yet been possible to resume the negotiations between the two countries with a view to solving the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgias and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas in the framework of resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25 of the United Nations General Assembly, the decisions adopted by the same body on the same question in the Special Committee on Decolonization, and the reiterated resolutions and declarations adopted at this General Assembly; and
HAVING HEARD the presentation by the head of delegation of the Argentine Republic,
WELCOMES the reaffirmation of the will of the Argentine Government to continue exploring all possible avenues towards a peaceful settlement of the dispute and its constructive approach towards the inhabitants of the Malvinas Islands.

REAFFIRMS the need for the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume, as soon as possible, negotiations on the sovereignty dispute, in order to find a peaceful solution to this protracted controversy.

DECIDES to continue to examine the Question of the Malvinas Islands at its subsequent sessions until a definitive settlement has been reached thereon.
The inhabitants of the Falklands are more than 95 percent British and have no desire to be ruled by Argentina, a point that both the OAS and the Obama presidency are happy to ignore. This is a clear-cut case of self-determination, and the Obama administration’s continuing support for a negotiated settlement (made abundantly clear by a senior State Department spokeman last week) is a slap in the face for both the Falkland Islanders as well as the British people. In his message to the Queen today, Barack Obama paid lip service to the Special Relationship, but his actions over the Falklands demonstrate that in practice he has nothing but disdain for America’s closest friend and ally.
Cross-posted from The Telegraph.



Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Where Will You Be When The Lights Go Out In America?

by: Marita Noon
Green Lightbulb Where will you be when the lights go out in America?


The passage of time is marked with milestones. We each know where we were when President Kennedy was shot, when the Berlin Wall came down, and on the morning of 9-11. If we continue on the current course, you’ll be telling your grandchildren where you were the night the lights went out in America.
America’s energy policy is being dominated by environmentalists’ priorities—regardless of the impact to the American economy, individual communities, or economically-challenged citizens. The plans to shut down or limit America’s abundant, available, and affordable energy are organized, coordinated, and effective. The results will be “lights out in America”—a dim future.

On May 30, the Wall Street Journal alerted us to the Sierra Club’s new campaign aimed at killing the natural gas industry: “Beyond Natural Gas.” WSJ reports: “This is no idle threat. The Sierra Club has deep pockets funded by liberal foundations and knows how to work the media and politicians. The lobby helped to block new nuclear plants for more than 30 years, it has kept much of the U.S. off-limits to oil drilling, and its ‘Beyond Coal’ campaign has all but shut down new coal plants. One of its priorities now will be to make shale gas drilling anathema within the Democratic Party.”

How do they think we will power America? With intermittent, ineffective, and uneconomical wind and solar energy.
Why are the Sierra Club, et al, able to wield so much power? The Obama administration is friendly to their cause. Many of the agencies regulating domestic energy development are staffed with personnel culled from within the ranks of the environmental movement. And, they are not shy about their biases—as was revealed in the now famous “crucify” comment. They also use their vast resources to sue, and sue often. As a new report from the Kentucky Coal Association (KCA) reveals, they don’t just sue the coal miners and the coal-fueled power plants, they sue the EPA to force new standards which are often unattainable—thereby effectively stopping all use of coal. (Remember, natural gas is the next target.)

The EPA, then, goes around standard operating procedures to do the bidding of their environmental buddies.
In Kentucky, hundreds of individual coal mining permits are typically approved each year. The application process has been in place for years. Companies applying for permits know the rules and applications are submitted accordingly. If a rule change is to be made, there is a process that includes a series of public hearings and industry input—providing participation for all parties. When a new rule is implemented, it often has a phase-in period and involved parties can prepare as they know about it far in advance.
However, Lisa Jackson’s EPA isn’t constrained by rulemaking policy.

On April 1, 2010, without reason or science, public notice or opportunity for public comment, the EPA issued “Interim Guidance on Clean Water Act (CWA) procedures for Appalachian surface mines”—which initially applied to only six states: Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Lisa Jackson acknowledged that few—if any—mines would be able to comply with the new benchmark set to limit wastewater discharges from surface coal mining to instream conductivity levels of 500 micro-siemens. Even if you do not understand the conductivity level of instream micro-siemens, you can grasp that the levels called for in the “guidance” are lower than levels found in nature.

In March 2010, 27 permits were issued under the known procedures. Since the “guidance” came out, without warning, on April 1, no new permits have been issued. One company was offered a permit with the 500 micro-siemens limit applicable to every phase of mining beginning on day one. The “virgin” stream was tested before any mining operations commenced and was found to naturally have 1200 micro-siemens. The company would have been in violation before they ever started. On July 21, 2011, the “interim guidance” was replaced with a “final guidance” which suggested that conductivity levels be 300 or less instead of the previous 500—which was already unattainable. Even expensive bottled water doesn’t meet the standards the EPA has set for discharges from coal mining.
For more than 2 years, the Appalachian economy has suffered the loss of hundreds of mines, equaling thousands of direct potential jobs, as a result of this “guidance”—which is not a “rule” but is being treated as one.
In October 2010, the KCA filed a lawsuit against the EPA contending that the issuance of the “interim guidance” violated the Administrative Procedures Act and the CWA by ignoring public notice and comment rulemaking requirements, and unlawfully usurping the state’s role in establishing water quality standards under CWA. That suit has been consolidated with a similar suit filed in West Virginia and with National Mining Association litigation and has been transferred to the federal court in the District of Columbia; the case is scheduled to be heard July 11.

Meanwhile, applications for individual coal mining permits have been denied. Shortly after the new “guidance” was issued on April 1, 2010, The Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet (KEEC) proposed to issue 21 permits for new and surface mines in Eastern Kentucky that did not include qualification for the sudden “guidance,” but met all prior imposed limitations and were consistent with previous applications that were granted permits. The state has the authority to issue permits and the EPA has oversight authority. In September 2010, the EPA issued specific objections to all 21 permit applications—thereby preventing their issuance, blocking jobs and revenues.

On July 1, 2011, the KEEC proposed another 19 permits for new or expanded surface mining in Eastern Kentucky. These permits included a number of enhancements to assure protection of aquatic life. In late September 2011, the EPA objected to all 19 permits—but did not specify the deficiencies. There are currently 36 applications pending; the other four have been withdrawn with the potential investment presumably going elsewhere.
In accordance with the CWA, if the EPA has specific objections, the applicant can request a hearing to challenge the EPA’s decision. The KEEC requested a hearing in December of 2010. Finally, after an 18-month wait, EPA has scheduled hearings for June 5 and 7. The Kentucky Coal Association estimates that just the 19 permits the EPA blocked last September have cost $123,861,000 in state coal severance taxes, 3,800 Kentucky coal jobs, and the production of 125,476,000 tons of coal—all while America is in economic crisis.

Additionally, the micro-siemens benchmark was slated to apply to six states but was pulled back to just two: Kentucky and West Virginia. Why were these states singled out? If micro-siemens were important, if clean water was really the issue, shouldn’t the “guidance” apply nationwide? Interestingly, the two states targeted for the new rules may be victims of retribution. Neither Kentucky nor West Virginia went blue in the 2008 election and are not likely to in 2012. The Democratic primaries in both Kentucky and West Virginia were an embarrassment to the Obama re-election effort. In Kentucky, “uncommitted” got 42% of the vote and in West Virginia, prisoner Keith Judd got 41%. Obama nemesis Mitch McConnell hails from Kentucky and West Virginia’s Democratic Senator Joe Manchin made waves when he ran a campaign ad in which he picked up a rifle and shot a target labeled “cap and trade bill”—which was an Obama campaign promise.

Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia were removed from the micro-siemens guidance. They are blue states that are important to President Obama’s re-election. Once again, it appears that the Obama administration is putting electoral posturing ahead of energy production. (If Obama gets re-elected, you can be sure the “guidance” will apply to more states and other industries.)
The micro-siemens guidance is applied under the CWA section 402. While other industries are governed by section 402, the micro-siemens guidance applies only to coal, and only in two states. The selective application indicates that it isn’t really about the water.

The Sierra Club doesn’t want America’s abundant coal resources used in America. Their efforts have already contributed to the announced closure of 100 US coal-fueled power plants and reduced demand for coal. “Sales to Midwestern power plants have slumped, as has the market price of coal, dropping so suddenly that many local mines are cutting back hours or closing,” reports the New York Times. “The anger toward Washington is palpable.” In the May 29 NYT article, Chris Lacy, an executive at Licking River Resources Inc., said “layoffs among his 350 miners—in Magoffin County, where unemployment is already 17.5 percent — are inevitable.” Addressing the increasing regulations against coal, Lacy says the “concerns are overblown.” He sees them as “a conspiracy by environmentalists and the Obama administration to destroy the way of life here in Kentucky.”

The Sierra Club wants to keep coal in the ground and out of international markets where coal- fueled power plants are being built faster than they are being abandoned in the US. They are filing lawsuits against mining companies to prevent extraction and claiming settlements which include their legal fees. Environmental attorneys are among the highest paid—getting double and triple what veterans’ or seniors’ advocates receive. This hurts not only the local economies, such as the one supported by Licking River Resources, but it also does harm to the US economy, as selling US products overseas helps our trade deficit.

If you are tired of the undue influence the environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club, hold over your energy use and cost—they proudly state that their attack on coal is “just the tip of the iceberg” (natural gas is next), stand with Kentucky against the singular attack. A pre-hearing rally is being held in Frankfort, KY, on June 5 from 5-7 PM between the Capitol Plaza Hotel and the Frankfort Convention Center where elected officials, pro-coal advocates, and invited guests will speak about the dangers of the EPA’s actions to Kentucky jobs. If you can’t make the rally, you can still offer written comment (Docket ID:EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0315).
If we do not stand up to these senseless attacks on the American way of life, our energy freedom, and our economic security, we will be telling our grandchildren where we were the night the lights went out in America.
Photo Credit: Victory of the People (Creative Commons)