Why Did The EPA Smother A Scientific Report That Questioned Global Warming?

Alan Carlin, a PhD and seasoned veteran at the EPA may become a folk hero to climate change skeptics, but he may also lose his job. At least according to an interview this morning on Fox news, he was grateful that he still had a job. A report he submitted back in March had called to question many points of the Global Warming Theory based on current data. The internal e-mails were leaked out, perhaps in response to the recent passing of the high taxing climate change bill. I recently wrote an article that highlighted four points of climate change skeptics. Many more were raised by this paper. According to Carlin and his co authors:

Global temperatures have actually declined in the last 11 years, despite increases in CO2.
Increased tropical storm activity has repeatedly been cited as a sign of anthropogenic global warming and yet that has not occurred.
The IPCC in its reports has claimed that Greenland would shed its ice and that has not happened at all.

Recent studies have concluded that the Global Climate Models used by the IPCC are faulty and “not supported by empirical evidence.”
Studies also suggest the IPCC dismissed the effect of solar variability based on faulty data and new research shows that “up to 68% of the increase in Earth’s global temperatures” could be caused by solar variability.

Analysis of surface stations that monitor temperatures has shown that most fail to meet the most basic meteorological guidelines for proper sighting resulted in inaccurate measurements. The “Urban Heat Island” effect is considered key to this.
Satellite temperature measurements taken from 1978 to 2008 do not show an increased rate of warming over the 30 year period.

Are politics blocking science on this issue? Carlin suggested that old science is being used for current policies, and the ideas are out of date. New evidence has backed a growing number of outspoken scientists on the skeptics side. This is new science with limited recorded data. Computer models have been wrong in their expectations up until now, so what about the next few decades? I support less pollution and renewable energy, but not at the cost of deceiving the public.


Tony Pann, Examiner.com, 6.30.2009

Step and Fetch It Media Ignore Further Questions Over Obama-Fired Inspector Gen Walpin

Apart from several reports on FNC, and a few on CNN, the mainstream television news media have ignored the controversial firing of former Inspector General Gerald Walpin, who had recently battled for tougher penalties against Obama friend and Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson after an investigation by Walpin found Johnson had misused hundreds of thousands of tax dollars granted by the AmeriCorps program to the Johnson-founded St. Hope charity. Over the past weeks, there have been a number of developments, including the opening of an FBI investigation into the St. Hope charity, further casting doubt on the White House's decisions and bolstering Walpin's case that he was wrongfully booted.

In the June 22 editorial "Walpin-gate Opens Wider; FBI Investigation Embarrasses the White House," the Washington Times wrote that "The FBI has opened an investigation into a Sacramento program formerly run by a close ally of President Obama's, giving credence to the IG's work."

The article also recounted that Walpin and the acting U.S. attorney involved in the case, Lawrence Brown, had clashed because Walpin complained that Brown "had negotiated far too lenient a settlement of the charges against Mayor Johnson and St. Hope." The White House had cited complaints by Brown against Walpin as part of its justification for firing the inspector general. But, as noted by the Times, the White House "fired Mr. Walpin long before the relevant committee would have finished its assessment of the U.S. attorney's complaint."

Arguing that Walpin's view of the seriousness of the situation at St. Hope is well-founded, the article also recounted: "On the very same day that the president fired Mr. Walpin, St. Hope's executive director, Rick Maya, left his job at St. Hope. He did not go quietly. His resignation letter charged Mr. Johnson and several St. Hope board members with numerous ethical violations. Most explosively, he charged that a board member improperly deleted e-mails of Mr. Johnson's that already were under a federal subpoena."
According to the June 24 article "Even Political Foes Cheer on Fired AmeriCorps Inspector General Walpin," Paul Bedard of U.S. News and World Report writes that Walpin "has some pretty important friends coming to his defense. Some 145 of them, including political foes, have written Congress and the White House to refute attacks on his integrity in the controversy over why he was fired by the Obama administration." Bedard notes that the list "includes former federal judges and even Democrats like Bernie Nussbaum, former President Clinton's first White House counsel," as the group wrote that "All of us are unanimous in affirming Mr. Walpin's integrity and competence."

In the June 17 editorial, "Walpin-gate's 'Egregious Stuff'; There's Still No Cause for Obama Firing of an IG," the Washington Times informed readers that Walpin and several of his staff had submitted an 18-page rebuttal to Brown's accusations. Regarding Brown's complaint that Walpin had given information to the media before delivering the same information to Brown's office, the Times recounts Walpin's side of the story: "The U.S. Attorney's Office claims it only learned of developments in the investigation through news articles inspired by the inspector general. That's odd. The U.S. Attorney's Office actually submitted, as requested by Mr. Walpin's team, a letter necessary for the action against Mayor Johnson. So that claim is false, too."
In the June 24 editorial, "Lieberman Overlooks Walpin-gate; Public Hearings are Needed on IG Firing," the Washington Times also recounted Walpin's side of the story as a rebuttal to Brown's charge that information was withheld from him by the inspector general: "On the withholding of certain memos, it turns out that the supposed 'withholding' occurred at a meeting Mr. Walpin did not attend - but at which, we are told, his staff discussed with other investigators the memos in question. So it wasn't as if they, much less Mr. Walpin, were deliberately trying to conceal anything."

In the June 18 article, "A Witness to Walpin-gate; An Eye Witness Contradicts the White House," the Washington Times cited an anonymous witness to the infamous May 20 meeting between Walpin and the bipartisan board of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which claimed Walpin was "disoriented" at the meeting, and unanimously requested that he be replaced. According to the Times, the witness not only disagreed with the board's description of Walpin's behavior at the meeting as "disoriented," as the witness described the meeting as "contentious" because Walpin was scolding the board for not being aggressive enough in its duty to protect tax dollars from fraud. The witness also argued that the board's complaint about Walpin telecommuting from his home in New York was not grounds for dismissal since the necessary board members had agreed that Walpin could telecommute without any objections from other board members when they had the opportunity to do so.
In the June 23 article, "Getting to the Bottom of the AmeriCorps IG Firing," Byron York of the Washington Examiner wrote that a Republican member of the board which requested that Walpin be replaced conceded that the board members were not sure whether there was sufficient reason to fire him. York: "But the corporation has never said the board unanimously supported the way in which Walpin was fired. And indeed, a long discussion with a Republican member of the board suggests that while there was, in fact, agreement on firing Walpin, it's not clear whether there was sufficient cause to do it. Nor is it clear why the White House decided to lower the boom in a way that defied the law governing how inspectors general can be fired." Regarding the telecommuting issue, York recounts that, according to his source, "the board did not tell Walpin he couldn't telecommute."

In the June 14 article, "Gerald Walpin Speaks: The Inside Story of the AmeriCorps Firing," Byron York of the Washington Examiner presented the theory that Brown and the Corporation for National and Community Service were under pressure to reach a quick settlement with Mayor Johnson that would remove his suspension so that the city of Sacramento would not be barred from receiving millions of dollars in federal stimulus money because of its mayor's history.
Brad Wilmouth, NewsBusters, 6/30/09

Making a Monkey Out of Darwin

You have no notion of the intrigue that goes on in this blessed world of science," wrote Thomas Huxley. "Science is, I fear, no purer than any other region of human activity; though it should be."

As "Darwin's bulldog," Huxley would himself engage in intrigue, deceit and intellectual property theft to make his master's theory gospel truth in Great Britain.

He is quoted above for two reasons.

First is House passage of a "cap-and-trade" climate-change bill. Depending on which scientists you believe, the dire consequences of global warming are inconvenient truths -- or a fearmongering scheme to siphon off the wealth of individuals and empower bureaucrats.

The second is publication of "The End of Darwinism: And How a Flawed and Disastrous Theory Was Stolen and Sold," by Eugene G. Windchy, a splendid little book that begins with Huxley's lament.

That Darwinism has proven "disastrous theory" is indisputable.

"Karl Marx loved Darwinism," writes Windchy. "To him, survival of the fittest as the source of progress justified violence in bringing about social and political change, in other words, the revolution."

"Darwin suits my purpose," Marx wrote.

Darwin suited Adolf Hitler's purposes, too.

"Although born to a Catholic family Hitler become a hard-eyed Darwinist who saw life as a constant struggle between the strong and the weak. His Darwinism was so extreme that he thought it would have been better for the world if the Muslims had won the eighth century battle of Tours, which stopped the Arabs' advance into France. Had the Christians lost, (Hitler) reasoned, Germanic people would have acquired a more warlike creed
and, because of their natural superiority, would have become the leaders of an Islamic empire."

Charles Darwin also suited the purpose of the eugenicists and Herbert Spencer, who preached a survival-of-the-fittest social Darwinism to robber baron industrialists exploiting 19th-century immigrants.

Historian Jacques Barzun believes Darwinism brought on World War I: "Since in every European country between 1870 and 1914 there was a war party demanding armaments, an individualist party demanding ruthless competition, an imperialist party demanding a free hand over backward peoples, a socialist party demanding the conquest of power and a racialist party demanding internal purges against aliens -- all of them, when appeals
to greed and glory failed, invoked Spencer and Darwin, which was to say science incarnate."

Yet a theory can produce evil -- and still be true.

And here Windchy does his best demolition work.

Darwin, he demonstrates, stole his theory from Alfred Wallace, who had sent him a "completed formal paper on evolution by natural selection."

"All my originality ... will be smashed," wailed Darwin when he got Wallace's manuscript.

Darwin also lied in "The Origin of Species" about believing in a Creator. By 1859, he was a confirmed agnostic and so admitted in his posthumous autobiography, which was censored by his family.

Darwin's examples of natural selection -- such as the giraffe acquiring its long neck to reach ever higher into the trees for the leaves upon which it fed to survive -- have been debunked. Giraffes eat grass and bushes. And if, as Darwin claimed, inches meant life or death, how did female giraffes, two or three feet shorter, survive?

Windchy goes on to relate such scientific hoaxes as "Nebraska Man" -- an anthropoid ape ancestor to man, whose tooth turned out to belong to a wild pig -- and Piltdown Man, the missing link between monkey and man.

Discovered in England in 1912, Piltdown Man was a sensation until exposed by a 1950s investigator as the skull of a Medieval Englishman attached to the jaw of an Asian ape whose teeth had been filed down to look human and whose bones had been stained to look old.

Yet three English scientists were knighted for Piltdown Man.

Other myths are demolished. Bird feathers do not come from the scales of reptiles. There are no gills in human embryos.

For 150 years, the fossil record has failed to validate Darwin.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontologists," admitted Stephen J. Gould in 1977. But that fossil record now contains even more species that appear fully developed, with no traceable ancestors.

Darwin ruled out such "miracles."

And Darwinists still have not explained the origin of life, nor have they been able to produce life from non-life.

The most delicious chapter is Windchy's exposure of the Scopes Monkey Trial and Hollywood's Bible-mocking movie "Inherit the Wind," starring Spencer Tracy as Clarence Darrow.

The trial was a hoked-up scam to garner publicity for Dayton, Tenn. Scopes never taught evolution and never took the stand. His students were tutored to commit perjury. And William Jennings Bryan held his own against the atheist Darrow in the transcript of the trial.

In 1981, Gould had this advice for beleaguered Darwinists:

"Perhaps we should all lie low and rally round the flag of strict Darwinism ... a kind of old-time religion on our part."

Exactly. Darwinism is not science. It is faith. Always was

Patrick J. Buchanan, Human Events, 6/30/09

Inspector General Fired by Obama Wants Congressional Hearing on His Case

The ousted inspector general who reported that his office found misuse of AmeriCorps funds granted to a charity run by a political ally of President Barack Obama sees an assault on the institution of government watchdogs, noting that besides himself, the inspectors general in both the Treasury Department and the International Trade Commission (ITC) have faced reported hurdles in doing their jobs.

He says he wants Congress to hold a hearing on his firing.

“I certainly don’t know the facts about any of the other IGs. But I don’t think you can find in the history of IGs such an administration attack on and terminating IGs before the last few weeks,” Gerald Walpin, the recently fired inspector general of the Corporation of National and Community Service, told CNSNews.com on Friday. The agency runs the youth volunteer program AmeriCorps.

Obama fired Walpin after Walpin led an investigation into the alleged misuse of federal grants by the St. Hope Academy, a charity led by Kevin Johnson, now the mayor of Sacramento.

Federal money intended for the charity allegedly was used to pay for political activities and to run personal errands for Johnson, according to the IG’s report. Johnson and St. Hope agreed to repay half of the $847,000 in grants they received from AmeriCorps between 2004 and 2007

“I do know the facts to my termination,” said Walpin. “I did my job as I was supposed to do it, honestly reporting on facts and conclusions that my staff, who are career civil servants had discovered [and] had reported to me.”

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) is seeking information from AmeriCorps about the Walpin firing. The top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee is also seeking information on documents that had allegedly been withheld from Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (SIGTARP), the $700-billion financial bailout package launched last fall.

Grassley this week also filed a request for all documents that might demonstrate what role the office of First Lady Michelle Obama played in the firing of Walpin, if any. The First lady’s former chief of staff, Jackie Norris, is expected to join AmeriCorps as the senior adviser next week. (See Previous Story.)

Meanwhile, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is asking the administration to provide more information on the AmeriCorps matter.

Regarding his case, Walpin would like to see a congressional investigation to lay out all the facts.

“I would very much like for the American public to know all the facts, instead of how it has so far not been disclosed in response to Sen. Grassley’s and Congressman Issa’s letters,” Walpin said in an interview. “My view is that – as with Teddy Roosevelt – that sunshine is the best disinfectant. I think it is terrible what happened here to the IG, the institution as a whole."

"My firing has a chilling effect on other IGs," he said. "The best way to handle that--aside from President Obama admitting that he made a mistake--is to have a congressional hearing so that all facts can be put out for the public to see.”

He said that he believed the Democratic majority in Congress would support an investigation.

“I have great hopes that Democrats, like Republicans, believe in the integrity of the system and believe that the IG system must be protected,” he said. “I have hopes. I hope they won’t disappoint me.”

An independent office?
The Treasury Department has asked the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel to clarify the special inspector general’s legal status within the executive branch.

In April, Barofsky sent a memo to the Treasury regarding the DOJ inquiry, addressing the issues of attorney-client privilege and whether the special inspector general is subject to supervision by the Treasury Department.

“SIGTARP does not object to your plan to seek guidance from the OLC, however, as discussed below, SIGTARP believes the Emergency Economic Stability Act of 2008 provides SIGTARP is an independent entity within the Treasury, that SIGTARP is not subject to the secretary’s supervision, and that attorney-client privilege is not a bar to access to Treasury’s records or information,” Barofsky wrote. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed any connection regarding the AmeriCorps firing and the TARP matter.

“The president believes that inspectors general fulfill a unique and important role in ensuring that programs operate with efficiency,” Gibbs told reporters during the daily briefing on Friday. “No attorney-client privilege has ever been evoked. No documents sought have been withheld. The DOJ review is not related to a particular investigation. It is sorting out the legal issues relating to the creation of this office.”

He added, “We have outlined the reasons why the inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service was not retained.”

Gibbs later responded to a question as to whether someone could infer a trend with the Obama administration and inspectors general.

“If they inferred it, it would be an incorrect inference,” Gibbs told CNSNews.com.

‘Desperation’
Walpin said the White House called him “confused” and “disoriented” for lack of a legitimate reason for the termination.

“I think it’s absolutely desperation on their part,” Walpin said. “The first reason they gave me for my termination was that the president thought I ought to move on. The second reason the president expressed was that he lost confidence in me. That was in a letter to Congress. Of course that’s not a reason, that’s a conclusion.”

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that oversees inspectors general, was the lead sponsor of the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, which Obama co-sponsored as a senator. The law requires that the president give Congress 30-days notice before dismissing an inspector general and provide Congress with an explanation of why such action is necessary. Initially, Obama only told congressional leaders he lost confidence in Walpin.

McCaskill, in a statement last week, said the White House did not offer a sufficient explanation under the law. So that same day, White House Counsel Norman Eisen sent a letter to the Homeland Security Committee providing further reasons.

“Mr. Walpin was removed after a review was unanimously requested by the bi-partisan Board of the Corporation,” Eisen wrote. “The board’s action was precipitated by a May 20, 2009 board meeting at which Mr. Walpin was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the board to question his capacity to serve.”

In regard to claims he was confused, Walpin said: “Well, I can only say to you that those are code words for a desperation attack on somebody who is--I’m not a young man, I’ll be 78 in September--those are code words to suggest or imply that I’m senile.”

“This is desperation. They never believed I would do anything but resign to avoid the mud that is thrown at somebody who stands up to the most powerful person in this country,” Walpin said. “I did this as a matter of principle. I believed that I could not look myself in the mirror if I gave in.”

No one with the agency or the administration contacted him about being disoriented or his job performance, Walpin said.

“Let’s assume they’re even right--which I say is not correct--they and the corporation have met with me hundreds of times,” Walpin said. “Not one occasion have they ever said anything but that I’m very eloquent. Indeed, on the Tuesday before I was fired, one of the top management people in the corporation begged me to go out to San Francisco and speak to 2,0000 members of their staff and grantees at a conference because they thought my ability to speak was so great.”

Last Wednesday, after the White House released Eisen's letter further explaining the president's firing of Walpin, Sen. McCaskill issued a statement, in which she said that the White House's explanation for the removal of Walpin seemd "well-founded," while suggesting that Congress "undertake any further review that might be necessary."

“Last night, in response to my request for adequate information on the firing of Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service Gerald Walpin, the White House submitted a letter to Senators Lieberman and Collins that now puts the White House in full compliance with the notice requirement in the law," said Sen. McCaskill.

"The next step for Congress is to use the 30 days provided by the notice to seek further information and undertake any further review that might be necessary," said Sen. McCaskill. "The reasons given in the most recent White House letter are substantial and the decision to remove Walpin appears well founded.”

Fred Lucas, CNS News.com, 6/22/09

Obama Chicago-style corruption exposed by firing

When Inspector Gerald Walpin was fired by Obama after he drew attention to fraud involving AmeriCorps Grants by the board of the Corporation for National Community , he was shoved out of his position. Obama reverted to his Chicago-style training by protecting one of his heavy contributors.

Walpin was investigating Barack Obama supporter Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star who's now mayor of Sacramento, Calif., for irregularities in use of federal money by St. HOPE, a charity he ran. Walpin was asked by the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service to investigate St. HOPE, which received an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant to tutor Sacramento students, redevelop buildings and develop art and theater programs.

Walpin found the money was used to sweeten St. HOPE staff salaries, get involved in a school board election and make AmeriCorps volunteers attend to Johnson's personal needs, including washing his car. In May 2008, Walpin's office recommended Johnson and a St. HOPE assistant be suspended from receiving federal money.

To ger rid of Walpin, the White House said that Walpin was disoriented and confused and questioned his capacity to serve. In response, Glenn Beck, of Fox News, invited the Inspector General to appear and then put him through a serious of tests to see if there was anything wrong with him mentally. Viewers could see that he was alert and of sound mind.

One person who was at the meeting afterwhich Walpin was fired, said that the board was hostile and rude to Walpin, interrupting him and going at him with questions on multiple issues. When Mr. Walpin left the meeting for 15 minutes, he came back to find his notepapers had been, mixing them up and the board refused to give him time to put them back in order.

The White House tried to cover its corrupt actions by claiming that Walpin was "absent from the Corporation's headquarters...over the objection of the board. But a witness at the meeting said that the arrangement for Walpin to telecommute from New York to the District office had been approved by the board. Other witness confirmed that it had been approved without a single objection.

The fact remains that an inspector general does not serve at the president's pleasure but can be removed only for a specified just cause. No legitimate cause has been given for the firing of AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin.

When Obama was a politician in Chicago, with Mayor Daley covering his back, he could get away with almost anything without it being brought to the attention of the public. His association with people like Rezko, who is now in prison, was accepted as a way of doing business in the Windy city. While some newspapers and the media are in love with Obama and over look his bringing Chicago tactics to Washington, there are still a few reporters that are not taken in by the President's charm and continue to investigate his actions.

Martha R Gore, Examiner.com, 6/22/09

Democrat Party and Slavery Times

Drenched in Blood and Slavery

The U.S. Senate voted unanimously last week to adopt a resolution apologizing for slavery.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa

, lead sponsor of the resolution, said, "You wonder why we didn't do it 100 years ago. It is important to have a collective response to a collective injustice."
Only after decades of public education ignoring and distorting U.S. history can such a huge lie be said with a straight face.

Senator, you didn't do it 100 years ago because 100 years ago you Democrats were enforcing Jim Crow segregation laws, poll taxes to keep blacks from voting, and riding around in sheets and pointy hats just in case blacks didn't get the message.

You say "It's important to have a collective response" because you want to bury the origins, purposes, and historical practices of your own party.
The worst part is, Republicans in the Senate let you get away

with it. Principled Republicans knowing their history would have authored a resolution reciting the facts that the Republican Party was formed, among other reasons, to oppose slavery and that the Republican Party and its first President Abraham Lincoln

responded to Southern, Democrat-led secession with a successful war that preserved the union and freed the slaves.

After Lincoln's assassination (by a Democrat), the Republican-led Congress (over the objections of the Democratic Party minority) amended the Constitution to confirm the liberation of the slaves (13th Amendment: slavery abolished), and the 14th Amendment (freed slaves are citizens equal to all citizens) and the 15th Amendment (right to vote guaranteed to freed slaves).

Southern Democrats spent the next 100 years trying to keep freed slaves down with segregation laws, poll taxes to deny the right to vote, and lynching to enforce the social order. The KKK was formed by a Democrat; no Republican has ever been a member of the KKK. This is the heritage of the Democratic Party.

In fact, the Democratic Party was formed in the first place to defend and expand slavery.

In 1840, the very first national nominating convention
of the Democratic Party adopted a platform which read in part:

Resolved, That Congress has no power ... to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states ... that all efforts by abolitionists ... made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery ... are calculated ... to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the union.
Got that, Sen. Harkin? Your party was born defending slavery as necessary for the happiness of the people and threatening secession and war if slavery were challenged.
The same party platform language was used in 1844, 1848, 1852 and 1856. In 1860, the Democrat commitment to slavery took a harsher tone.

The Fugitive Slave Law was passed by Congress in 1850. This monstrous law provided that, since slaves were the personal property of their masters, runaway slaves must be returned to their owners. The law required all law enforcement officers to assist in the recapture of runaway slaves or risk a fine of $1,000 (about $100,000 in today's dollars)!
The Republican Party was formed in the 1850s in part as a political reaction to this unjust law.
In their national convention of 1860, Democrats harshly responded to certain Northern (Republican) states that were passing state laws to evade the Fugitive Slave Law by adopting a plank in the Democratic Party Platform which read:

Resolved, That the enactments of the State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect.
Senator, your Democratic Party has much to be apologetic about on the slavery issue.

During the civil war, the Southern Democrats led the Confederacy out of the Union; Northern Democrats formed a separate party which opposed the war. The 1864 (Northern) Democratic Party platform adopted a "peace" plank which read in part:

... after four years of failure to restore the union by the experiment of war ... justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand ... a cessation of hostilities ... to the end that ... peace may be restored ...
Here is the origin of today's Democratic Party "Peace at any Price, Better Red than Dead, Why Can't we all just get Along" foreign policy.

The war was started by Democrat secessionists, and just as President Lincoln was on the verge of victory, the Northern Democrats wanted to save the South and slavery with "peace talks"! Voters knew better in 1864 and re-elected Lincoln.
But the Democrats weren't through. In 1868, Sen. Harkin's party condemned the Republican Party in its party platform as the "Radical Party," and condemned Reconstruction in these unforgettable words:

Instead of restoring the Union, it (the Radical Party) has dissolved it, and subjected ten states (the former Confederate states) ... to military despotism and negro supremacy.

And, senator, don't tell me this is all ancient history in a lame attempt to evade the true origins of your party.
As recently as 1964, when the Senate debated the Civil Rights Act, Southern Democrats (including Al Gore's father) voted no. While Northern Democrats voted yes, their votes were not enough. The deciding votes to pass this landmark bill were provided by Sen. Everett Dirksen, R-Ill., and the Republicans.

Republicans should be proud of their heritage of liberation of the slaves and civil rights voting record.
It's Harkin and the Democrats who should apologize and pay reparations.

Roger Hedgevock, WorldNet Daily, 6/22/09

Obama Stabs Israel In The Back

PRESIDENT OBAMA IS TREATING OUR FRIEND LIKE A FIEND, AND TURNING PUBLIC OPINION AGAINST AN ALLY

When Barack Obama was running for president, he vigorously reassured voters of his firm commitment to America's special relationship with Israel. Indeed, he worked to beef up his pro-Israel bona fides long before he even announced his intention to run. In a 2006 speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Obama recounted a helicopter tour over the Israeli border with the West Bank. "I could truly see how close everything is and why peace through security is the only way for Israel," he said. In that same speech, Obama called the Jewish State "our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy." During the primary and general election campaigns, Obama dispatched a stream of high-profile Jewish supporters to canvas Florida, and in a 2008 AIPAC speech, he went so far as to declare that Jerusalem must remain the "undivided" capital of Israel.

For all the qualms that anti-Obama "smears" would depress support in the Jewish community, Jews rewarded Obama with nearly 80% of their votes, more than they gave John Kerry.

Just six months into the new administration, however, it is becoming increasingly clear that those who harbored suspicions about Obama's approach to the Middle East had good reason to be worried. A confluence of factors -- including his administration's undue pressure on Israel, a conciliatory approach to authoritarian Muslim regimes, and the baseless linkage of the failed "peace process" to the curtailment of the Iranian nuclear program -- point to what could become "the greatest disagreement between the two countries in the history of their relationship," as Middle East expert Robert Satloff recently told Newsweek.

This dramatic shift in American policy began several months ago when the administration signaled that it would make the cessation of Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank the centerpiece of its policy to revamp the region. And that approach, mostly hinted at through anonymous leaks, became as good as official when Obama delivered his vaunted address to the Muslim world in Cairo earlier this month. In that speech, Israel (and, specifically, its policy of settlement construction) was the only state to merit specific criticism from the president of the United States. Among all the degradations and injustices in the Middle East, from the abhorrent treatment of women in nations like Saudi Arabia, to Syrian-backed assassinations of pro-sovereignty politicians in Lebanon, to the arrest and imprisonment of gay men in Egypt, the leader of the free world singled out America's one, reliable democratic ally in the region for rebuke.

Obama's strategic worldview assumes that once the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is resolved, other problems in the Middle East will be easier to fix, if not solve themselves. "We understand that Israel's preoccupation with Iran as an existential threat," National Security Advisor Jim Jones told George Stephanopoulos last month. "We agree with that. And by the same token, there are a lot of things that you can do to diminish that existential threat by working hard towards achieving a two-state solution."

By establishing this connection, the fate of the entire region thus hinges upon the resolution of a problem that hasn't had a solution for over six decades. This is an awfully convenient view for those who enjoy the status quo, which is why so many Arab despots cling to it, and it's discouraging to see the Obama administration joining them.

"Linkage" is faulty for two reasons. The first is intrinsic to the peace process itself, as it is going nowhere. And it will continue to go nowhere for at least as long as Hamas -- a terrorist organization constitutionally committed to the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews -- rules the Gaza Strip, which it has controlled since violently seizing power in the summer of 2007. But it's not just Hamas that remains hesitant to work with Israel. To see the continued intransigence of the Palestinians, witness their bizarre reactions to Benjamin Netanyahu's momentous speech last week, in which the Israeli Prime Minister, for the first time in his career, announced his support for the two-state solution so obsessively demanded by the international community. The Palestinian Ambassador to Egypt denounced Netanyahu's pledge as "nothing but a hoax." The PLO Executive Committee Secretary called Netanyahu a "liar and a crook" who is "looking for ploys to disrupt the peace endeavor." A spokesman for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said that, "The speech has destroyed all peace initiatives and [chances for] a solution." And these are the so-called "moderates."

The second reason why "linkage" is a faulty premise, and why the Obama administration is so foolish to pursue it, is that the problems of the Middle East are not inspired by the lack of a Palestinian state. The biggest crisis in the Middle East right now is Iran's mad quest for nuclear weapons. Nothing even comes close. Even the Arab states -- whose citizens, we are told, cannot rest due to Palestinian statelessness -- are letting the world know that their foremost concern is a revolutionary Islamic theocracy with nuclear weapons (As the dramatic and inspiring street protests in Tehran over the past week have amply demonstrated, what really rouses the Muslim "street" is the venality and cruelty of the region's authoritarian governments, not far-off Zionists reluctant to give Palestinians a state).

These regimes know that Iran, thus armed, will be able to act with far greater impunity that it already does, causing more trouble for coalition forces in Iraq, ordering its proxy armies of Hamas and Hezbollah to ramp up attacks on Israel and stir chaos in Lebanon, and support radical elements throughout the region. It would also set off a regional arms race, with Saudi Arabia and Egypt as the next likely proliferators. Yet the Obama administration does not seem to realize that stopping an Iranian nuclear bomb ought take precedence over the stalled "peace process."

In his otherwise admirable remarks about the significance of the Holocaust and the hatefulness of its denial in his Cairo speech, Obama did further damage by paying obeisance to the Arabs' false narrative about Israeli's creation. In neglecting to affirm the Jews' historic claim on the land of Israel, Obama confirmed the Arab belief that they are paying for the crimes of mid-twentieth century Europe. However awful the misfortune that befell them, Obama's narrative -- in the minds of his audience -- portrays the Jews, however awful their misfortune, as occupiers, not indigenous neighbors.

The Cairo speech provided Obama with an opportunity to call on the Muslim world to acknowledge that Jews are as much a part of the Middle East and its history as are Persians and Arabs, Sunnis and Shia, Druz and Christians. He failed in that task.

Unfortunately, the President seems to be paying no domestic political price for turning on Israel. Given the historic support that the American public has shown for the Jewish State, this is in and of itself a disturbing sign. But when an American administration's rhetoric and diplomacy render Israel the obstinate actor and portray its supposed recalcitrance as the main obstacle to peace, public opinion will follow.

The percentage of American voters who call themselves supporters of Israel has plummeted from 69% last September to 49% this month, according to the Israel Project. Meanwhile, only 6% of Jewish Israelis consider Obama to be "pro-Israel," a Jerusalem Post poll found, pointing to a disturbing gulf between the two nations. There are even signs of rising anti-Semitism, as a survey by Columbia and Stanford professors found that 32% of Democrats blamed Jews for the financial crisis.

Obama is turning America against Israel, for what exactly? The false hopes of improved relations with Arab nations and a nuclear-equipped Iran. That is not what he promised in his campaign, and neither a fair practice or a fair trade.

James Kirchick, NY Post, 6/21/09

Khamenei to Mousavi: Accept results or leave Iran

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reportedly gave defeated reformist presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi an ultimatum this week to either accept the disputed results of the recent elections, or leave the country for exile.

Khamenei had earlier instructed Mousavi to stand beside him as he uses his prayer sermon to call for national unity, according to The London Times.

The reformist candidate did not accede to this request and his supporters have so far ignored Kahmeini's call to support Ahmadinejad, holding huge rallies in defiance of an official ban.

Advertisement

Khamenei's speech Friday followed a sixth day of protests by Mousavi supporters.


On Thursday, hundreds of thousands of protesters wearing black and carrying candles filled the streets of Tehran again, joining Mousavi to mourn demonstrators killed in clashes over Iran's disputed election.

The massive protest openly defied orders from Iran's supreme leader, despite a government attempt to placate Mousavi and his supporters by inviting the reformist, and two other candidates who ran against hard-liner Ahmadinejad, to a meeting with the country's main electoral authority.

Many in the huge crowd carried black candles and lit them as night fell.
Others wore green wristbands and carried flowers in mourning as they filed into Imam Khomenei Square, a large plaza in the heart of the capital named for the founder of the Islamic Revolution, witnesses said.

Ahmadinejad released a largely conciliatory recorded statement on state TV Thursday, distancing himself from his past criticism of protesters, whom he compared to dust and sore losers after a soccer match.

"I only addressed those who made riot, set fires and attacked people," the statement said. "Every single Iranian is valuable. The government is at everyone's service. We like everyone."

Khamenei, meanwhile, has urged the people to pursue their allegations of election fraud within the limits of the cleric-led system. Mousavi and his followers have rejected compromise and pressed their demands for a new vote, flouting the will of a man endowed with virtually limitless powers under Iran's constitution.

The unelected body of 12 clerics and Islamic law experts close to Khamenei has said it was prepared to conduct a limited recount of ballots at sites where candidates claim irregularities.

Mousavi, who has said he won the election, says the Guardian Council supports Ahmadinejad and has demanded an independent investigation, as well as a new election


By Haaretz Service and News Agencies
6/19/09

,

Dictator Ayatollah Khamenei Threatens Bloody Suppression of Freedom

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's uncompromising demand for a halt to street protests over Iran's disputed presidential election puts him in the forefront of a power struggle that could turn bloody.

In a rare Friday prayer sermon, Khamenei, 69, essentially read the riot act to anyone questioning the integrity of last week's election that gave hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a big margin over moderate challenger Mirhossein Mousavi.

"If there is any bloodshed, leaders of the protests will be held directly responsible," the black-turbaned, white-bearded cleric told tens of thousands of worshippers in Tehran in a televised speech that offered no concessions to the opposition.

Iran, the world's fifth biggest oil exporter, whose nuclear program has alarmed the West, faces one of its gravest internal crises since the 1979 revolution.

Iran expert Anoush Ehteshami of Durham University said Khamenei had made clear the gloves were coming off.
"He was totally uncompromising and, dare I say, totally misreading the mood of the people in that he did not give an inch on their core demands," Ehteshami said.

Khamenei, whose authority theoretically cannot be challenged in Iran's complex system of clerical rule and limited democracy, appeared to offer his own life for the Islamic revolution in an emotional finale that drew tears from his audience.

"We will do what we will have to do," he declared. "I have an unworthy life, a defective body and little honor, which was given to me by you. I will put all of these on the palm of my hand and spend them on the path of the revolution and Islam."

The message of the Supreme Leader, whose right hand was crippled in a 1981 assassination attempt, was that defiance of his will amounted to a counter-revolutionary act, analysts said.

Khamenei's proclaimed support for Ahmadinejad gives a stark choice to Mousavi's camp, which includes many pillars of Iran's clerical and political elite, such as former presidents Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami: capitulate or face the full force of the security and judicial apparatus.

There was no immediate word on how Mousavi, a former prime minister, and his influential backers would respond.

ESTABLISHMENT INSIDERS

Ehteshami said he doubted such establishment insiders would defy Khamenei, who accused those asserting the election was rigged of playing into the hands of Iran's foreign enemies.
"But if Mousavi stays the course, there will be violence," Ehteshami predicted. "If the opposition feels there is no recourse through the legal due process, will they take up arms?

"We are really on a knife edge."

To enforce his writ, Khamenei can call on the elite Revolutionary Guard, the religious basij militia and other forces, but analysts said there would be a political cost.
"All it does is put the Leader right in the middle of the fray," said Iran analyst Ali Ansari of St Andrews University.

"It will reassure his base, his core constituents, who will think it's the strong leadership they want, but those who are no longer convinced will be as disgusted as they were before.

"For someone calling for national calm, he will have simply reinforced the polarities in the country," Ansari added.
Khamenei, chosen to succeed Iran's revolutionary founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, when he died in 1989, controls the armed forces and has the ultimate say in all matters of state, including nuclear policy and relations with the United States.

But the drama of the past week, when hundreds of thousands of Iranians have ignored his calls for them to rally behind Ahmadinejad, accept the official election result and stay off the streets, may have dented his standing as the final arbiter.

"Khamenei standing above the fray is out the window now. Whatever he does, he will have to take sides," said Mehrdad Khonsari, an exiled Iranian opposition activist in London.
Karim Sadjadpour, an associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, suggested that the power struggle sharpened by the election was taking Iran into uncharted territory.

"Previously sacred red lines in Iran are now being challenged," he wrote on the eve of Khamenei's address. "It is unprecedented that people would begin to openly challenge Khamenei's legitimacy as Supreme Leader, and indeed question the legitimacy of the institution of the Supreme Leader."
With his own authority at stake, Khamenei may feel compelled to suppress the most widespread anti-government protests Iran has witnessed since the revolution, even if it means confronting Mousavi's broad coalition of moderate and conservative leaders.

"We are in for a long summer," said Ansari. "The problem is that he will get short-term stability for long-term insecurity."
Reuters, 6/19/09

Sleaziness Continues-Obama Firing More IGs

He was appointed with fanfare as the public watchdog over the government's multi-billion dollar bailout of the nation's financial system. But now Neil Barofsky is embroiled in a dispute with the Obama administration that delayed one recent inquiry and sparked questions about his ability to freely investigate.

The disagreement stems from a claim by the Treasury Department that Barofsky is not entirely independent of the agency he is assigned to examine ¿ a claim that has prompted a stern letter from a Republican senator warning that agency officials are encroaching on the integrity of an office created to protect taxpayers.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R- Iowa, sent the letter Wednesday to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner demanding information about a "dispute over certain Treasury documents" that he said were being "withheld" from Barofsky's office on a "specious claim of attorney-client privilege."

A White House spokesman declined to comment, referring questions to the Treasury Department. Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams said late Wednesday that the agency would read Grassley's letter and respond to the senator before any public comment.

The dispute comes as Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is looking into the abrupt firings within the last week of two other inspectors general ¿ one of whom was fired by the White House and the other by the chair of the International Trade Commission.

Both inspectors general had investigated sensitive subjects at the time of their firings.

Grassley is now concerned about whether a pattern is emerging in which the independence of the government's top watchdogs -- whose jobs were authorized by Congress to look out for waste, fraud and abuse -- is being put at risk.

The first dismissal occurred last week, when the White House terminated Gerald Walpin, inspector general of the service agency AmeriCorps. Walpin claims his dismissal was unjust, the result of political interference.

That controversy deepened with Grassley's complaint Wednesday that the White House wasn't answering questions posed by his staff.

Walpin had led an investigation of Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson of Sacramento, Calif., a former NBA player and Obama supporter. Johnson started a nonprofit education program that Walpin's office alleged had misused federal funds.

In a letter sent late Wednesday to the White House, Grassley charged that a White House lawyer who delivered the news to Walpin and who was summoned to the senator's office, "refused to answer several direct questions" about the dismissal.

The firing drew criticism from Republicans and Democrats, who charged that it violated a new law passed last year to protect the independence of inspectors general by requiring 30 days notice and a full explanation to Congress of the dismissal of any IG.

Separately this week, the International Trade Commission told its acting inspector general, who is not subject to White House authority, that her contract would not be renewed.

Grassley had become concerned about her independence because of a report earlier in the year that an agency employee forcibly took documents from the acting inspector general.

"It is difficult to understand why the ITC would not have taken action to ensure that the ITC inspector general had the information necessary to do the job," Grassley wrote on Tuesday.

Less than three hours after the letter was e-mailed to the agency, the acting IG, Judith Gwynne, was told that her contract, which expires in early July, would not be renewed

Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten , Chicago Tribune, 6/19/09

Billboards Questioning Obama’s Eligibility to Serve as President Spreading Like Mushrooms

On May 19, Joseph Farah, founder of WorldNetDaily (wnd.com), launched a billboard campaign to bring the question of Obama’s constitutional eligibility to the forefront.

The billboard campaign, to pose a simple question, “Where’s the birth certificate?” raised $10,000 overnight and has since topped $75,000.

According to the company’s mission statement, WND “is an independent news company dedicated to uncompromising journalism, seeking truth and justice and revitalizing the role of the free press as a guardian of liberty. We remain faithful to the traditional and central role of a free press in a free society – as a light exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power.”

When Farah came up with the billboard idea, he said it was an effort to seek “truth and transparency” regarding Obama’s constitutional eligibility as a “natural born citizen” and “because the world has a right to know.”

Since launching the campaign, CBS Outdoor, Lamar and now Clear Channel Outdoor, which touts itself as being the world’s largest outdoor advertising company, have all rejected the ads.

Undaunted, Farah, continues to raise money to raise awareness of Obama’s questionable eligibility status through this billboard campaign with new billboards going up across the country every day.

According to Farah, they’ve not put a dent in the available billboards across the country that will run the campaign. He said the number erected will be limited only by the amount of money donated to the campaign.

Even if Obama was born in Hawaii and his parents are indeed who he claims they are, which no one knows without seeing a copy of his original long form birth certificate, he would still not be a “natural born” citizen or constitutionally qualified to be president of the United States. Because his father was a foreign national that would have made Obama a dual citizen at birth, which he himself admits.

When the “natural born” citizen clause was added to the constitution, it was to prevent anyone with split loyalties from becoming president.

Linda Bentley, Sonoran News.com, | June 17, 2009

New York “Obama” Times Admits Bam’s Poll Numbers are Dropping Like a Stone

Obama Poll Sees Doubt on Budget and Health Care

A substantial majority of Americans say President Obama has not developed a strategy to deal with the budget deficit, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, which also found that support for his plans to overhaul health care, rescue the auto industry and close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, falls well below his job approval ratings.



A distinct gulf exists between Mr. Obama’s overall standing and how some of his key initiatives are viewed, with fewer than half of Americans saying they approve of how he has handled health care and the effort to save General Motors and Chrysler. A majority of people said his policies have had either no effect yet on improving the economy or had made it worse, underscoring how his political strength still rests on faith in his leadership rather than concrete results.

As Mr. Obama finishes his fifth month in office and assumes greater ownership of the problems he inherited, Americans are alarmed by the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been doled out to boost the economy. A majority said the government should instead focus on reducing the federal deficit.

But with a job approval rating of 63 percent, Mr. Obama has the backing of Democrats and independents alike, a standing that many presidents would envy and try to use to build support for their policies. His rating has fallen to 23 percent among Republicans, from 44 percent in February, a sign that bridging the partisan divide may remain an unaccomplished goal.

The poll was conducted after Mr. Obama completed his fourth international trip as president. He received high marks for his focus abroad, with 59 percent of those polled saying they approve of his approach to foreign policy. And after weeks of criticism from former Vice President Dick Cheney and other Republicans, 57 percent say they approve of how Mr. Obama has dealt with the threat of terrorism.

The White House is entering a critical summer with Mr. Obama pledging to push his plans to revamp health care and financial regulation through Congress and Senate hearings scheduled on his first nominee to the Supreme Court. The poll suggested Americans remain patient, even as a strong majority expressed concern that they or someone in their family could lose their jobs in the next year.

“My feeling is that Obama is just throwing money at things, but I don’t see anything being specifically targeted,” Lynn Adams, 62, a Republican from Troy, Mich., said in a follow-up interview. “But I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt because he hasn’t been in office long enough.”

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, whom Mr. Obama nominated to the Supreme Court three weeks ago, is still widely unknown to the public, the poll found. A majority of people surveyed, 53 percent, said they did not know enough about Judge Sotomayor, who would be the first Hispanic justice, to say whether she should be confirmed. But 74 percent said that it was either very or somewhat important for the Supreme Court to reflect the country’s diversity.

Before the Senate votes on her confirmation, 48 percent of people said her positions on issues like abortion and affirmative action were very important to know about.

The national telephone poll was conducted Friday through Tuesday with 895 adults, and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

The poll highlights the political and governing challenges on the horizon for Mr. Obama, including the towering federal budget deficit, which is expected to push the national debt to levels that many economists say could threaten the economy’s long-term vitality. Six in 10 people surveyed said the administration has yet to develop a clear plan for dealing with the deficit, including 65 percent of independents.

Mr. Obama, in an interview on Tuesday with CNBC and The New York Times, said the budget deficit was “something that keeps me awake at night.”

While Republicans have steadily increased their criticism of Mr. Obama, particularly on the budget deficit, the poll found that the Republican Party is viewed favorably by only 28 percent of those polled, the lowest rating ever in a New York Times/CBS News poll. In contrast, 57 percent said that they had a favorable view of the Democratic Party.

The nomination of a Supreme Court justice, as well as the fatal shooting of an abortion doctor in Kansas late last month, injected a fresh dynamic into the national abortion debate. But the poll found essentially no change in the public’s views of abortion in the last two decades, with 36 percent saying it should be generally available, 41 percent saying it should be available but under stricter limits than are now in place and 21 percent saying it should not be permitted.

The nomination of Judge Sotomayor also has renewed discussion about affirmative action. Half of those surveyed said they favored programs that make special efforts to help minorities get ahead, a number that rises among nonwhite respondents and women. Far more, 8 in 10, said they favored programs to help low-income Americans get ahead, regardless of gender or ethnicity.

The issues of abortion and affirmative action sharply divide voters in each major political party. Among Democrats, 71 percent oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, while Republicans are closely divided. And 67 percent of Democrats support affirmative action programs for minorities, while 60 percent of Republicans oppose them.

Beyond these issues, which Mr. Obama has sought to avoid becoming entangled in, he faces a divided public as he works to carry out his executive order to close the prison for terrorism suspects at Guantánamo Bay. The poll found that 8 in 10 expressed worry that detainees released to other countries might be involved in future attacks here.

Half of the poll respondents said closing the prison would have no effect on protecting the nation from terror threats, but 3 in 10 said they thought it would make the United States less safe. Many of the detainees being held at the prison have not been charged, and nearly 7 in 10 people surveyed said they would support charging them or releasing them back to the country of their capture. Just 24 percent said the detainees should continue to be held without charge for as long as the government deems necessary.

The poll found that a wide majority of those who support closing the prison said their views would not change even if detainees were sent to maximum security prisons in the United States.

“It’s a bad symbol for our country: Preach one thing and do something else,” said Roberta Hall, 73, a Democrat from Barboursville, W.Va. “We can transfer them here. We’re good at keeping prisoners. That’s what we do best.”

By JEFF ZELENY and DALIA SUSSMAN, New York Times, 6/17

Iranians Plead For Freedom and Obama Votes Present

GREEN LIGHT FOR A CRACKDOWN
OBAMA'S SILENCE FAVORS THE MULLAHS

SILENCE is complicity. Our president's refusal to take a forthright moral stand on the side of the Iranian freedom marchers is read in Tehran as a blank check for the current regime.

The fundamentalist junta has begun arresting opposition figures, with regime mouthpieces raising the prospect of the death penalty. Inevitably, there are claims that dissidents have been "hoarding weapons and explosives."

Foreign media reps are under house arrest. Cellphone frequencies are jammed. Students are killed and the killings disavowed.

And our president is "troubled," but doesn't believe we should "meddle" in Iran's internal affairs. (Meddling in Israel's domestic affairs is just fine, though.)

We just turned our backs on freedom.

Again.

Of all our foreign-policy failures in my lifetime, our current shunning of those demanding free elections and expanded civil rights in Iran reminds me most of Hungary in 1956.

For years, we encouraged the Hungarians to rise up against oppression. When they did, we watched from the sidelines as Russian tanks drove over them.

For decades, Washington policymakers from both parties have prodded Iranians to throw off their shackles. Last Friday, millions of Iranians stood up. And we're standing down.

That isn't diplomacy. It's treachery.

Despite absurd claims that Obama's Islam-smooching Cairo speech triggered the calls for freedom in Tehran's streets, these politics are local. But if those partisan claims of the "Cairo Effect" were true, wouldn't our president be obliged to stand beside those he incited?

Too bad for the Iranians, but their outburst of popular anger toward Iran's oppressive government doesn't fit the administration's script -- which is written around negotiations with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

To Obama, his dogmatic commitment to negotiations is infinitely more important than a few million protesters chanting the Farsi equivalent of "We Shall Overcome."

This is madness. There is no chance -- zero, null, nada -- that negotiations with the junta of mullahs will lead to the termination (or even a serious interruption) of Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our president's faith in his powers of persuasion is beginning to look pathological. Is his program of negotiations with apocalypse-minded, woman-hating, Jew-killing fanatics so sacrosanct that he can't acknowledge human cries for freedom?

Is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright a better role model than Martin Luther King? It's a damned shame that our first minority president wasn't a veteran of our civil-rights struggle, rather than its privileged beneficiary.

An ugly pattern's emerging in our president's beliefs:

He's infallible. This is rich, given all the criticism of the Bush administration's unwillingness to admit mistakes. We now have a president with Jimmy Carter's naivete, Richard Nixon's distaste for laws, Lyndon Johnson's commitment to the wrong war, and Bill Clinton's moral fecklessness.

Democracy isn't important. Our president seems infected by yesteryear's Third-World-leftist view that dictatorships are essential to post-colonial development -- especially for Muslims.

Look where Obama has gone and who he supports: the pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia, his groveling speech in Egypt, his embrace of Hamas, his hands-off approach to the gory regime in Sudan -- and now his dismay at the protests in Iran.

Strict Islam is true Islam. This is bewildering, given Obama's childhood exposure to the tolerant Islam practiced in most of Indonesia. The defining remark of his presidency thus far was his Cairo demand for the right of Muslim women to wear Islamic dress in the West -- while remaining silent about their right to reject the hijab, burqa or chador in the Middle East.

History's a blank canvas -- except for America's sins. Of course, we've had presidents who presented the past in the colors they preferred -- but we've never had one who just made it all up.

Obama's ignorance of history is on naked display -- no sense of the brutality of Iran's Islamist regime, of the years of mass imprisonments, diabolical torture, prison rapes, wholesale executions and secret graves that made the shah's reign seem idyllic. Our president seems to regard the Iranian protesters as spoiled brats.

Facts? Who cares? In his Cairo sermon -- a speech that will live in infamy -- our president compared the plight of the Palestinians, the aggressors in 1948, with the Holocaust. He didn't mention the million Jews dispossessed and driven from Muslim lands since 1948, nor the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Christians from the West Bank.

Now our president's attempt to vote "present" yet again green-lights the Iranian regime's determination to face down the demonstrators -- and the mullahs understand it as such.

If we see greater violence in Tehran, the blood of those freedom marchers will be on our president's hands.


Ralph Peters, NY Post, 6/18/09

Sleazy Chi’Town Doings at Bam White House

SHOOT THE WATCHDOG
A COVERUP AT AMERICORPS?

PRESIDENT Obama promised he would end "Washington games." But his abrupt firing of the AmeriCorps inspector general is more of the same. The brewing scandal smells like the Beltway cronyism of the Bush years. And the apparent meddling of first lady Michelle Obama in the matter smacks of the corruption of the Clinton years.

If Obama keeps up with this "change," we'll be back to the Watergate era by Christmas.

News of AmeriCorps watchdog Gerald Walpin's unceremonious dismissal first broke last week in Youth Today, an independent national publication focused on the volunteerism sector. Walpin was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2007 and has served well, honorably and effectively. Too effectively.

His removal came a week after he "questioned the eligibility of the largest and most expensive AmeriCorps program, and while the IG was contesting the 'propriety' of a settlement made with a mayor for alleged misuse of AmeriCorps funds," according to Youth Today.

The first taxpayer-subsidized program is the Teaching Fellows Program, run by the Research Foundation of the City University of New York. Walpin's audit -- which can be found online at cncsig.gov -- uncovered a multitude of grant violations, including criminal-background-check lapses and "pervasive problems of eligibility, timekeeping and documentation."

Walpin's office questioned duplicate educational awards of more than $16 million and costs worth nearly $775,000. CUNY refused to return excess funds that it had drawn down, failed to revise procedures to prevent such grant abuse and refused to provide proof documenting that its AmeriCorps participants existed. Walpin advised AmeriCorps' parent organization, the Corporation for National and Community Service, to cut off any new funding and re-examine past government funding totaling upward of $75 million.

CNCS, now chaired by Democratic mega-fundraiser Alan Solomont, has ignored Walpin's recommendations. The Obama watchdogs are snoozing. Expect the same kind of lackadaisical approach toward policing the $6 billion AmeriCorps expansion and new national service bill signed into law by Obama in April.

The second program Walpin challenged is the nonprofit St. HOPE Academy, run by Obama supporter Kevin Johnson, the Democratic mayor of Sacramento and a former NBA basketball star. In a special report last month, Walpin's office blew the whistle on a highly politicized US attorney's office settlement with Johnson and his deputy, Dana Gonzalez. The pair exploited nearly $900,000 in AmeriCorps funding for personal and political gain.

Based on Walpin's probe last year, CNCS suspended their access to federal funds after determining that they were:

* Using AmeriCorps members to "recruit students for St. HOPE Academy";

* Using AmeriCorps members for political activities in connection with the "Sacramento board of education election";

* Assigning grant-funded AmeriCorps members to perform services "personally benefiting . . . Johnson," such as "driving (him) to personal appointments, washing (his) car and running personal errands"; and

* Improperly using AmeriCorps "members to perform non-AmeriCorps clerical and other services" that "were outside the scope of the grant and therefore were impermissible" for "the benefit of St. HOPE."

But in the wake of Johnson's mayoral victory and Obama's election in November, the US attorney's office in Sacramento rushed to settle with the new mayor so he could avail himself of federal stimulus funds and other government money. It was, Walpin said in his special report last month, "akin to deciding that, while one should not put a fox in a small chicken coop, it is fine to do so in a large chicken coop! The settlement . . . leaves the unmistakable impression that relief from a suspension can be bought."

Shortly after, the White House announced that it had "lost confidence" in Walpin.

With Walpin's removal, the top management positions at CNCS are now open. The decks are clear to install lackeys who will protect the government volunteerism industry and its Democratic cronies. And a chilling effect has undoubtedly taken hold in every other inspector general's office in Washington.

GOP Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa is pressing Obama for more details. Tough questions need to be asked of the first lady, who has "taken the lead" in selecting AmeriCorps' managers, Youth Today reported. Her former chief of staff, Jackie Norris, will serve as a "senior adviser" to CNCS beginning next week. What role did they play in Walpin's sacking? And why?

Mrs. Obama's interest is more than passing. She ran the AmeriCorps-funded nonprofit Public Allies in Chicago from 1993-1996 and served on its national board until 2001. Like so many of the AmeriCorps recipients investigated by the inspector general's office over the years, Public Allies was found to have violated basic eligibility and compliance rules. A January 2007 audit reported that the group lacked internal controls verifying that recipients of education grants and living allowances were legal citizens or permanent residents as required by law.

Transparency. Accountability. Fiscal responsibility. In Obama World, these are proving to be nothing more than words.

Michelle Malkin, NY Post, 6/17/09

Top 10 Obama Apologies

1. Apology to Europe: Speech in Strasbourg, France, April 3. “In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe‘s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”

2. Apology to the Muslim world: Interview with Al Arabiya, January 27. “My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect.”

3. Apology to the Summit of the Americas: Address to the Summit of the Americas, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, April 17. “While the United States has done much to promote peace and prosperity in the hemisphere, we have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms.”

4. Apology at the G-20 Summit of World Leaders: News conference in London, April 2. “I just think in a world that is as complex as it is, that it is very important for us to be able to forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions.”

5. Apology for the War on Terror: Speech in Washington, D.C., May 21. “Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. I believe that many of these decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that all too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight, that all too often our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions.”

6. Apology for Guantanamo in France: Speech in Strasbourg, France, April 3. “In dealing with terrorism, we can’t lose sight of our values and who we are. That’s why I closed Guantanamo. That’s why I made very clear that we will not engage in certain interrogation practices. I don’t believe that there is a contradiction between our security and our values. And when you start sacrificing your values, when you lose yourself, then over the long term that will make you less secure.”

7. Apology for America before the Turkish Parliament: Speech to the Turkish Parliament, Ankara, Turkey, April 6. “The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history. Facing the Washington Monument that I spoke of is a memorial of Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our Revolution. Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans.”

8. Apology for U.S. Policy toward the Americas: Editorial “Choosing a Better Future in the Americas,” April 16. “Too often, the United States has not pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors. We have been too easily distracted by other priorities, and have failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas.”

9. Apology for the Mistakes of the CIA: Remarks to CIA employees at Langley, Va., April 29. “Don’t be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we’ve made some mistakes.”

10. Apology for Guantanamo: Speech in Washington, D.C., May 21. “There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world.”

Niles Gardiner, Human Events, 6/17/09

Afraid To Speak For Freedom and Change When it Matters

On Monday, President Obama said it was none of his business to get involved in Iran's sham elections where President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad clings to power through his usual thuggery.

Yesterday, Obama changed his mind and climbed into bed with Ahmadinejad, laying waste to the hundreds of thousands of brave protesters who have taken to the streets in search of freedom in the form of political challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi.

"The difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised," Obama said yesterday in an interview on CNBC.

"Either way we are going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States."

In other words, "change" is entirely overrated.

He may as well have scoffed at protesters: "Let them eat hummus."

Amazingly, this is even worse than what Obama had to say the previous day, when he finally felt moved enough to comment on the surge of freedom watched around the world.

Asked if he had a message for the protesters, he said Iran is a sovereign nation, which is diplo-babble for "none of my business."

Obama said he does not want the United States to become an issue in the election and has suggested that was why he was tempering his comments.

But this is a moment when the United States can be an issue the good old-fashioned way -- as a beacon of hope for the oppressed everywhere. That's certainly why the protesters pleading for freedom aren't speaking Farsi, Hebrew or French.

They're begging for freedom in English.

About the time Obama was giving the shiv to protesters yesterday, Shirin Nariman stood outside the heavy black iron gates that protect the White House.

She was born in Iran, was jailed for opposing the regime, escaped to America and last year proudly voted for Obama.

Desperate for any small way to help amplify the cry for freedom she hears from family and friends back home, she stood outside the White House.

"Who is the champion of change?" asked Nariman. "The people of Iran are not asking for military interventions or any kind of help like that. Just hear us. That is all we ask."

Charles Hurt, NY Post, 6/17/09

Probe Launched on Obama’s Suspicious Firing of I.G.

Senator blasts administration: 'Intimidation or retaliation cannot be tolerated'
In the wake of the White House's highly controversial firing of an independent inspector general, one U.S. senator is demanding answers and justification, requesting records that extend even to the Office of the First Lady.
As WND reported, President Obama fired Gerald Walpin, the inspector general in charge of rooting out corruption in the AmeriCorps program, shortly after Walpin called for action against a prominent Obama supporter, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who had misappropriated hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal grants.
Walpin told WND he didn't think the timing of his firing was a coincidence, and indeed, he said, "I was fired for doing my job."
Radio host Rush Limbaugh accused the administration of breaking the law by firing Walpin, attributing it to "political cronyism" and declaring, "Alberto Gonzales as attorney general fired a couple of U.S. attorneys. He took hell for it. This is bigger. Inspectors general are supposed to be completely above politics."
Today, according to a report in the Washington Examiner, U.S. Senator Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has demanded both an explanation from the administration and evidence of its dealings with Walpin.
"I am very concerned about the appearance that the I.G.'s communication with my office about this matter may have contributed to his removal," wrote Grassley, referring to reports Walpin had filed with Congress over Johnson's case. "Inspectors general have a statutory duty to report to Congress. Intimidation or retaliation against those who freely communicate their concerns to members of the House and Senate cannot be tolerated."
Grassley's letter to Alan Solomont, head of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which Walpin served as inspector general, also details a strongly worded case in support of Walpin's actions and questions the Corporation's "favorable settlement" and "slap on the wrist" for Johnson.

The letter, reprinted in the Examiner, further demanded "any and all records, email, memoranda, documents, communications or other information, whether in draft or final form" related to a variety of issues, including Walpin's job performance, contacts with the president and "contacts with officials in the Office of the First Lady."

As WND reported, independent federal inspectors general are supposed to be granted special protection from political interference – thanks in part to a law co-sponsored by then-Sen. Barack Obama – to ensure they are free to investigate waste and fraud uninfluenced by political cronyism.

Included in those protections is a requirement that the president submit to Congress, in writing, his reasons for dismissing any inspector general.

President Obama's initial explanation, however, was merely, "It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general. That is no longer the case with regard to this inspector general."

"That's a conclusion, not a reason," Walpin told Fox News television host Glenn Beck today. "This is shocking. I know of no other I.G. who has been terminated like this."

Walpin further told Beck he's considering "all alternatives," but said, "The most important thing is that the public knows."

According to the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, co-sponsored by Obama, inspectors general must also be given 30 days notice of their dismissal.

The firing of Walpin, however, took on a very different form.

Walpin confirmed to WND that he received last week a sudden and unexpected ultimatum from White House counsel Norman L. Eisen: Resign within the hour or suffer being fired.

Walpin refused to resign, replying in an e-mail, "It would do a disservice to the independent scheme that Congress has mandated – and could potentially raise questions about my own integrity – if I were to render what would seem to many a very hasty response to your request."

Grassley, who also co-sponsored the Inspector General Reform Act, immediately protested the White House's action.

"I was troubled to learn that last night your staff reportedly issued an ultimatum to the AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin that he had one hour to resign or be terminated," Grassley stated in a letter to the president. "Inspectors general were designed to have a dual role reporting to both the president and Congress so that they would be free from undue political pressure. This independence is the hallmark of all inspectors general and is essential so they may operate independently, without political pressure or interference from agencies attempting to keep their failings from public scrutiny."

Grassley's letter reminded Obama of the statute requiring the president to submit 30 days notice to Congress of an inspector general's dismissal and stated, "No such notice was provided to Congress in this instance."

"We cannot afford to have inspector general independence threatened," Grassley concluded. "In light of the massive increases in federal spending of late, it is more critical than ever that we have an inspector general community that is vigorous, independent and active in rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. I urge you to review the Inspector General Reform Act you co-sponsored and to follow the letter of the law should you have cause to remove any inspector general."

The White House then clarified two issues, explaining that Walpin was not immediately fired, but suspended for 30 days of paid leave as a countdown to his official release, and that his dismissal, indeed, was related to the Johnson investigation.

In a written response to Sen. Grassley, White House counsel Gregory Craig cited an ethics complaint filed against Walpin by the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento, Lawrence Brown.

Brown had declined to file criminal charges against Johnson, whose organization was found to have used AmeriCorps funds to pay for school board political activities, personal errands and even the washing of Johnson's car. Brown did reach a settlement, however, requiring the organization to pay back over $400,000 of $850,000 in grants it was given through the AmeriCorps program.

Walpin, in turn, filed an objection with Congress over the favorable settlement, an objection some are speculating, led to his firing.

Brown's ethics complaint against Walpin, meanwhile, which contends Walpin was too aggressive and overstepped his authority in the investigation of Johnson, awaits judgment by an integrity committee.

"I have been performing – and my office has been performing – its work with the highest integrity, in the spirit of an independent office, calling the shots as it sees them," Walpin told WND. "The integrity committee will decide the merits of the complaint, but what troubles me is that the White House is apparently relying on the complaint. At this point, it is before an adjudicatory body, and if the White House felt it couldn't wait for that decision, it should have at least waited for me to come in and provide my factual response, so it could consider it. It did not."

And while Walpin has been hesitant to accuse the administration of breaking the law or firing him for strictly political reasons, he did share with WND that he believes the White House's actions have violated the independent mission of the inspectors general, which both Grassley and Obama sought to protect in the 2008 legislation.

"I am sorry for what I believe to be clear interference with the institution of the inspector general," Walpin said. "And I am sorry for the people in my office, who I respect. I took the position because I believed when the president called upon me, it was a great opportunity to give something back to this country. I have done what I believe is right, and I will go on."

Drew Zahn, WorldNet Daily, 6/16/09

Sham Elections: Bush Reacted Like Strong Leader, Obama Reacted Like Mr. Softie

After three days, President Obama broke his silence on the Iranian elec tions late yesterday and said that, well . . . he's "deeply troubled."

But he won't be deterred from engaging Iran in direct diplomacy.

And he sure hopes there won't be any more bloodshed.


This, as tens of thousands of demonstrators flooded the streets of Tehran to protest the results of Friday's presidential election, in which incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadenijad was declared the landslide winner.

And as the government sought to suppress the protests by ordering its militias to fire into the crowds.

The president's public statement followed several days of cautious watching and waiting: First, the White House said it would accept the results. Then Vice President Joe Biden noted that "there's some real doubt" about the election.

Yesterday, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs declared that "we continue to have concerns about what we've seen."

Finally, hours later, the president piped up -- in a manner of speaking.

What a contrast to five years ago -- when then-President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell angrily denounced the "fraud and abuse" in the Ukrainian elections, and warned of "consequences for our relationship."

The result: The Ukrainian Supreme Court ordered a re-vote, which ended in a victory for the democratic opposition.

Iranians should be so lucky.


NY Post, 6/16/09