The Washington Free Beacon posted an article today about a lawsuit that the Department of Justice is seeking to have dismissed. The article describes the Department of Justice as the Trump Administration, but I am not sure that is accurate–right now I am not sure who is running the Department of Justice.
…Evidence presented in the case purports to show the Carter Center accepted millions in government grants while falsely certifying it was not violating prohibitions on providing material support to terror groups, which include a broad range of factors including lodgings, expert advice, and other types of support.
In April 2008, The New York Daily News reported some of the sources for funding for the Carter Center:
Yifa Segal, director of the International Legal Forum, a group involved in the case, told the Free Beacon that DOJ’s legal arguments do not hold water.
“According to U.S. law, the provision of expert advice or assistance otherwise known as material support, even if meant to promote peaceful and lawful conduct, can facilitate terrorism,” Segal said.
“The logic is simple. Any service provided to a terror group can help free up other resources within the organization,” Segal explained. “Taking into account that a terror organization, ultimately, aims at executing acts of terror, by freeing resources from other needs, you are very likely to contribute to the organization’s illegal acts of violence, whether you intended to do so or not.”
Services like those provided by the Carter Center can in fact “contribute to the terrorist organization’s own legitimacy,” according to Segal, who said arguments revolving around the Carter Center’s intentions in providing such services are irrelevant to the legality of the case.
“It seems that the DOJ is attempting to bury this case by making technical arguments as to this procedure,” Segal said. “Beyond our professional disagreement regarding these particular claims, the question is this: Even if their arguments are correct, why isn’t the government taking different measures to put a stop to this illegal activity?”
Jimmy Carter’s behavior as a former President has been less than exemplary. Although he has done wonderful work with Habitat for Humanity, his anti-Semitism and statements on foreign policy have generally been far off the mark. I would like to see this lawsuit move forward–it is time to end foreign money coming to American political figures and influencing our policies. That has not happened with the Trump administration–but it is becoming very evident that it has happened in other recent administrations.
On Saturday, The Washington Free Beacon posted an article about the confirmation hearings for President Trump’s cabinet.
Trump has now been president for a full three weeks, and the number of approved members in his cabinet stands at seven—a number that was boosted by three contested confirmations last week that were opposed by almost the entire Democratic caucus.
Senate Democrats, vowing to use “everything” they can to stop Trump‘s nominees, have used procedural tricks like boycotting committee meetings to slow the confirmation process to a historically slow pace.
Recent administrations have had many more nominees approved at the three-week mark. Barack Obama had 12 out of 15 nominees approved, George W. Bush had his entire cabinet approved, and Bill Clinton had all but one approved in less than a day.
For most of history, approving cabinet nominees has been a non-issue. Presidents John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and Jimmy Carter had their entire cabinet approved in the first days of their presidency—a brisk pace that has been the norm for most of U.S. history.
As noted by historian Robert David Johnson, the only confirmation process at all comparable to the current situation was that of President George H.W. Bush, and even he had 10 of his 14 nominees confirmed by the three-week mark.
The article reminds us that in the case of President H.W. Bush, the Democrats controlled the Senate and had the power to stop his cabinet choices. The Republicans currently control the Senate, and even then the Democrats are successful at slow-walking President Trump’s cabinet choices. Odds are that all cabinet members will eventually be confirmed. It doesn’t make sense to obstruct, and obstruction may have a political price.
The continuing obstruction of even uncontroversial cabinet choices is being driven by demands from the liberal base of the Democratic Party, which is demanding that Democratic lawmakers not cooperate with Trump on anything.
“Democrats, pushed by their base, are under pressure to not cooperate with the new president—on anything,” wrote the Wall Street Journal following reports that Democrats boycotted committee hearings for multiple nominees.
“Gone are the concerns about appearing overly obstructionist,” Politico reported. “Officeholders are now chasing a base that will not tolerate any sign of accommodation.”
The White House has complained that Democrats are “working overtime” to stop the administration from putting qualified nominees in place at agencies.
The Partnership for Public Progress, a nonpartisan group that promotes public service, has said the slow pace of confirmations is damaging the country.
“They are running the most important organization on the planet, and they don’t have their team on the field,” said the organizations CEO. “They don’t have their critical people in place and that’s vital to being able to do their jobs appropriately.”
This is ridiculous. I am waiting for the Democrats who are slowing the confirmation process to start complaining that the Trump Administration isn’t doing anything. Meanwhile, the Democrats are planning on obstructing anything that is attempted. This is not what the American people signed up for. We want a government that gets things done. We want a government that will do what is needed to restart the economy. We want a government that will get out of health insurance and let the free market work. Simply stated, we want a government that will let us live our lives. This obstructionism is not appreciated by anyone except the extreme left, and candidates running for re-election need votes from all groups of voters. The current actions of the Senate Democrats may please the base, but we will see in 2018 if they actually helped the party or hurt the party.
Posted in Uncategorized	| Tagged Barack Obama, confirmation hearings, Donald Trump, George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, President of the United States, President's Cabinet	
CNS News posted an article today about the discussions the mainstream media has been having about the Electoral College. Many of the mainstream pundits are convinced (and have tried convincing Americans) that the Electoral College is something we no longer want or need. So how is the public reacting to being told to abolish the Electoral College? We are not impressed.
In all ten surveys done by Gallup, the greatest support for amending the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College came in a November 1968, just after that year’s election.
“Support for an amendment peaked at 80% in 1968, after Richard Nixon almost lost the popular vote while winning the Electoral College,” Gallup said in its analysis. “Ultimately, he wound up winning both by a narrow margin, but this issue demonstrated the possibility of a candidate becoming president without winning the popular vote. In the 1976 election, Jimmy Carter faced a similar situation, though he also won the popular vote and Electoral College. In a poll taken weeks after the election, 73% were in favor of an amendment doing away with the Electoral College.”
On Wednesday, Clare Lopez at the Center for Security Policy posted an article about some of the emerging alliances in the Middle East. Unfortunately, some Middle East countries, feeling that America will no longer stand with them against the Muslim Brotherhood are beginning to align with Russia. Other countries are moving toward other options.
At the annual gathering of Iranians outside of Paris, France on 9 July 2016, where some 100,000 showed up to express support for regime change in Tehran, one of the guest speakers dropped a bombshell announcement. Even before he took the podium, Prince Turki bin Faisal Al-Saud, appearing in the distinctive gold-edged dark cloak and white keffiyeh headdress of the Saudi royal family, of which he is a senior member, drew commentary and lots of second looks. The Prince is the founder of the King Faisal Foundation, and chairman of the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, and served from 1977-2001 as director general of Al-Mukhabarat Al-A’amah, Saudi Arabia’s intelligence agency, resigning the position on 1 September 2001, some ten days before the attacks of 9/11.
He took the podium late in the afternoon program on 9 July and, after a discourse on the shared Islamic history of the Middle East, launched into an attack on Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, whose 1979 revolution changed the course of history not just in Iran, but throughout the world. His next statement sent a shock wave through the assembly: Bin Faisal pledged support to the Iranian NCRI opposition and to its President-elect Maryam Rajavi personally. Given bin Faisal’s senior position in the Saudi royal family and his long career in positions of key responsibility in the Kingdom, it can only be understood that he spoke for the Riyadh government. The hall erupted in cheers and thunderous applause.
The Saudi’s understand the dangers of the Ayatollahs obtaining a nuclear weapon. They have also recently moved closer to Israel in a desire to contain the ambitions of the current Iranian government.
The NCRI and its key affiliate, the Mujahedeen-e Kahlq (MEK), were on the U.S. Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) list until 2012, having been placed there at the express request of Iranian president Khatami. Iranian university students formed the MEK in the 1960s to oppose the Shah’s rule. The MEK participated in the Khomeini Revolution but then was forced into exile when Khomeini turned on his own allies and obliterated any hopes for democratic reform. Granted protection by the U.S. under the 4th Geneva Convention in 2004, remnants of the MEK opposition have been stranded in Iraq, first at Camp Ashraf and now in Camp Liberty near Baghdad since U.S. forces left Iraq. Completely disarmed and defenseless, the 2,000 or so remaining residents of Camp Liberty, who are desperately seeking resettlement, come under periodic deadly attack by Iraqi forces under Iranian Qods Force direction. The most recent rocket attack on July 4th, 2016 set much of the camp ablaze and devastated the Iranians’ unprotected mobile homes. The MEK/NCRI fought their terrorist designations in the courts in both Europe and the U.S., finally winning removal in 2012. The NCRI’s national headquarters are now located in downtown Washington, DC, from where they work intensively with Congress, the media, and U.S. society to urge regime change and a genuinely liberal democratic platform for Iran.
Unfortunately, in 2009 when Iran had a genuine opportunity for a democratic government, President Obama chose to ignore the green revolution. The President was more interested in reaching a nuclear deal with a government that routinely preaches, “Death to America” than helping the Iranian people find freedom. America has become an enemy of freedom rather than a beacon of light in a dark world.
Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION message was removed.
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. His promises are in black, with updates in red.
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program [Under Johnson the money was moved to the General Fund and Spent], and
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the ‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, though. Some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn’t so — but it’s worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
I used to be a Democrat. I voted for George McGovern for President. I stayed a Democrat until about half way through Jimmy Carter‘s presidency. At that point I was mugged by reality. Evidently I was not the only one.
The Daily Caller posted an interview today of Charles Krauthammer (one of my favorite people in the whole world) by Howard Kurtz on the Fox TV show “Media Buzz.” I strongly suggest following the link and reading the entire article, but here are a few highlights:
People don’t remember that in the 1970s, there was a strong conservative wing of the Democratic Party. Pat Moynahan, Hubert Humphrey, Scoop Jackson, they were called the Coalition for a Democratic Majority, Committee for the Present Danger… that is where I came out of. Joe Lieberman is the last of those Mohicans, and obviously he had no home in the end.
KURTZ: You were trained, as you mentioned, as a doctor. Does that influence your political prognostications? Analyzing the sanity of those in the political community, perhaps?
KRAUTHAMMER: Oh, no, it never does. However, my training as an M.D. has made me particularly open to empirical evidence. And when you talked about my evolution from a liberal to a conservative, it isn’t that i had an epiphany, the clouds parting and a shaft of light from the sky. I was open to empirical evidence, on the War on Poverty, the Great Society, which I believed in and saw it didn’t work, at least the evidence I read, and I changed. That is the major influence on my life.
A representative republic (like America) needs informed voters in order to stay free. There is a real question in my mind as to whether or not we have those voters right now. President Obama is in campaign mode right now–that seems to be his default mode–and some of the things he is saying are so untrue that they are almost comical.
The American Spectator posted an article on Friday about President Obama’s recent comments on the economy.
“By almost every measure,” he declared, “the American economy and the American workers are better off than when I took office.”
…the Census Bureau reports that median household income in the United States, adjusted for inflation, is down by more than $2,000 since Obama’s first inauguration in January 2009.
…a sixth of the U.S. population is currently receiving food stamps, an increase in the participation rate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program of 61 percent since 2008.
Rep. Kevin Brady, (R-TX), chairman of the Congressional Joint Economic Committee, summarized the U.S. economy’s subpar recovery several months ago, in May: “Our economy has a real GDP growth gap of $1.5 trillion in this recovery compared with the average of other post-1960 recoveries. And that has left us with a private-sector jobs gap from the end of the recession of 5.7 million jobs.”
…August 25 report in Forbes by economist John Goodman documented via Federal Reserve surveys that Obamacare is a key reason for the nation’s persevering joblessness and declining levels of inflation-adjusted household income.
…Based on its August 2014 survey of manufacturers, the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia reported that 18.2 percent of employers said they cut workers because of the Affordable Care Act versus 3 percent who hired more.
Similarly, 18.2 percent of employers said their proportion of part-time workers is higher because of Obamacare versus 1.5 percent who said it was lower.
President Obama is not responsible for the recession. However, his economic policies are responsible for the fact that the recession is still with us. Five years into the Reagan Administration, the country was rapidly climbing out of the Jimmy Carter ‘malaise.’ The voters chose to elect President Obama a second time and to send Democrats to the Senate. We can’t undo the Presidential election for another two years, but we can undo the Democrat control of the Senate and begin to put our country on the right economic path. It’s up to the voters to get out and vote and to change control of the Senate. We need people who understand economics who will block the crony capitalism and runaway spending that has been Washington’s way of doing things recently.
This post is one I don’t like writing. It reminds me of the phrase, “Just because you are paranoid, it doesn’t mean that someone isn’t out to get you.” I hate conspiracy theories. My brain isn’t complicated enough to put all the pieces together, but after a while it becomes difficult to ignore a recurring pattern.
The following is from a 2005 article posted at Discover the Networks. It explains the Cloward Piven approach to bringing about social change.
First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the Cloward-Piven Strategy seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.
Inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which erupted after police had used batons to subdue an African American man suspected of drunk driving), Cloward and Piven published an article titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty” in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation. Following its publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints. Activists were abuzz over the so-called “crisis strategy” or “Cloward-PivenStrategy,” as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect.
So how is this relevant to what is happening today? At some point when you examine the Obama Administration, you have to decide whether the failed policies are simply the result of a political ideology that doesn’t work, poor administration skills, or if they are by design. I am coming to the conclusion that they are by design.
Yesterday Human Events posted a story about the crisis of unaccompanied children pouring into America through our porous southern border.
There have been anecdotal reports of a message being spread throughout Central American countries, by everything from word-of-mouth gossip to news media: “Go to America with your child, you won’t be turned away.” (It will come as no surprise to learn that the Mexican government is not doing much to halt the train of amnesty-seekers headed for American soil. On the contrary, corrupt Mexican officials are trying to get a cut of the profits from the refugee-smuggling trade.)
Two of the state hit hardest by this are Texas and Arizona–payback for being thorns in the side of the Obama Administration. But the point here is that this wave of children is going to overwhelm the federal government’s ‘safety net.’
Let’s look at some recent events and their impact on the morale of our military. Certainly the VA scandal does not make our military feel loved. What about the federal government’s effort to disarm returning veterans? (rightwinggranny.com) What about sending five high-ranking enemy combatants back to war while are troops are still in the battlefield? (Yes, I know they are in Qatar, but you can bet they are on the internet and in communication with their former comrades in arms.)
Let’s look at the impact of the Obama Administration on medicine and medical insurance in America. Premiums are skyrocketing while it is becoming more difficult to obtain care in a timely manner. It is very possible that ObamaCare will put medical insurance companies out of business and the insurance industry will not be able to be rebuilt after the disaster that is coming. The medical system will be overloaded with people who are not able to obtain care.
I don’t know if America will recover from the Obama Administration. If we do recover, it will be a long and difficult road back to prosperity. President Reagan was able to walk that road after one term of Jimmy Carter, but Jimmy Carter did not do the structural damage to America that President Obama is doing. Electing Republicans in November may lessen the damage, but when you consider President Obama’s lack of respect for the U.S. Constitution, his leaving office in January 2017 and being replaced by someone who does not share his political philosophy is really the only hope left for America.
Government shutdowns have happened before. NPR posted an article today detailing some of the history of government shutdowns.
Drawn-out fights over spending bills are nothing new for Congress. But that’s where the fights used to stay: in Congress. The rest of the country didn’t have to pay much attention to countdown clocks and all this drama.
“In the ’60s and ’70s down until 1980, it was not taken that seriously at all,” says Charles Tiefer, a former legal adviser to the House of Representatives, who now teaches at the University of Baltimore Law School. In the old days, he says, when lawmakers reached a budget stalemate, the federal workforce just went about its business.
“It was thought that Congress would soon get around to passing the spending bill and there was no point in raising a ruckus while waiting,” he says.
That easygoing attitude changed during the last year of President Jimmy Carter‘s administration. That’s when Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued a legal opinion saying government work cannot go on until Congress agrees to pay for it.
Benjamin Civiletti was sworn in as the U.S. attorney general on Aug. 16, 1979. In 1980 he issued a legal opinion saying that federal work cannot go on until Congress agrees to pay for it. That changed the way Congress and the country behaved when Congress took some extra time to agree on the budget.
A handicap for lawmakers is that the White House makes the call of which employees are deemed essential and keep showing up for work. So even though Obamacare has been the main bone of contention in this year’s fight, President Obama insists the new health insurance exchanges will open on schedule Tuesday, even if much of the rest of the government shuts down.
Conventional wisdom is that a government shutdown will seriously hurt the Republicans in the 2014 mid-term elections. I understand the basis for that idea, but I am not so sure it is valid–particularly if ObamaCare is funded and the rest of the government is not. ObamaCare is not a popular program, and if the debate revolves around ObamaCare, the Republicans win. If the debate revolves around the shutdown, Democrats win. There is also the matter of the fact that the President has stated that he will not negotiate. That really does not look good either.
On Wednesday, President Obama made a speech to the Business Roundtable. Yesterday the Washington Post awarded the speech four pinocchios. So what did the President say that wasn’t true?
“You have never seen in the history of the United States the debt ceiling or the threat of not raising the debt being used to extort a president or a governing party and trying to force issues that have nothing to do with the budget and nothing to do with the debt.”
So what are the facts? The article cites some examples of exactly what the President claims never happened:
In 1973, when Richard Nixon was president, Democrats in the Senate, including Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. Walter Mondale (D-Minn.), sought to attach a campaign finance reform bill to the debt ceiling after the Watergate-era revelations about Nixon’s fundraising during the 1972 election.
…In 1982, Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker unleashed a free-for-all by allowing 1,400 nongermane amendments to the debt ceiling legislation, which resulted in five weeks of raucous debate that mostly focused on limiting federal court jurisdiction over school payer and busing. The debt limit only passed after lawmakers decided to strip all of the amendments from the bill.
…One of the most striking examples of a president being forced to accept unrelated legislation on a debt-ceiling bill took place in 1980. The House and Senate repealed a central part of President Jimmy Carter’s energy policy — an oil import fee that was expected to raise the cost of gasoline by 10 cents a gallon. Carter vetoed the bill, even though the United States was close to default, and then the House and Senate overrode his veto by overwhelming numbers (335-34 in the House; 68-10 in the Senate).
Please see the article at the Washington Post for more examples. I understand that politicians on both sides of the aisle have been known to stretch the truth for their own purposes, but we are at a critical point right now where spending cuts are necessary for the economic survival of our country. ObamaCare represents a very large increase in government spending. We simply cannot afford it right now.
A website called Twitchy posted a ‘tweet’ today from Anthea Butler, an Associate Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Pennsylvania.
Good Morning. How soon is Sam Bacile going to be in jail folks? I need him to go now.When Americans die because you are stupid…
I realize that I am not the most educated person in the world and maybe I shouldn’t question a college professor, but my first question is, “Did this woman raise any children?” Why is that question relevant? Because when you raise children, you learn some things. You learn that bad behavior is bad behavior and that there is no excuse for it. You learn that if you do not deal with bad behavior, it gets worse.
Sam Bacile (the person who made or is making a movie that made Muslims angry) is not responsible for the violence in Libya or Egypt. It is no coincidence that this violence occurred on September 11th. This is simply more bad behavior from the people who brought us 9/11 in 2001. When are we going to wake up and admit that we have to deal with the continuing Muslim violence or it will escalate? This is the first American Ambassador killed since 1979 (under Jimmy Carter oddly enough).
Another lesson learned from motherhood–if there are no consequences to bad behavior, the behavior will continue. Don’t we have any mothers in our government who can figure that out?
The people in our embassy were not killed because Sam Bacile was stupid, they were killed because people in power are unwilling to protect Americans at home or abroad. Was anyone in the American Embassy armed? Did we let people die because we were afraid of the public relations fallout? Get over it. Muslims don’t hate us because of public relations, they hate us because we are free, successful, and generally unwilling to live under Sharia Law. No amount of public relations is going to change that.
James Pethokoukis, columnist for American Enterprise institute, was on the Bill Bennett radio show this morning talking about the economy.
Last year the economy grew at a rate of 1.1 and we generated about 150,000 jobs a month. No one thought that was a good year. …If anything goes wrong, we do go back into recession. …I think it’s a pretty fragile situation. …This is a very, very weak recovery. …We should be adding 250,000, 300,000, 400,000 jobs a month, which we would be if the economy was growing faster.
The President talks about saving the automobile industry. What about the bond holders that were swept under the rug and lost all their money because all the money was given to the unions?
Mr. Pethokoukis commented that the President will be coming out with a plan today to extend the Bush tax cuts on taxpayers earning less than $250,000. Mr. Pethokoukis pointed out that the plan the President is proposing represents a $70 billion tax increase on those earners, many of which are small business owners. There is no way that helps the economy.
Mr. Pethokoukis also reminded us that during the 1983 recovery from the Jimmy Carter recession, we have one month where the economy gained one million jobs. A recovery after a severe recession should post that kind of numbers—not the numbers we are currently seeing.
Back in 2008, Lifeway Christian Bookstores, which is owned by the Southern Baptist Convention, made news when it pulled a magazine from its stores for featuring female pastors on the cover because it was “contrary to what we believe.”
Now Lifeway is making news again for having pulled from its stores pink Bibles that were designed to promote awareness of breast cancer, with proceeds going the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation for breast cancer screenings.
It turns out that some Komen funding had gone to Planned Parenthood for exams and mammograms in the past and that was enough to set off anti-choice activists at Bound For Life and the American Life League, so now Lifeway has pulled the pink Bibles :
To promote breast cancer awareness, supporters buy pink shirts, pink shoes, pink mouse pads and a host of other pink products.
Until Wednesday, there was even a pink version of the Holman Christian Standard Bible on store shelves. That’s no longer the case.
Southern Baptist-owned LifeWay Christian Resources is recalling its pink Bible because it benefited a charity with ties to Planned Parenthood. The “Here’s Hope Breast Cancer Bible” was sold at Walmart stores and other major retailers, with a dollar per copy going to the Dallas-based Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation.
LifeWay decided to recall the Bible after receiving complaints that some of the breast cancer charity’s local affiliates donated funds to Planned Parenthood. Thomas Rainer, president of LifeWay, called the project a mistake.
“Though we have assurances that Komen’s funds are used only for breast cancer screening and awareness, it is not in keeping with LifeWay’s core values to have even an indirect relationship with Planned Parenthood,” Rainer said in a statement.