How much does a Obama czar cost ? including staff office space etc?
He now has 37 czars ?
what happened to cabinet level jobs ?
Is this another tier of goverment that Obama needs?
Sunday, September 06, 2009
1 less commie Czar in the White House : Van Jones quits
1 less commie Czar in the White House: Van Jones quits
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's environmental adviser Van Jones, has resigned his White House job after what he calls a "vicious smear campaign against me."
The resignation, disclosed without advance notice by the White House in an e-mail minutes into Sunday on a holiday weekend, came as Obama is working to regain his footing in the contentious health care debate.
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's environmental adviser Van Jones, has resigned his White House job after what he calls a "vicious smear campaign against me."
The resignation, disclosed without advance notice by the White House in an e-mail minutes into Sunday on a holiday weekend, came as Obama is working to regain his footing in the contentious health care debate.
Friday, September 04, 2009
AP finally picks up "Czar" Van Jones story
AP finally picks up "Czar" Van Jones story
but they had tinted it with thier Obama love, anti GOP color.
Republicans who have spent months criticizing the proliferation of “czars” in the Obama White House have finally landed a major punch.
Over the past few weeks, White House green jobs czar Van Jones has been accused of being a communist, an old lecture video showed him calling Republicans a—holes, and he’s been connected to a Sept. 11 conspiracy group.
With that type of paper trail, Jones would have trouble surviving a Senate confirmation.
But his czar status allowed him to skip this step: Many of the high-level White House policy advisers don’t require Senate confirmation for their posts. And while liberals have hailed Jones as a pioneer in the green jobs movement, critics have labeled him a radical — and he’s become a liability for a White House that doesn’t need another distraction.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26781.html#ixzz0QBRDhbnN
but they had tinted it with thier Obama love, anti GOP color.
Republicans who have spent months criticizing the proliferation of “czars” in the Obama White House have finally landed a major punch.
Over the past few weeks, White House green jobs czar Van Jones has been accused of being a communist, an old lecture video showed him calling Republicans a—holes, and he’s been connected to a Sept. 11 conspiracy group.
With that type of paper trail, Jones would have trouble surviving a Senate confirmation.
But his czar status allowed him to skip this step: Many of the high-level White House policy advisers don’t require Senate confirmation for their posts. And while liberals have hailed Jones as a pioneer in the green jobs movement, critics have labeled him a radical — and he’s become a liability for a White House that doesn’t need another distraction.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26781.html#ixzz0QBRDhbnN
did Valerie Garrett ,Chicago democrat , vet Van Jones for Obama ?
did Valerie Garrett ,Chicago Democrat , vet Van Jones for Obama ?
Van Jones is the radical "czar" that Obama appointed into his 2nd tier of goverment. Van Jones did sign and promote a investigation into the 911 conspiracy that Bush knew of the Sept 11 attach.
see more on this 2nd tier of the 37 radicals that Obama as employed
in the White House.
Van Jones is the radical "czar" that Obama appointed into his 2nd tier of goverment. Van Jones did sign and promote a investigation into the 911 conspiracy that Bush knew of the Sept 11 attach.
see more on this 2nd tier of the 37 radicals that Obama as employed
in the White House.
David Horowitz will be on Glenn Beck
David Horowitz will be on Glenn Beck TODAY discussing Saul Alinsky
How to Defeat the Left
By: David Horowitz / NewsReal
Conservatives should never confront leftists without
www.frontpagemag.com
How to Defeat the Left
By: David Horowitz / NewsReal
Conservatives should never confront leftists without
www.frontpagemag.com
Obama's Van Jones thinks the governemnt was behind Sept 11
For President Obama's green jobs advisor, Van Jones, Labor Day can't come soon enough.
The Washington Independent has turned up a six-year-old petition Jones signed alleging government complicity in the September 11 terror attacks. This comes just one day after The Hill reported the existence of a video clip recorded in February in which Jones referred to Republicans - and himself - as "a**holes."
Jones joined the Obama administration in May. He was the founder of a green jobs advocacy organization based in Oakland, Ca.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/03/blogs/coopscorner/entry5286699.shtml
The Washington Independent has turned up a six-year-old petition Jones signed alleging government complicity in the September 11 terror attacks. This comes just one day after The Hill reported the existence of a video clip recorded in February in which Jones referred to Republicans - and himself - as "a**holes."
Jones joined the Obama administration in May. He was the founder of a green jobs advocacy organization based in Oakland, Ca.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/03/blogs/coopscorner/entry5286699.shtml
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Rep. Chuck Rangel in deep ethics shit again ?
Rep. Chuck Rangel in deep ethics shit again ?
Will Ethics Problems Hurt Pelosi and the House Democrats in 2010?
Do House Democrats have a double standard when it comes to ethics? Word broke earlier this week that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to allow Rep. Chuck Rangel to keep his chairmanship of the powerful Ways and Means Committee despite continuing ethics problems. The latest revelation: he failed to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets on his financial-disclosure forms over the past several years. According to amended forms recently filed with the House, Rangel failed to disclose at least $800,000 in assets and income since 2002. The latest dustup comes amid an ongoing House ethics investigation into other questionable acts by the New York congressman, including his failure to report income from and pay taxes on a villa in the Dominican Republic and his ties to a real-estate developer who leased him four rent-stabilized apartments in New York. The panel is also looking into Rangel’s fundraising and whether he improperly used his office to raise money for a public policy center in his name at the City University of New York.
For his part, Rangel has denied any wrongdoing and tallied it all up to accounting mistakes and simple oversights. But Republicans, no doubt happy to be on the other side of an ethics issue after years of problems with Tom DeLay and others, are demanding Rangel give up his chairmanship and provide proof that he accurately reported his income and assets to the IRS. For now, Pelosi is sticking with Rangel, according to aides who say she won’t ask him to resign his post unless the ethics committee censures him. “Due process,” a House Democratic aide, who declined to be named discussing the situation, tells the Gaggle.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/09/03/ethics-pelosi-house-democrats-2010.aspx
Will Ethics Problems Hurt Pelosi and the House Democrats in 2010?
Do House Democrats have a double standard when it comes to ethics? Word broke earlier this week that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to allow Rep. Chuck Rangel to keep his chairmanship of the powerful Ways and Means Committee despite continuing ethics problems. The latest revelation: he failed to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets on his financial-disclosure forms over the past several years. According to amended forms recently filed with the House, Rangel failed to disclose at least $800,000 in assets and income since 2002. The latest dustup comes amid an ongoing House ethics investigation into other questionable acts by the New York congressman, including his failure to report income from and pay taxes on a villa in the Dominican Republic and his ties to a real-estate developer who leased him four rent-stabilized apartments in New York. The panel is also looking into Rangel’s fundraising and whether he improperly used his office to raise money for a public policy center in his name at the City University of New York.
For his part, Rangel has denied any wrongdoing and tallied it all up to accounting mistakes and simple oversights. But Republicans, no doubt happy to be on the other side of an ethics issue after years of problems with Tom DeLay and others, are demanding Rangel give up his chairmanship and provide proof that he accurately reported his income and assets to the IRS. For now, Pelosi is sticking with Rangel, according to aides who say she won’t ask him to resign his post unless the ethics committee censures him. “Due process,” a House Democratic aide, who declined to be named discussing the situation, tells the Gaggle.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/09/03/ethics-pelosi-house-democrats-2010.aspx
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Obama puts commies on the White House staff?
Commies in the White House ?
who is the Obama green czar Van Jones ? a left wing commie ?
hear the audio info at
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29967/
GLENN: From high above Times Square, this is the third most listened
to show in all of America. Hello, you sick twisted freak. I want to
take another look with some new audio now that I swear to you I
cannot believe that there is no one in this country that is willing
to take on this audio, that is willing to ask the tough questions.
I cannot believe that I am alone. I know you are there, too. You must feel the same way.
Where is everyone? I want you to hear some new audio from the green jobs czar, specific adviser to the president for green jobs, or whatever they want to call him. What I want you to do is give me ten minutes. I need you to take a good hard look at who Van Jones is.
I told you, well, for the last couple of months that this guy
is an avowed, self avowed radical revolutionary communist.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29967/see more info on Van Jones
Illegal Aliens Will Get Health Benefits Under House Bill ?
Congressional Research Agency Confirms Illegal Aliens Will Get Health Benefits Under House Bill
Last Tuesday, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which is the non-partisan "research arm" of the United States Congress, issued a report that concludes that illegal aliens will be able to receive benefits under the House health care bill (H.R. 3200) through two major loopholes. (See CRS Report and FAIR Press Release, August 26, 2009).
According to its own website, CRS is a legislative branch agency that provides Congress with "policy and legal analysis" that is authoritative, objective and accurate. (CRS website). The latest CRS report validates what FAIR has been saying for the past month and a half — that illegal aliens will be able to receive taxpayer-funded health benefits under the House health care bill. (See FAIR's Legislative Updates, July 20, 2009; July 27, 2009 and August 3, 2009).
The House bill creates an "exchange" and "all individuals," which would include illegal aliens, are eligible to participate in the exchange. Anyone who participates in the exchange, and does not otherwise have health insurance, can either enroll in the public option plan created by the House bill or enroll in a private insurance plan. Accordingly, the first loophole that provides illegal aliens with health insurance is the ability for illegal aliens to freely enroll in the taxpayer-subsidized public option. According to CRS, "H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on non-citizens — whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently — from participating in the Exchange." (CRS Report). Accordingly, illegal aliens can enroll in the public option, courtesy of the American taxpayers, to meet their health insurance needs. (See CNN.com, August 2009).
The second major loophole is the failure to require any meaningful verification procedure for taxpayer-subsidized insurance credits. Under the House bill, individuals who buy private insurance through the Exchange may receive an affordability credit to offset the cost of insurance. This credit is ostensibly limited to individuals lawfully present in the U.S., but CRS (like FAIR) notes the complete absence of any provision in the House bill that requires verification of eligibility for the affordability credits. Without such a mechanism, there is nothing in the bill that will prevent illegal aliens from receiving this taxpayer subsidy to buy private health insurance.
These conclusions by CRS should eliminate any remaining doubt about whether illegal aliens will receive health benefits under the bill. As a result of this report, President Obama can no longer characterize the concerns about the illegal alien health care loophole under the bill as "misinformation." (See FAIR's Legislative Update, August 24, 2009 and FAIR's Health Care Podcast, August 24, 2009). In addition, Members of Congress can no longer claim the bill prevents coverage for illegal aliens, and the media can no longer suggest this concern is a "myth." (See FAIR's House bill summary and Townhall.com, August 27, 2009).
Federal Court Upholds E-Verify Federal Contractor Rule
The amnesty lobby suffered a significant setback last week as a federal court upheld a regulation that will require most federal contractors to use E-Verify — the online, electronically operated employment verification system that allows employers to quickly and easily check the work authorization status of their new hires. (The New York Times, August 27, 2009).
The ruling came more than eight months after a coalition of special interest groups — including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.; the Society for Human Resource Management; the American Council on International Personnel; and the HR Policy Association - sued to block the rule from taking effect on its original targeted implementation date of January 15, 2009. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, January 5, 2009).
The push to require federal contractors to use E-Verify has had a long history. On June 6, 2008, then-President George W. Bush signed Executive Order (EO) 13,456, which amended EO 12,989 to require federal contractors to use an electronic employment eligibility verification system to verify the work authorization status of their employees. EO 13,456 also required the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to choose the verification system to be used. (EO 13,456, June 9, 2008). On June 9, 2008, former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff designated E-Verify as the system to be used by federal contractors under the EO. (DHS Press Release, June 9, 2008). The Final Rule implementing President Bush's EO was issued in mid-November 2008. (Final Rule, November 14, 2008).
On December 23, 2008, a coalition of special interests filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Maryland alleging that the Final Rule was unlawful because it violated the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). The plaintiffs argued that Secretary Chertoff had violated Section 402(a) of IIRIRA, which states that "the Secretary of Homeland Security may not require any person or other entity to participate in a pilot program [of employment eligibility confirmation]." In designating E-Verify as the electronic employment eligibility verification system to be used by federal contractors under President Bush's EO, the plaintiffs alleged that Chertoff had violated this statutory prohibition. The complaint contained several other allegations, including a claim that the Final Rule violated a separate IIRIRA statutory prohibition against re-verifying the work authorization status of existing employees. (Complaint, December 23, 2008).
In last week's decision, Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. rejected the claims made by the coalition of special interest groups. Judge Williams noted that "[t]he decision to be a government contractor is voluntary and…no one has a right to be a government contractor." Williams added that, even though the Final Rule requires federal contractors to enroll in E-Verify, "[p]otential government contractors have the option not to contract with the government," so Secretary Chertoff hadn't actually required anyone or any entity to use E-Verify. Judge Williams also went on to reject the coalition's claims that the E-Verify contractor rule violated an IIRIRA prohibition against re-verifying the work authorization status of existing employees. According to Williams: "Nothing in IIRIRA explicitly prohibits the Executive Branch from using E-Verify for current employees." (Decision, August 25, 2009).
The Obama Administration has indicated that it intends to implement the final rule on September 8, 2009 — after having delayed the regulation on three separate occasions. (See The Washington Post, January 30, 2009 and FAIR's Legislative Updates from April 20, 2009; June 8, 2009 and July 13, 2009).However, the E-Verify program itself is set to expire on September 30, 2009. While many immigration reformers have been insisting that the program be permanently reauthorized, the Administration has avoided adopting such a position. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) successfully attached a related E-Verify amendment to the Fiscal Year 2010 Homeland Security spending bill that would (1) permanently reauthorize E-Verify and (2) require all federal contractors to use E-Verify to check the work authorization status on all of their new hires, plus existing employees who are assigned to affected federal contracts. The fate of the Sessions Amendment is uncertain, however. The Homeland Security spending bill is scheduled to move to a House-Senate conference sometime in September. Since the House version of the bill does not contain the Sessions Amendment, the Conference Report — which would likely become law - may include or drop this language. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, July 13, 2009).
Illegal Alien Faces Death Penalty for 2008 Murder of High School Football Star
The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office announced last week that it will seek the death penalty for Pedro Espinoza — an illegal alien member of the 18th Street Gang who allegedly murdered 17-year old high school football star Jamiel Shaw, Jr. in cold blood last year. (CBS News, August 27, 2009; KPCC, August 26, 2009; KTLA, August 26, 2009; and The New York Times, August 26, 2009). Shaw's murder on March 2, 2008 touched off an explosive debate over Special Order 40 — the Los Angeles sanctuary ordinance which does not require police officers to check the immigration status of suspects who have been arrested. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, April 14, 2008).
According to Los Angeles police, Shaw was about three blocks from his house, talking on his cell phone with his girlfriend on the night of his murder. Two men in a car pulled up to Shaw, jumped out, and asked Shaw if he belonged to a gang. When Shaw did not respond, Espinoza allegedly shot him to death. Shaw's father, Jamiel, Sr., was on the phone when he heard the shots and raced outside to find his son lying on the sidewalk, bleeding. His mother, Army Sergeant Anita Shaw, was serving her second tour of duty in Iraq at the time Jamiel was killed. (The Los Angeles Times, March 4, 2008).
Following the murder, it came to light that the illegal alien who had allegedly killed Jamiel, Jr. had been released from jail on a firearms charge just one day before Shaw was killed. This prompted Shaw's parents to file a wrongful death lawsuit against the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department on the grounds that the illegal alien should have been turned over to federal authorities instead of being freed. (CBS News, August 27, 2009). Additionally, Shaw's parents unsuccessfully petitioned for Jamiel's Law, legislation that would have altered the sanctuary provisions in Special Order 40 by requiring authorities to check the immigration status of gang members who were under arrest or investigation. (KTLA, August 26, 2009). FAIR Media Director Ira Mehlman commented last week about the release of the illegal alien who has been charged with murdering Shaw: "The local police never took the trouble to find out he was an illegal alien and remand him to federal authorities. If they had done that, they would not have put him back out on the streets. He would have been remanded to federal custody and never had the opportunity to murder Jamiel Shaw." (OneNewsNow, August 28, 2009).
Parents Jamiel, Sr. and Anita Shaw were proud of their son. Jamiel, Jr. aspired to play college football and wanted to become a sports agent after graduating college. Jamiel's mother compared the gang violence that had led to her son's death to the violence that she had seen in Iraq: "The only thing is we don't have sand and dirt flying all around. But we have the bullets." In the days following Jamiel's murder, Jamiel, Sr. said of his son: "He was set. He was going to college…he was my hero." (CBS News, August 27, 2009).
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21337&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721#1
Last Tuesday, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which is the non-partisan "research arm" of the United States Congress, issued a report that concludes that illegal aliens will be able to receive benefits under the House health care bill (H.R. 3200) through two major loopholes. (See CRS Report and FAIR Press Release, August 26, 2009).
According to its own website, CRS is a legislative branch agency that provides Congress with "policy and legal analysis" that is authoritative, objective and accurate. (CRS website). The latest CRS report validates what FAIR has been saying for the past month and a half — that illegal aliens will be able to receive taxpayer-funded health benefits under the House health care bill. (See FAIR's Legislative Updates, July 20, 2009; July 27, 2009 and August 3, 2009).
The House bill creates an "exchange" and "all individuals," which would include illegal aliens, are eligible to participate in the exchange. Anyone who participates in the exchange, and does not otherwise have health insurance, can either enroll in the public option plan created by the House bill or enroll in a private insurance plan. Accordingly, the first loophole that provides illegal aliens with health insurance is the ability for illegal aliens to freely enroll in the taxpayer-subsidized public option. According to CRS, "H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on non-citizens — whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently — from participating in the Exchange." (CRS Report). Accordingly, illegal aliens can enroll in the public option, courtesy of the American taxpayers, to meet their health insurance needs. (See CNN.com, August 2009).
The second major loophole is the failure to require any meaningful verification procedure for taxpayer-subsidized insurance credits. Under the House bill, individuals who buy private insurance through the Exchange may receive an affordability credit to offset the cost of insurance. This credit is ostensibly limited to individuals lawfully present in the U.S., but CRS (like FAIR) notes the complete absence of any provision in the House bill that requires verification of eligibility for the affordability credits. Without such a mechanism, there is nothing in the bill that will prevent illegal aliens from receiving this taxpayer subsidy to buy private health insurance.
These conclusions by CRS should eliminate any remaining doubt about whether illegal aliens will receive health benefits under the bill. As a result of this report, President Obama can no longer characterize the concerns about the illegal alien health care loophole under the bill as "misinformation." (See FAIR's Legislative Update, August 24, 2009 and FAIR's Health Care Podcast, August 24, 2009). In addition, Members of Congress can no longer claim the bill prevents coverage for illegal aliens, and the media can no longer suggest this concern is a "myth." (See FAIR's House bill summary and Townhall.com, August 27, 2009).
Federal Court Upholds E-Verify Federal Contractor Rule
The amnesty lobby suffered a significant setback last week as a federal court upheld a regulation that will require most federal contractors to use E-Verify — the online, electronically operated employment verification system that allows employers to quickly and easily check the work authorization status of their new hires. (The New York Times, August 27, 2009).
The ruling came more than eight months after a coalition of special interest groups — including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.; the Society for Human Resource Management; the American Council on International Personnel; and the HR Policy Association - sued to block the rule from taking effect on its original targeted implementation date of January 15, 2009. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, January 5, 2009).
The push to require federal contractors to use E-Verify has had a long history. On June 6, 2008, then-President George W. Bush signed Executive Order (EO) 13,456, which amended EO 12,989 to require federal contractors to use an electronic employment eligibility verification system to verify the work authorization status of their employees. EO 13,456 also required the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to choose the verification system to be used. (EO 13,456, June 9, 2008). On June 9, 2008, former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff designated E-Verify as the system to be used by federal contractors under the EO. (DHS Press Release, June 9, 2008). The Final Rule implementing President Bush's EO was issued in mid-November 2008. (Final Rule, November 14, 2008).
On December 23, 2008, a coalition of special interests filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Maryland alleging that the Final Rule was unlawful because it violated the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). The plaintiffs argued that Secretary Chertoff had violated Section 402(a) of IIRIRA, which states that "the Secretary of Homeland Security may not require any person or other entity to participate in a pilot program [of employment eligibility confirmation]." In designating E-Verify as the electronic employment eligibility verification system to be used by federal contractors under President Bush's EO, the plaintiffs alleged that Chertoff had violated this statutory prohibition. The complaint contained several other allegations, including a claim that the Final Rule violated a separate IIRIRA statutory prohibition against re-verifying the work authorization status of existing employees. (Complaint, December 23, 2008).
In last week's decision, Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. rejected the claims made by the coalition of special interest groups. Judge Williams noted that "[t]he decision to be a government contractor is voluntary and…no one has a right to be a government contractor." Williams added that, even though the Final Rule requires federal contractors to enroll in E-Verify, "[p]otential government contractors have the option not to contract with the government," so Secretary Chertoff hadn't actually required anyone or any entity to use E-Verify. Judge Williams also went on to reject the coalition's claims that the E-Verify contractor rule violated an IIRIRA prohibition against re-verifying the work authorization status of existing employees. According to Williams: "Nothing in IIRIRA explicitly prohibits the Executive Branch from using E-Verify for current employees." (Decision, August 25, 2009).
The Obama Administration has indicated that it intends to implement the final rule on September 8, 2009 — after having delayed the regulation on three separate occasions. (See The Washington Post, January 30, 2009 and FAIR's Legislative Updates from April 20, 2009; June 8, 2009 and July 13, 2009).However, the E-Verify program itself is set to expire on September 30, 2009. While many immigration reformers have been insisting that the program be permanently reauthorized, the Administration has avoided adopting such a position. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) successfully attached a related E-Verify amendment to the Fiscal Year 2010 Homeland Security spending bill that would (1) permanently reauthorize E-Verify and (2) require all federal contractors to use E-Verify to check the work authorization status on all of their new hires, plus existing employees who are assigned to affected federal contracts. The fate of the Sessions Amendment is uncertain, however. The Homeland Security spending bill is scheduled to move to a House-Senate conference sometime in September. Since the House version of the bill does not contain the Sessions Amendment, the Conference Report — which would likely become law - may include or drop this language. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, July 13, 2009).
Illegal Alien Faces Death Penalty for 2008 Murder of High School Football Star
The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office announced last week that it will seek the death penalty for Pedro Espinoza — an illegal alien member of the 18th Street Gang who allegedly murdered 17-year old high school football star Jamiel Shaw, Jr. in cold blood last year. (CBS News, August 27, 2009; KPCC, August 26, 2009; KTLA, August 26, 2009; and The New York Times, August 26, 2009). Shaw's murder on March 2, 2008 touched off an explosive debate over Special Order 40 — the Los Angeles sanctuary ordinance which does not require police officers to check the immigration status of suspects who have been arrested. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, April 14, 2008).
According to Los Angeles police, Shaw was about three blocks from his house, talking on his cell phone with his girlfriend on the night of his murder. Two men in a car pulled up to Shaw, jumped out, and asked Shaw if he belonged to a gang. When Shaw did not respond, Espinoza allegedly shot him to death. Shaw's father, Jamiel, Sr., was on the phone when he heard the shots and raced outside to find his son lying on the sidewalk, bleeding. His mother, Army Sergeant Anita Shaw, was serving her second tour of duty in Iraq at the time Jamiel was killed. (The Los Angeles Times, March 4, 2008).
Following the murder, it came to light that the illegal alien who had allegedly killed Jamiel, Jr. had been released from jail on a firearms charge just one day before Shaw was killed. This prompted Shaw's parents to file a wrongful death lawsuit against the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department on the grounds that the illegal alien should have been turned over to federal authorities instead of being freed. (CBS News, August 27, 2009). Additionally, Shaw's parents unsuccessfully petitioned for Jamiel's Law, legislation that would have altered the sanctuary provisions in Special Order 40 by requiring authorities to check the immigration status of gang members who were under arrest or investigation. (KTLA, August 26, 2009). FAIR Media Director Ira Mehlman commented last week about the release of the illegal alien who has been charged with murdering Shaw: "The local police never took the trouble to find out he was an illegal alien and remand him to federal authorities. If they had done that, they would not have put him back out on the streets. He would have been remanded to federal custody and never had the opportunity to murder Jamiel Shaw." (OneNewsNow, August 28, 2009).
Parents Jamiel, Sr. and Anita Shaw were proud of their son. Jamiel, Jr. aspired to play college football and wanted to become a sports agent after graduating college. Jamiel's mother compared the gang violence that had led to her son's death to the violence that she had seen in Iraq: "The only thing is we don't have sand and dirt flying all around. But we have the bullets." In the days following Jamiel's murder, Jamiel, Sr. said of his son: "He was set. He was going to college…he was my hero." (CBS News, August 27, 2009).
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21337&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721#1
Monday, August 31, 2009
is Mark LLoyd a Marxist in the FCC ?
is Mark LLoyd a Marxist in the FCC ?
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29920/
who is this Marxist as a new FCC Diversity Czar from Obama ?
This guy is getting Glenn Beck upset.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Tea Party Rally Heading to Sacramento,CA
Tea Party Rally Heading to Sacramento,CA
Fed up and fighting back -- thousands of Valley residents are heading to Sacramento to protest tax hikes.
Some of the organizers are the same ones behind similar Tea Party protests held earlier this year.They say they're angry about higher taxes and environmental regulations that have hurt the Valley's water supply.
The Fresno Tea Party was held at the Save Mart Center on Tax day and organizers are looking to build on that successful event.
http://www.cbs47.tv/content/special_features/story/Tea-Party-Rally-Heading-to-Sacramento/KPLunIgRpEO8e2U33Ifwvg.cspx
Fed up and fighting back -- thousands of Valley residents are heading to Sacramento to protest tax hikes.
Some of the organizers are the same ones behind similar Tea Party protests held earlier this year.They say they're angry about higher taxes and environmental regulations that have hurt the Valley's water supply.
The Fresno Tea Party was held at the Save Mart Center on Tax day and organizers are looking to build on that successful event.
http://www.cbs47.tv/content/special_features/story/Tea-Party-Rally-Heading-to-Sacramento/KPLunIgRpEO8e2U33Ifwvg.cspx
Obama's "Shadow Government"
Shadow Government: What Obama Doesn't Want You To Know About His Czars
Edited by Scott Wheeler and Peter Leitner
Get the book Obama doesn't want you to read. All 35 Czars covered. Take to your town hall meetings and have all the information you need and can demand answers.
Order now and receive free shipping. Sign up with your email address and receive updates on the activities of the Czars free for six months.
http://nationalrepublicantrust.com/
Edited by Scott Wheeler and Peter Leitner
Get the book Obama doesn't want you to read. All 35 Czars covered. Take to your town hall meetings and have all the information you need and can demand answers.
Order now and receive free shipping. Sign up with your email address and receive updates on the activities of the Czars free for six months.
http://nationalrepublicantrust.com/
Thursday, August 27, 2009
NBC abd ABC won't run this ad critical of Obama
The refusal by ABC and NBC to run a national ad critical of President Obama's health care reform plan is raising questions from the group behind the spot -- particularly in light of ABC's health care special aired in prime time last June and hosted at the White House.
The 33-second ad by the League of American Voters, which features a neurosurgeon who warns that a government-run health care system will lead to the rationing of procedures and medicine, began airing two weeks ago on local affiliates of ABC, NBC, FOX and CBS. On a national level, however, ABC and NBC have refused to run the spot in its present form.
"It's a powerful ad," said Bob Adams, executive director of the League of American Voters, a national nonprofit group with 15,000 members who advocate individual liberty and government accountability. "It tells the truth and it really highlights one of the biggest vulnerabilities and problems with this proposed legislation, which is it rations health care and disproportionately will decimate the quality of health care for seniors."
click to see this 30 second ad
The 33-second ad by the League of American Voters, which features a neurosurgeon who warns that a government-run health care system will lead to the rationing of procedures and medicine, began airing two weeks ago on local affiliates of ABC, NBC, FOX and CBS. On a national level, however, ABC and NBC have refused to run the spot in its present form.
"It's a powerful ad," said Bob Adams, executive director of the League of American Voters, a national nonprofit group with 15,000 members who advocate individual liberty and government accountability. "It tells the truth and it really highlights one of the biggest vulnerabilities and problems with this proposed legislation, which is it rations health care and disproportionately will decimate the quality of health care for seniors."
click to see this 30 second ad
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
see Obama red ink, how can we take back his federal Mastercard?
see Obama red ink, how can we take back his federal Mastercard?
Most red ink ever: $9 trillion over next decade
Most red ink ever: $9 trillion over next decade
more bullshit from Obama, just got out of town in time
more bullshit from Obama, just got out of town in time
he is a smooth talker.
bad forecasts numbers, cia investigation,
ben bernke appointment
looks like he had to duck out of town.
he is a smooth talker.
bad forecasts numbers, cia investigation,
ben bernke appointment
looks like he had to duck out of town.
special thanks for the excellent work done by the CIA, turn up those drill revs
special thanks for the excellent work done by the CIA, turn up those drill revs
Monday, August 24, 2009
how did Rahm Emanuel make $16 million in 1 years
how did Rahm Emanuel make $16 million in 1 year ?
Obama's "bag man"
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=8157698&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/glennbeck/index.html
Obama's "bag man"
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=8157698&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/glennbeck/index.html
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Lieberman says many health care changes can wait
Lieberman says many health care changes can wait
WASHINGTON – An independent senator counted on by Democrats in the health care debate showed signs of wavering Sunday when he urged President Barack Obama to postpone many of his initiatives because of the economic downturn.
"I'm afraid we've got to think about putting a lot of that off until the economy's out of recession," said Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman. "There's no reason we have to do it all now, but we do have to get started. And I think the place to start is cost health delivery reform and insurance market reforms."
The Senate requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and advance a measure to an up-or-down vote. Senators from both parties said that Democrats might use a voting tactic to overcome GOP opposition, abandoning the White House's goal of bipartisan support for its chief domestic priority.
Democrats control 60 votes, including those of two independents, but illness has sidelined Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. The party's leaders also cannot be assured that their moderate members will support every health care proposal.
"I think it's a real mistake to try to jam through the total health insurance reform, health care reform plan that the public is either opposed to or of very, very passionate mixed minds about," Lieberman said.
Talk about resorting to this maneuver comes as Republicans dig in against the idea of a government-run insurance program as an option for consumers and a requirement that employers provide health insurance to their workers.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said Republicans would like to start over "with a genuine bipartisan approach."
"The American people will be very troubled by a single political party's 'my way or the highway' attitude to overhauling their health care, especially when it means government-run health care, new taxes on small businesses, and Medicare cuts for seniors," McConnell, R-Ky., said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Democrats would consider the voting tactic, known as reconciliation, if necessary to pass a bill by year's end if Republicans won't work toward a bipartisan solution.
To Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, "that would be an abuse of the process."
Even Sen. Kent Conrad, the Senate Budget Committee chairman, acknowledged that "it's an option, but it's not a very good one." He has warned that nonbudget items in health care legislation would be challenged under the rules allowing reconciliation.
Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., also suggested that a fresh start was needed.
"Bringing up of the health care situation in the midst of recession, the unemployment problems ... was a mistake," Lugar said. "For the moment, let's clear the deck and try it again next year or in subsequent times."
Kennedy, one of the major proponents of health care reform, has missed most of the recent debate because of cancer. Both Hatch and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Kennedy's absence has taken a toll on the process.
"He had a unique way of sitting down with the parties at a table and making the right concessions, which really are the essence of successful negotiations," McCain said.
Lieberman and Lugar appeared on CNN's "State of the Union" while Hatch and Schumer appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press." Conrad spoke on CBS' "Face the Nation" and McCain on ABC's "This Week."
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer Douglass K. Daniel, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – An independent senator counted on by Democrats in the health care debate showed signs of wavering Sunday when he urged President Barack Obama to postpone many of his initiatives because of the economic downturn.
"I'm afraid we've got to think about putting a lot of that off until the economy's out of recession," said Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman. "There's no reason we have to do it all now, but we do have to get started. And I think the place to start is cost health delivery reform and insurance market reforms."
The Senate requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and advance a measure to an up-or-down vote. Senators from both parties said that Democrats might use a voting tactic to overcome GOP opposition, abandoning the White House's goal of bipartisan support for its chief domestic priority.
Democrats control 60 votes, including those of two independents, but illness has sidelined Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. The party's leaders also cannot be assured that their moderate members will support every health care proposal.
"I think it's a real mistake to try to jam through the total health insurance reform, health care reform plan that the public is either opposed to or of very, very passionate mixed minds about," Lieberman said.
Talk about resorting to this maneuver comes as Republicans dig in against the idea of a government-run insurance program as an option for consumers and a requirement that employers provide health insurance to their workers.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said Republicans would like to start over "with a genuine bipartisan approach."
"The American people will be very troubled by a single political party's 'my way or the highway' attitude to overhauling their health care, especially when it means government-run health care, new taxes on small businesses, and Medicare cuts for seniors," McConnell, R-Ky., said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Democrats would consider the voting tactic, known as reconciliation, if necessary to pass a bill by year's end if Republicans won't work toward a bipartisan solution.
To Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, "that would be an abuse of the process."
Even Sen. Kent Conrad, the Senate Budget Committee chairman, acknowledged that "it's an option, but it's not a very good one." He has warned that nonbudget items in health care legislation would be challenged under the rules allowing reconciliation.
Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., also suggested that a fresh start was needed.
"Bringing up of the health care situation in the midst of recession, the unemployment problems ... was a mistake," Lugar said. "For the moment, let's clear the deck and try it again next year or in subsequent times."
Kennedy, one of the major proponents of health care reform, has missed most of the recent debate because of cancer. Both Hatch and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Kennedy's absence has taken a toll on the process.
"He had a unique way of sitting down with the parties at a table and making the right concessions, which really are the essence of successful negotiations," McCain said.
Lieberman and Lugar appeared on CNN's "State of the Union" while Hatch and Schumer appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press." Conrad spoke on CBS' "Face the Nation" and McCain on ABC's "This Week."
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer Douglass K. Daniel, Associated Press Writer
Monday, August 17, 2009
While in Mexico, President Obama Promises Amnesty Next Year
While in Mexico, President Obama Promises Amnesty Next Year
Last week, while meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon in Guadalajara, Mexico, President Barack Obama predicted Congress would pass an amnesty bill next year to legalize more than 12 million illegal aliens who are presently in the United States. (ABC News, August 11, 2009 and The Los Angeles Times, August 11, 2009).
While in Mexico, President Obama stated: "Secretary Napolitano is coordinating these discussions, and I would anticipate that before the year is out we will have draft legislation along with sponsors potentially in the House and the Senate who are ready to move this forward, and when we come back next year, that we should be in a position to start acting." The President also conceded that overcoming the opposition of the American people to an amnesty bill would be difficult, saying: "Am I going to be able to snap my fingers and get this done? No. This is going to be difficult." (ABC News, August 11, 2009). The Los Angeles Times even suggested that passing the bill would "prove [to be] a major political test."
Mexican government officials were upset with this timing. According to media reports, Mexican Senator Carlos Navarrete of the "leftist Democratic Revolution Party" responded to Obama's announcement by saying: "This is not good news," and also stated "we can hope that Latino Congress members who have taken on this initiative [of immigration reform] will maintain their activism in this matter." (The Los Angeles Times, August 11, 2009).
The people who should be the most upset by this announcement, however, are the American people, particularly those who are out of work. America has a real shortage of jobs, and the idea that Congress would consider amnesty legislation, thereby giving illegal aliens the ability to openly compete for scarce jobs, is not in the best interest of the American worker. (See FAIR's Report Amnesty & Joblessness, July 2009). In fact, earlier this year, Vice President Joe Biden even suggested that America's economic situation is at odds with President Obama's goal of signing amnesty legislation. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, April 6, 2009).
More recently, The New York Times opinion page expressed just how dire America's job situation is. Op-Ed columnist Bob Herbert wrote that "the American economy does not seem able to provide enough jobs — and nowhere near enough good jobs — to maintain the standard of living that most Americans have come to expect." Herbert's column states that the U.S. economy has lost 6.7 million jobs since December 2007 and that the economy has fewer jobs today than it did in 2000, despite the fact that the "labor force has grown by around 12 million workers since then." Coincidentally, nearly 12 million illegal aliens are in the United States, with nearly 8.3 million in the workforce. Herbert also stated that "[n]o one is predicting a recovery in the foreseeable future powerful enough to replace the millions of jobs that have vanished," further calling into question the wisdom of any amnesty legislation and undercutting any calls for a "guest worker" program as part of any immigration bill. (The New York Times, August 10, 2009).
DHS April Report Attacking True Immigration Reformers as "Extremists" Further Discredited
The "intelligence assessment" on "Rightwing Extremism" issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in April was further discredited last week, this time by information provided by DHS. (DHS Report, April 7, 2009). The April assessment painted millions of American citizens, including many of America's "returning veterans" as "extremists," and categorized Americans concerned with unchecked illegal immigration as a threat. (FOXNews, April 17, 2009; See also FAIR's Legislative Update, April 27, 2009).
The American public, including organizations that represent generations of America's veterans like the American Legion, were outraged by the DHS assessment. (FOXNews, April 24, 2009). Democrats on Capitol Hill also said they were "dumbfounded" by the DHS report, and others questioned the reliability and sources behind the report. Despite questions about the reliability of the report, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano stood behind it. (The Washington Times, April 16, 2009).
This past week, DHS responded to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by Americans for Limited Government (ALG), and their response reveals that DHS's "assessment" was not based on actual intelligence. (Americans for Limited Government, August 13, 2009). Instead, DHS's disclosure reveals that they relied not on primary sources or investigations to draft the report, but exclusively on secondary sources, including some that are highly questionable. (DHS Interim Response to FOIA Request, August 5, 2009).
The FOIA request submitted by ALG asked DHS for federal records related to the extremism report, including "all data and all studies, reports, or other documents regarding data created or reviewed by the Department in general to draft the report." (ALG FOIA Request, April 17, 2009). In response, DHS provided ALG with a list of "website links for…217 pages of publicly responsive material." The list shows that DHS relied on spurious sources — including heavy use of materials from the Southern Poverty Law Center and "WhatDoesItMean.com" — in issuing its "Rightwing Extremism" report. (DHS Interim Response to FOIA Request, August 5, 2009).
The SPLC is well-known for slanderously attacking groups and individuals who advocate for the enforcement of immigration laws. The SPLC neither has definitions for the labels it freely slaps on organizations, nor provides any sources or footnotes to support the conclusions made in its "reports." Prior to a House Judiciary Committee hearing on "the Public Safety and Civil Rights
Implications of State and Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws" (See FAIR's Legislative Update, April 6, 2009), the SPLC submitted a letter to Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) that provided erroneous information about FAIR. At the actual hearing, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) read parts of the SPLC letter into the record. FAIR President Dan Stein responded by sending a letter to Chairman Conyers and Subcommittee Chairwoman Lofgren pointing out the obvious falsehoods in the SPLC's letter. Two days after Mr. Stein's letter was sent to Mr. Conyers and Ms. Lofgren, the SPLC was forced to correct a number of the claims they made in their original letter. (For more information on the SPLC, see FAIR's Inquiry into the Methods and Tactics Employed by the Southern Poverty Law Center and FAIR's Journalist Alert.)
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21223&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721#2
Last week, while meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon in Guadalajara, Mexico, President Barack Obama predicted Congress would pass an amnesty bill next year to legalize more than 12 million illegal aliens who are presently in the United States. (ABC News, August 11, 2009 and The Los Angeles Times, August 11, 2009).
While in Mexico, President Obama stated: "Secretary Napolitano is coordinating these discussions, and I would anticipate that before the year is out we will have draft legislation along with sponsors potentially in the House and the Senate who are ready to move this forward, and when we come back next year, that we should be in a position to start acting." The President also conceded that overcoming the opposition of the American people to an amnesty bill would be difficult, saying: "Am I going to be able to snap my fingers and get this done? No. This is going to be difficult." (ABC News, August 11, 2009). The Los Angeles Times even suggested that passing the bill would "prove [to be] a major political test."
Mexican government officials were upset with this timing. According to media reports, Mexican Senator Carlos Navarrete of the "leftist Democratic Revolution Party" responded to Obama's announcement by saying: "This is not good news," and also stated "we can hope that Latino Congress members who have taken on this initiative [of immigration reform] will maintain their activism in this matter." (The Los Angeles Times, August 11, 2009).
The people who should be the most upset by this announcement, however, are the American people, particularly those who are out of work. America has a real shortage of jobs, and the idea that Congress would consider amnesty legislation, thereby giving illegal aliens the ability to openly compete for scarce jobs, is not in the best interest of the American worker. (See FAIR's Report Amnesty & Joblessness, July 2009). In fact, earlier this year, Vice President Joe Biden even suggested that America's economic situation is at odds with President Obama's goal of signing amnesty legislation. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, April 6, 2009).
More recently, The New York Times opinion page expressed just how dire America's job situation is. Op-Ed columnist Bob Herbert wrote that "the American economy does not seem able to provide enough jobs — and nowhere near enough good jobs — to maintain the standard of living that most Americans have come to expect." Herbert's column states that the U.S. economy has lost 6.7 million jobs since December 2007 and that the economy has fewer jobs today than it did in 2000, despite the fact that the "labor force has grown by around 12 million workers since then." Coincidentally, nearly 12 million illegal aliens are in the United States, with nearly 8.3 million in the workforce. Herbert also stated that "[n]o one is predicting a recovery in the foreseeable future powerful enough to replace the millions of jobs that have vanished," further calling into question the wisdom of any amnesty legislation and undercutting any calls for a "guest worker" program as part of any immigration bill. (The New York Times, August 10, 2009).
DHS April Report Attacking True Immigration Reformers as "Extremists" Further Discredited
The "intelligence assessment" on "Rightwing Extremism" issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in April was further discredited last week, this time by information provided by DHS. (DHS Report, April 7, 2009). The April assessment painted millions of American citizens, including many of America's "returning veterans" as "extremists," and categorized Americans concerned with unchecked illegal immigration as a threat. (FOXNews, April 17, 2009; See also FAIR's Legislative Update, April 27, 2009).
The American public, including organizations that represent generations of America's veterans like the American Legion, were outraged by the DHS assessment. (FOXNews, April 24, 2009). Democrats on Capitol Hill also said they were "dumbfounded" by the DHS report, and others questioned the reliability and sources behind the report. Despite questions about the reliability of the report, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano stood behind it. (The Washington Times, April 16, 2009).
This past week, DHS responded to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by Americans for Limited Government (ALG), and their response reveals that DHS's "assessment" was not based on actual intelligence. (Americans for Limited Government, August 13, 2009). Instead, DHS's disclosure reveals that they relied not on primary sources or investigations to draft the report, but exclusively on secondary sources, including some that are highly questionable. (DHS Interim Response to FOIA Request, August 5, 2009).
The FOIA request submitted by ALG asked DHS for federal records related to the extremism report, including "all data and all studies, reports, or other documents regarding data created or reviewed by the Department in general to draft the report." (ALG FOIA Request, April 17, 2009). In response, DHS provided ALG with a list of "website links for…217 pages of publicly responsive material." The list shows that DHS relied on spurious sources — including heavy use of materials from the Southern Poverty Law Center and "WhatDoesItMean.com" — in issuing its "Rightwing Extremism" report. (DHS Interim Response to FOIA Request, August 5, 2009).
The SPLC is well-known for slanderously attacking groups and individuals who advocate for the enforcement of immigration laws. The SPLC neither has definitions for the labels it freely slaps on organizations, nor provides any sources or footnotes to support the conclusions made in its "reports." Prior to a House Judiciary Committee hearing on "the Public Safety and Civil Rights
Implications of State and Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws" (See FAIR's Legislative Update, April 6, 2009), the SPLC submitted a letter to Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) that provided erroneous information about FAIR. At the actual hearing, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) read parts of the SPLC letter into the record. FAIR President Dan Stein responded by sending a letter to Chairman Conyers and Subcommittee Chairwoman Lofgren pointing out the obvious falsehoods in the SPLC's letter. Two days after Mr. Stein's letter was sent to Mr. Conyers and Ms. Lofgren, the SPLC was forced to correct a number of the claims they made in their original letter. (For more information on the SPLC, see FAIR's Inquiry into the Methods and Tactics Employed by the Southern Poverty Law Center and FAIR's Journalist Alert.)
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21223&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721#2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)