Takeover continues in financial sector, oil industry, free speech, immigration; Media ignores support for Israel

Sorry so long between posts, my friends. Learning the capabilities of Facebook is taking me some time, not mention the fact that it’s ADDICTING! 1) 87 Senators Sign Letter Urging Obama's Support of Israel, Media Mostly Mum On Monday, 87 Senators signed a letter to President Obama affirming their support for Israel while urging his. This comes in response to last month's highly-publicized flotilla incident in the Mediterranean Sea and the United Nations predictable anti-Israel reaction. A similar letter has been circulated in the House that has apparently garnered 307 signatures. Despite the overwhelming bipartisan outcry -- something rather rare in Washington these days to be sure -- very few American media outlets bothered to report the news. Led by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) - and signed by 85 other members of the upper chamber - the letter argues that Israel's blockade of Gaza was both legal and necessary, and that Israeli commandos were acting in self-defense when they landed on the ship. "[V]ideo footage shows that the Israeli commandos who arrived on the sixth ship, which was owned by the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (the IHH), were brutally attacked with iron rods, knives, and broken glass," the senators wrote. "They were forced to respond to that attack and we regret the loss of life that resulted," the letter adds. The bipartisan group of lawmakers urged Obama to oppose a resolution in the United Nations critical of Israel. See: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/06/24/87-senators-sign-letter-urging-obamas-support-israel-media-mostly-mum 2) DISCLOSE Act dead in the Senate? The phrase most hated by Lefties in the Age of Obama is: Dead in the Senate. And it appears that the flagrantly anti-free speech DISCLOSE Act may suffer a similar fate. From The Hill. Despite a hard-fought victory in the House, supporters of the Democratic campaign finance bill are now confronting a more dispiriting reality: the dwindling chances the legislation will affect the fall elections. Advocates of the Disclose Act have long pointed to July 4 as a deadline for enacting the law so that its provisions could be implemented and enforceable during the hotly-contested midterm congressional campaign. But with the Senate bogged down in fights over tax legislation, a Supreme Court nomination and energy proposals, that marker will almost surely pass without action on campaign finance. . . . The political lift will be daunting. It requires the famously deliberative Senate to act faster than the House, typically the speedier of the two chambers. In a letter to House leaders last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and sponsoring Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) committed “to working tirelessly for Senate consideration of the House-passed bill so it can be signed by the president in time to take effect for the 2010 elections (which is really what this is all about - comment and emphasis mine).” Advocates say Reid wants to bypass the committee process and bring the bill directly to the floor in the hopes of quicker passage. But the required 60 votes have yet to materialize. Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) have criticized exemptions inserted to secure House passage, and key Republican swing votes, Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.) and Olympia Snowe (Maine), have registered their disapproval. Brown said it would be “inappropriate” to rush the legislation into law during an election season. The Citizen’s United case held that Congress had violated corporations’ First Amendment free speech rights with the campaign finance laws. The Democrats, not content with allowing Americans to advocate against them, want to muzzle their political opponents with the DISCLOSE Act (emphasis mine). …House Minority Leader John Boehner said in a statement, “This bill would muzzle small businesses but protect labor unions…This is a backroom deal to shred our Constitution for raw, ugly, partisan gain.” See: http://trueslant.com/williamdupray/2010/06/26/disclose-act-dead-in-the-senate/ 2a) DISCLOSE Act Passes The House — Senate Passage Uncertain The controversial bill threatens to restrict campaign contributions from some of our most important political players. It has received widespread notice from Republicans after the National Rifle Association negotiated an exemption on the basis that they were too important to have their political donations restricted. In other words, the Second Amendment is critical, but the First Amendment — well, whatever (emphasis mine). It's also an audacious move from Congress in the wake of the Citizens United decision. It seems that Democrats can't accept the jurisdiction of the United States courts, and have to do everything in their power to circumvent that authority. Fortunately, this bill, like so many others, will likely die in the Senate. See: http://srnnews.townhall.com/newsbriefs/g/d3bafdba-a78a-49f2-bff9-980409b3420a 3) Obama accused of defying court on drilling ban Drilling companies and others who won an order from a federal judge Tuesday lifting the Obama Administration's moratorium on deepwater oil drilling (because it was unconstitutional! - comment mine) are accusing the administration of defying the court's order by announcing plans to reimpose the moratorium. WHAT?!?!? Moratorium opponents filed papers in a New Orleans federal court Wednesday afternoon requesting an emergency hearing before Judge Martin Feldman, who entered the order blocking the moratorium. Since that time, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar indicated both in a statement and Congressional testimony that he plans to re-impose the moratorium soon based on information that wasn't fully developed when the six-month drilling ban was imposed in late May. On Wednesday evening, the government appealed Feldman's order and formally asked him to stay the order pending that appeal. The government also said that the motion to enforce the court's order was "unwarranted and should be denied," but that officials would abide by the order until it was stayed or reversed. "Of course, until a further order of this Court or the Court of Appeals granting relief from this Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order, Defendants will comply with the Court’s Order," a government brief said. What this means is that the Obama administration is intimidating judges. See: http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0610/Obama_accused_of_defying_court_on_drilling_ban.html 3a) RUSH’s comments on the above: Now, The Politico, it's hard to tell here when you read this story, are they surprised? "Obama Accused of Defying Court on Drilling Ban." This is Josh Gerstein at his blog at Politico. They're acting a little bit surprised. I guess maybe they're surprised somebody would accuse Obama of defying it, but why? That's what dictators do. Look, this administration and the rule of law are in direct conflict with one another (emphasis mine). Whether you want to call it a slush fund or a shakedown, escrow money or whatever, the Obama administration cannot constitutionally do what they did demanding $20 billion from BP. The federal government cannot just seize somebody's property for nothing. And that's what happened, however it happened, shakedown, escrow, deal under the table, it's unconstitutional. So the fact that Obama would defy a court, that shouldn't surprise anybody. It's who the man is. In fact, the real question is how long is it going to take for Obama to either get rid of the judge or summon him to the Oval Office. If it quacks like a duck… See: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_062410/content/01125104.guest.html 3b) Crime Inc.: George Soros owns $900 million of Petrobas, stands to benefit from moratorium on drilling (headline mine) …In a completely unrelated story, Soros has purchased $900 million of Petrobras. That's P E T R O B R A S, Petrobras. Then we have the BP oil spill as the next stop on this circle of life. Tony Podesta is the PR person for BP oil. …GLENN: There are, already three — sorry, 35 oil rigs out there that the equipment now is sitting idle and there are bids from other countries on those oil rigs. They are not going to sit there idle. They are going to be leased to somebody. The oil industry is saying, guys, this is going to kill us. Listen to that. The oil industry is saying, this is going to kill us to suspend all drilling. Why? Because the oil rigs are not going to — they are not going to be there. They are going to be — they are going to be leased some place else. Also, the most dangerous time to an oil rig is when you are shutting it down. That's the danger point. So we're going to shut down all oil rigs in the water, lose all that money and then lose possibly a lot of the oil rigs. We won't get them back. That was a suggestion from the Center For American Progress. Obama said we have to do that because 1500 meters of water is too deep to drill in. In a completely unrelated story, Petrobras has announced that they are going to do deepwater drilling at 2,777 meters, almost twice the distance under the surface of the water as Deep Horizons in the Gulf of Mexico. Why did you hear Petrobras? Oh, yeah, that's right. It's over on the other side of the blackboard. George Soros has $900 million in Petrobras stock. It is his number one investment. Remember, he's the guy who started Center For American Progress that is currently making the policy. Obama suspends drilling because 1500 feet is too dangerous. Petrobras says that they are going to make a — they are going to drill for oil at 2700 feet, and Obama decides to make a loan for $2 billion to Petrobras for this particular drill site. Now, why would we give up our drilling equipment? Why would we say it's too dangerous in 1500 meters and then make a $2 billion loan to Petrobras, $2 billion so they can drill 2777 meters, almost twice the distance. Well, it's good news if you are a shareholder for Petrobras because now you can go and drill. You have the equipment, you have the money and you have the backing of the United oh, wait a minute. That's right. George Soros, his major investment is in... Petrobras. It is Crime, Inc. The circle of corruption. See: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/42150/ 3c) National Review: Obama's Ineffective Thuggery …Then there is Obama's decision to impose a six-month moratorium on deepwater oil drilling in the gulf. This penalizes companies with better safety records than BP's and will result in many advanced drilling rigs being sent to offshore oil fields abroad. The justification offered was an Interior Department report supposedly "peer reviewed" by "experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering." But it turns out the drafts the experts saw didn't include any recommendation for a moratorium. Eight of the cited experts have said they oppose the moratorium as more economically devastating than the oil spill and counterproductive to safety (emphasis mine). This was blatant dishonesty by the administration, on an Orwellian scale. And it's dishonesty in defense of a policy that has all the earmarks of mindless panic, that penalizes firms and individuals guilty of no wrongdoing, and that will worsen rather than improve our energy situation. Ineffective thuggery. See: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127981317 4) Federal regs set to restrain Wall Street risk WASHINGTON – Congressional negotiators struck a deal Friday on the toughest financial regulations since the Great Depression, aiming to rein in Wall Street excess and tighten rules on everything from simple debit card swipes to the most complex securities. Translation: The Obama administration is continuing it’s takeover of the financial industry and trying to make it sound like it‘s going to help America. The legislation creates a new federal agency to police consumer lending, set up a warning system for financial risks, force failing firms to liquidate and map new rules for instruments that have been largely uncontrolled. Like I said…see previous comment. …The legislation was not without its critics. Republicans complained that it ignored their efforts to impose tighter restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage giants who have benefited from huge federal bailouts and whose questionable lending helped trigger the housing and economic meltdowns. Exactly. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100625/ap_on_bi_ge/us_financial_overhaul 4a) Barney Frank: No such thing as too much government GLENN: We have Barney Frank, Barney Frank saying that there's just no such thing as too much regulation. I'm sorry. King George, is that you? That's fantastic. There's no such thing as too much regulation. BARNEY FRANK: I think that the general fear that the ranking member and others think that we're going to over regulate on behalf of consumers is a fantasy unrelated to any experience. The Federal Government has never done that. GLENN: Stop, stop, stop! That the government could over regulate is ‑‑ what did he say? PAT: A fantasy beyond any human experience. GLENN: Mao, Stalin, Hitler. I mean, I can't believe this. If you want to talk about a fantasy beyond any human experience, it's Barney Frank. I mean, this guy is incredible to me. By the way, they're putting in this financial regulation that Fannie and Freddie are going to be financial institutions that if they fail, the private sector banks are required to unwind them. Excuse me? If they fail? It's only a matter of time until they fail. I know that's a Barney Frank fantasy. All of Barney Frank's fantasies seem to be your nightmare. If they fail? They will fail and then every bank in America will be required to unwind them. See: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/42285/ 5) House Dems prepare alternative to budget that would avoid deficit vote House Democrats are readying an alternative budget measure that would set next year’s spending levels without requiring a vote on deficits. House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (D-S.C.) said the alternative would be the “functional equivalent” of a full-fledged budget. But because it won't be a traditional budget resolution, it will be silent on future deficits, which are expected to average nearly $1 trillion for the next decade. Democrats have expressed concern about voting for a document showing lots of red ink in an election year. So while they are reigning the rest of the financial industry in, they continue to spend without consequence. Fantastic. See: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/104373-house-dems-prep-budget-alternative-that-would-avoid-deficit-vote 6) Senator John Kyl, Arizona, reports Obama doesn’t want to secure the border because then there will be no reason for immigration reform (headline mine) KYL: I met with the president in the Oval Office, just the two of us. I kicked the rest of the people out. I asked them if they would leave. Sorry. (Laughter). And here's what the president said. The problem is, he said, if we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform. In other words, they are pulling it - PAT: There it is. KYL: They don't want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform. See: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/42146/ 6a) Senators Challenge Pres. Obama on Rumors of Amnesty Through Executive Actions Several Senators have learned of a possible plan by the Obama Administration that would provide a mass Amnesty for the nation's 11-18 million illegal aliens. Led by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), eight Senators addressed a letter to the President asking for answers to questions about a plan that would allow DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to provide an amnesty if they can't secure enough votes for a bill in the Senate. The letter that was sent to Pres. Obama earlier today asks the President for clarification on the use of deferred action or parole for illegal aliens. The executive actions are typically used in special cases and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but if 60 votes can't be secured in the Senate to pass a mass Amnesty, the Administration may use the discretionary actions as an alternative. Here is the text of the letter signed by Sens. Grassley, Hatch (R-Utah), Vitter (R-La.), Bunning (R-Ky.), Chambliss (R-Ga.), Isakson (R-Ga.), Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Cochran (R-Miss.). Dear President Obama: We understand that there’s a push for your Administration to develop a plan to unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States. We understand that the Administration may include aliens who have willfully overstayed their visas or filed for benefits knowing that they will not be eligible for a status for years to come. We understand that deferred action and parole are discretionary actions reserved for individual cases that present unusual, emergent or humanitarian circumstances. Deferred action and parole were not intended to be used to confer a status or offer protection to large groups of illegal aliens, even if the agency claims that they look at each case on a “case-by-case” basis. While we agree our immigration laws need to be fixed, we are deeply concerned about the potential expansion of deferred action or parole for a large illegal alien population. While deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used to circumvent Congress’ constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population in the United States… See: http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/june-21-2010/senators-challenge-pres-obama-rumors-executive-order-amnesty.html 6b) White House Picks Critic of Local Immigration Enforcement for Key Role at ICE The Obama administration has tapped an outspoken critic of immigration enforcement on the local level to oversee and promote partnerships between federal and local officials on the issue. Harold Hurtt, a former police chief in Houston and Phoenix, has been hired as the director for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Office of State and Local Coordination. Starting July 6, Hurtt will supervise outreach and communication between ICE, local law enforcement agencies, tribal leaders and representatives from non-governmental organizations. "Chief Hurtt is a respected member of the law enforcement community and understands the concerns of local law enforcement leaders," said John Morton, the Homeland Security assistant secretary for ICE. "His experience and skills will be an invaluable asset to the ICEs outreach and coordination efforts." But as a police chief, Hurtt was a supporter of "sanctuary city" policies, by which illegal immigrants who don't commit crimes can live without fear of exposure or detainment because police don't check for immigration papers. See: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/24/obama-administration-picks-critic-immigration-enforcement-key-role-ice 7) Blagojevich Aide: President Obama Knew of Plot The plot thickens in Chicago. The Chicago Sun-Times reports: A top aide to former Gov. Rod Blagojevich said he believed Barack Obama knew of Blagojevich's plot to win himself a presidential Cabinet post in exchange for appointing Valerie Jarrett to the U.S. Senate. John Harris, Blagojevich's former chief of staff, testified Wednesday in the former governor's corruption trial that three days after the Nov. 4, 2008, presidential election, the ex-governor told Harris he felt confident Obama knew he wanted to swap perks. "The president understands that the governor would be willing to make the appointment of Valerie Jarrett as long as he gets what he's asked for. . . . The governor gets the Cabinet appointment he's asked for," Harris said, explaining a recorded call. Harris said Blagojevich came away believing Obama knew what he wanted after having a conversation with a local union representative, who in turn spoke with labor leader Tom Balanoff, with whom Blagojevich met to discuss a Jarrett appointment. Jarrett, now a White House adviser, was seeking the appointment to Obama's Senate seat. See: http://srnnews.townhall.com/newsbriefs/g/95b9e592-c943-403b-a5ad-99d6e09e3045 8) Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says A military source close to Gen. David Petraeus told Fox News that one of the first things the general will do when he takes over in Afghanistan is to modify the rules of engagement to make it easier for U.S. troops to engage in combat with the enemy, though a Petraeus spokesman pushed back on the claim. Finally. Someone with some sense. See: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/25/petraeus-modify-afghanistan-rules-engagement-source-says/ 8a) MoveOn.org Removes 'General Betray Us' Ad From Website In a classic example of liberal hypocrisy, the far-left leaning, George Soros-funded group MoveOn.org has removed its controversial "General Betray Us" ad from its website. For those that have forgotten, shortly after General David Petraeus issued his report to Congress in September 2007 concerning the condition of the war in Iraq and the success of that March's troop surge, MoveOn placed a full-page ad in the New York Times with the headline, "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" This created quite a firestorm with media outlets on both sides of the aisle circling the wagons to either defend or berate both the Times and MoveOn. Now that President Obama has appointed Petraeus to replace the outgoing Gen. Stanley McChrystal to lead the war effort in Afghanistan, the folks on the far-left that castigated Petraeus when he worked for George W. Bush have to sing a different tune. With that in mind, the ad, which has been at MoveOn's website for years, was unceremoniously removed on Wednesday… See: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/06/24/moveon-org-removes-general-betray-us-ad-website 9) Big Sis Napolitano Issues New Language Rules RUSH: Also, the director of Homeland Security, Big Sis Janet Napolitano has issued a statement. Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano, also known as Big Sis, issued a statement this morning regarding America's two most pressing issues: the Gulf oil spill and President Obama's devotion to golf. Secretary Napolitano, speaking to labor leaders, declared that from this day forward no one in the Obama administration or those seeking favors or mercy from the administration shall use the phrase Gulf oil spill. It will now be referred to as the BP-caused disaster. Official language requirements used inside the administration from Janet Napolitano, no longer the Gulf oil spill, it is the BP-caused disaster. You think I'm kidding? Along those same lines, it can no longer be said by administration officials, the press office, or the media that the president went to play golf. The president no longer plays golf. The president is clearing his mind. We appreciate your cooperation. We'll take note of those that do not do as instructed. So it's no longer the Gulf oil spill, it's the BP-caused disaster. He doesn't play golf anymore, he clears his mind. See: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_062410/content/01125104.guest.html 10) Times Square car bomber details his chilling plot NEW YORK – Admitted terrorist Faisal Shahzad was so eager to tell how he plotted to kill Americans in Times Square, he went to court with a prepared statement. U.S. District Judge Miriam Cedarbaum refused to hear him read it Monday, instead challenging the Pakistan-born American citizen to just say "what happened." In an unapologetic, matter-of-fact courtroom colloquy that followed, Shahzad offered chilling details about how he trained with the Pakistani Taliban to build bombs, then returned to the U.S. to launch an attack that would avenge attacks on Muslims by U.S. forces overseas. "One has to understand where I'm coming from," he said in an unusual departure from tightly scripted guilty pleas, with his defense attorney and prosecutors sitting in silence in federal court in Manhattan. "I consider myself ... a Muslim soldier." …"I want to plead guilty, and I'm going to plead guilty 100 times over," he said. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100622/ap_on_re_us/us_times_square_car_bomb

Obama the Thugfather, on Oil, Internet, Free Speech, Health "care", and Immigration

1) Our Caudillo President As I write this on Monday night, there are rumors around that BP will agree to President Barack Obama's demand that the oil giant "voluntarily" put about $30 billion into a fund to be administered by the government to compensate victims of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster. Now, no one disputes that this is a real disaster and that BP acted irresponsibly in commissioning Trans-Ocean and Halliburton to drill for oil in waters so deep that if a failure occurred there would be no way to fix it -- at least until major damage had been done. BP, Trans-Ocean, and Halliburton, as well as the individuals involved, have much to answer for. But the action of the President in demanding this immense transfer of the stockholders' wealth without any legislation or court decision is extremely worrisome. We live in a Constitutional Republic. The President's job under the Constitution is to enforce the laws made by the elected Congress. His job is not to create new laws and enforce them all by himself. His job is as magistrate under the Constitution, not as Caudillo. He is not the law. He is supposed to enforce what Congress decides. The BP behavior is reminiscent of how, immediately after assuming office, Mr. Obama, with no Congressional authority or administrative allowance, simply made a phone call to fire the head of GM. When I called the White House press office to ask under what law or regulation Mr. Obama was acting, I was told he did not need a law. If the government put a lot of money into GM, it could call the shots at GM, I was told. But under what authority, I asked. "None needed," was the final answer (emphasis mine). …The same goes for Mr. Obama's demand that BP pay the lost wages of oil and gas workers suspended from work because of the moratorium on Gulf of Mexico underseas drilling. There simply was no legislation allowing this kind of specific demand. Mr. Obama's demand was in the nature of a threat, more than a Constitutional act. Of course, every President tries "jawboning" to restrain steel company price increases or something similar. But to create specific enactments and actions without any authority -- now Mr. Obama's specialty -- is so at odds with the law of the land that it terrifies me. These are not the acts of a teacher on Constitutional law. These are the acts of a big city boss or a third world dictator. If you want to know why business has pulled in its horns and hunkered down, and why people at tea parties and elsewhere are scared, look no further than Barack "I Am The Law" Obama (emphasis mine). See: http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/16/the-caudillo-president 1a) Joe Barton is Right: There Was a $20 Billion Shakedown in the White House Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) is under fire from the White House and the Beltway media for his statement to BP today: “I’m only speaking for myself. I’m not speaking for anyone else, but I apologize. I do not want to live in a county where anytime a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong, [it is] subject to some sort of political pressure that, again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown.” Barton should have been apologizing to the American people, not BP, but other than that he is 100% correct. What happened in the White House yesterday was a “shakedown” of Godfather-like proportions. Lets review: 1) BP agreed to pay $20 billion over four years to an “independent” party; 2) BP immediately identified $20 billion in U.S. assets that could be liquidated should BP not be able to pay on time; 3) BP received no assurances that the ultimate economic damages would not be higher; 4) BP is still liable for all individual and state claims in court; 5) The fund is completely separate from any environmental damages, which the Obama administration says could top $30 billion; 6) BP paid another $100 million for workers made unemployed by President Obama’s indefinite ban on offshore oil drilling; 7) BP received no assurance that the White House would not ask for more money if the ban becomes permanent. See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/17/joe-barton-is-right-there-was-a-20-billion-shakedown-in-the-white-house/ 1b) Bachmann: Obama Exceeding Constitutional Authority in Ordering BP to Surrender Funds--'It's All About Extortion' Washington (CNSNews.com) – Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) said Tuesday that President Barack Obama is exceeding his legitimate constitutional authority in telling BP it must set up an independent fund, not controlled by the company, for compensating victims of the Gulf oil spill. She described the administration's policy as an action "that's all about extortion." "Private companies need to be held accountable but not necessarily to the executive branch," said Bachmann. "It seems to me there’s a misreading of the Constitution and a misunderstanding of jurisdictional limits from this White House on what the extent of executive power is. They don’t seem to understand that and it—now it seems that it’s all about extortion--and that what they want to do is create a pot of money for themselves that they can control and that’s not what the Executive is supposed to do. There is a real misreading of jurisdictional limits, and they continue to stretch those limits beyond all bounds." …The conservative from Minnesota said she was particularly bothered by the call President Obama made Monday--later reiterated in his Oval Office address Tuesday night--for BP to set aside money for reimbursements to victims of the Gulf oil spill that would be administered independently, taking control of the money away from the company. “The president just called for creating a fund that would be administered by outsiders which would be more of a redistribution-of-wealth fund, and now it appears we’re going to be looking at yet one more gateway for more government control, more money to government,” she said. “If there’s a disaster, why is it that government is the one who always seems to benefit after a disaster?” The proposed fund that the administration wants BP to create would go to reimburse individuals and businesses along the Gulf Coast that make claims as a result of the oil spill. But the money, which belongs to BP stockholders, would be taken out BP's control and the administration has not clearly stated what due process of law would be observed in distributing the money (emphasis mine). The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified specifically to prevent the government from taking or redistributing private property without due process of law. The amendment says: "No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." See: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/67800 1c) A Brand of “Independence” Only Obama Could Love President Barack Obama promised in his Oval Office speech that an “independent third party” would be responsible for overseeing the distribution of $20 billion in funds set-aside to compensate those harmed by the BP oil spill disaster. Apparently, though, “independence” is all in the eye of the beholder. When that beholder is President Obama, an “independent third party” can apparently be someone from his own administration who serves at his will and direction. Enter Kenneth Feinberg, a Democrat, Obama administration pay czar, and now-overseer of the $20 billion BP trust fund. Unfortunately, his only true independence is from congressional approval and from the will of the American people (emphasis mine). What’s more, he’s not independent from President Barack Obama. That’s dangerous, considering the extent of Feinberg’s unchecked power and nature of his job. As Russ Ferguson writes in The American Spectator: “Czars have almost unlimited power and are not subject to Congressional oversight like their cabinet-member counterparts. That means the payment of claims under the new $20 billion escrow account will be another set of money that is controlled solely by the President. This is yet another instance of this President extending his reach. Another instance of upsetting the careful balance of powers our forefathers so prudently placed in our founding document.” Feinberg has made a living out of picking winners and losers — he managed the fund that compensated families of 9-11 victims, he did the same for victims of the Virginia Tech shooting, and he set the pay for top executives who received federal bail-out funds. President Obama spoke of his confidence in Feinberg’s ability to dole out the BP dollars, stating, “And I’m confident he will ensure that claims are administered as quickly, as fairly, and as transparently as possible.” See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/17/a-brand-of-independence-only-obama-could-love 1d) Morning Bell: A Crisis of Competence Nearly 31 years ago, on July 15, 1979, President Jimmy Carter told the American people from the Oval Office: “Energy will be the immediate test of our ability to unite this nation, and it can also be the standard around which we rally. On the battlefield of energy we can win for our nation a new confidence, and we can seize control again of our common destiny.” Last night the American people heard almost the exact same speech from President Barack Obama: “I’ve returned from a trip to the Gulf Coast to speak with you about the battle we’re waging against an oil spill that is assaulting our shores and our citizens. … The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America’s innovation and seize control of our own destiny.” Unbelievable. Nothing about cleaning up/stopping the spill and everything about campaigning for his own leftist agenda. The leftist agenda is what prevented this drilling from being done safely in the first place - way out where it is unsafe to drill instead of closer to shore. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs billed the speech as an “inflection point,” where the President’s initial response would be replaced by more decisive action. But this is now day 57. Where has the decisive action been up to this point? The Obama administration has not been working in a coordinated fashion. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of the Interior, the Department of Homeland Security, and the White House, as well as the Coast Guard, have been putting out confusing and contradictory statements since the disaster began. Federal regulatory red tape has gotten in the way of the cleanup, including: 1) missed opportunities to burn off more of the oil because of overblown air pollution concerns; 2) holdups in the use of dispersants; 3) permit delays in allowing the state of Louisiana to create artificial barriers against the encroaching oil slick; 4) failure to waive regulatory prohibitions against foreign assistance; and 5) failure to approve barges and booms in time to block oil from reaching Alabama’s Magnolia River. Instead of providing leadership and properly coordinating the response, the Obama administration has chosen to shift blame and politicize the disaster, including: 1) “not-at-all veiled shot[s] at the Bush Administration” for the state of the Minerals and Management Service; 2) vague threats of criminal prosecution from Attorney General Eric Holder; 3) a moratorium on offshore oil drilling which could kill 120,000 jobs in the Gulf alone; and 4) pushing caps on carbon dioxide emissions which have no hope of cleaning up a single drop of oil spilled. See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/16/morning-bell-a-crisis-of-competence 1e) The President's Oil Reserves Lie Tuesday night, following a tour of the Gulf Coast area, the President of the United States addressed the nation regarding the state of the BP oil spill. In his speech from the Oval Office, President Obama spoke regarding our nation's dependence upon oil and how we need to break that dependence. During his speech, the president made a statement that was blatantly false. The president noted, "We consume more than 20% of the world's oil, but have less than 2% of the world's oil reserve. And that's part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean -- because we're running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water." We are not running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water. In fact, it is due to the president's party of extreme environmentalists that BP had to drill some forty miles from the coastline in deep waters to extract oil. Imagine if this oil leak had happened in the shallow waters off of the East Coast or even, dare we say it, in the pristine ANWR region. How much easier it would have been to cap the leak and clean up the oil? Consider our nation's vast oil reserve resources that are currently unavailable for use due to government ownership of the land or outright bans on drilling in certain areas. According to a June 2008 article in Kiplinger Magazine, the United States has enough oil reserves to power the nation for upwards of three centuries (emphasis mine). That's three hundred years, Mr. President. We are not running out of oil reserves -- it's just that those oil reserves have been declared off-limits due to decades of environmental lobbying of our politicians, especially those on the Left. This lobbying has driven the likes of BP and others out deep into the Gulf of Mexico to extract the nation's needed oil. Note the following statement from the article: ... untapped reserves are estimated at about 2.3 trillion barrels, nearly three times more than the reserves held by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Counties (OPEC) and sufficient to meet 300 years of demand-at today's levels-for auto, aircraft, heating and industrial fuel, without importing a single barrel of oil (emphasis mine). See: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/the_presidents_oil_reserves_li.html 1f) BP Oil Spill: Against Gov. Jindal's Wishes, Crude-Sucking Barges Stopped by Coast Guard Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has spent the past week and half fighting to get working barges to begin vacuuming crude oil out of his state's oil-soaked waters. By Thursday morning, against the governor's wishes, those barges still were sitting idle, even as more oil flowed toward the Louisiana shore. "It's the most frustrating thing," the Republican governor told ABC News while visiting Buras, La. "Literally, [Wednesday] morning we found out that they were halting all of these barges." Sixteen barges sat stationary Thursday, although they had been sucking up thousands of gallons of BP's oil as recently as Tuesday. Workers in hazmat suits and gas masks pumped the oil out of the Louisiana waters and into steel tanks. It was a homegrown idea that seemed to be effective at collecting the thick gunk. See: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-gov-bobby-jindals-wishes-crude/story?id=10946379 2) Engulfing the Internet Despite opposition by a House of Representatives majority and a bipartisan group of Senators, the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday is expected to proceed with plans to impose federal government regulation of the Internet (emphasis mine), which would essentially treat broadband networks -- and the companies that invested more than $200 billion in private capital to deploy them -- as utilities. The commission's chairman, Julius Genachowski, and his staff have insisted that imposing federal regulations originally written in the 1930s for the telephone is the only way the Obama Administration can gain the "kind of oversight and control that we need," says an FCC staffer with ties to another Democrat commissioner. "Look at the Gulf oil spill, that's what happens when we let corporations just do their own thing without any accountability. We can't allow that to happen with the Internet. We won't allow it." No, we can’t allow that to happen to the Internet, can we boys and girls? UNBELIEVABLE! The vote to continue the review and comment process at the FCC is expected to be a party-line vote, with the two Republican commissioners voting against the proposed regulatory scheme. Under the Obama Administration's plan, the FCC would be able to enforce so-called "net neutrality" rules, allowing the federal government to set how broadband and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) manage the networks. By bringing broadband and the Internet under FCC regulatory oversight, the FCC would also be able to impose policies related to speech or online business models. "The American public really has no idea how devastating these policies are going to have on free speech and the Internet," says a Republican Senate staffer. "If they are able to impose these regulations, they would be able to impose a host of different regulations that would limit free speech online and essentially give the left the upper hand. First the auto industry, then health care and the financial services industry, now this." See: http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/17/en-gulfing-the-internet/ 3) NRA exemption shows campaign disclosure bill's cynical, fatal flaws The cynical decision this week by House Democrats to exempt the National Rifle Association from the latest campaign finance regulatory scheme is itself a public disclosure. It reveals the true purpose of the perversely named Disclose Act (H.R. 5175): namely, to silence congressional critics in the 2010 elections. The NRA "carve-out" reaffirms the wisdom of the First Amendment's precise language: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Congress can't help itself. Since 1798, with the Alien and Sedition Acts, incumbent politicians have yearned for legal duct tape for their opponents' mouths. The Disclose Act is a doozy of a muzzle. For its part, the NRA -- on whose board of directors I serve -- rather than holding steadfastly to its historic principles of defending the Constitution and continuing its noble fight against government regulation of political speech instead opted for a political deal borne of self-interest in exchange for "neutrality" from the legislation's requirements. In doing so, the NRA has, sadly, affirmed the notion held by congressional Democrats (and some Republicans), liberal activists, the media establishment and, at least for now, a minority on the Supreme Court that First Amendment protections are subject to negotiation. The Second Amendment surely cannot be far behind. Since the court's January decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations cannot be constitutionally prohibited from making independent candidate-related expenditures, Democrats have been hyperventilating at the notion that corporations might spend millions of dollars criticizing them. To foreclose that possibility, the Disclose Act would impose onerous and complicated "disclosure" restrictions on organizations that dare to engage in constitutionally protected political speech and on corporations that dare to contribute to such organizations. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/16/AR2010061604221_pf.html 4) Hillary Clinton: Yes, Obama is filing a lawsuit against the Arizona law Hillary Clinton was interviewed by NTN24 out of Quito, Ecuador on June 8, and was asked about how the Obama administration was handling the Arizona law. She answered frankly, that the justice department, under Obama’s direction, will bring a lawsuit against the Arizona law. See: http://www.therightscoop.com/hillary-clinton-yes-obama-is-filing-a-lawsuit-against-the-arizona-law 5) What to Expect in Next Year’s Health Benefits Offerings RIGHT about now, as you’re dusting off your beach gear, may seem the wrong time to talk about next fall’s open enrollment for health insurance. But now is when big employers are busy assembling their benefits packages for 2011. And this year, they are having to factor in the new health law’s requirements, said Pearce R. Weaver Jr., a senior vice president at Fidelity Consulting Services. Not to rain on your beach parade, but come fall you’ll probably be asked to absorb even bigger cost increases than in the last few years. Although most of the new law’s big changes do not take effect until 2014, there are some provisions employers must comply with by next year. That includes extending health insurance coverage to uninsured dependents up to age 26, eliminating any lifetime or annual caps on coverage and paying 100 percent of some preventive care. As in years past, employers are also grappling with how to offset rising health care costs. Recent years have brought an average cost increase of about 9 percent, said Tracy Watts, a partner at Mercer Health and Benefits. In most cases, companies have been able to absorb about 6 percentage points of those cost increases a year, passing the rest onto employees. This year Ms. Watts estimates that changes made in response to the health law will add an extra 2 to 3 percent in cost increases, pressuring employers to engage in even more cost-sharing with employees — whether through higher premiums, co-payments or other out-of-pocket costs. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/health/12patient.html?ref=health 5a) Administration: 51% Of Companies’ Health Plans Won’t Pass Muster Internal White House documents reveal that 51% of employers may have to relinquish their current health care coverage by 2013 due to ObamaCare. That numbers soars to 66% for small-business employers. The documents — product of a joint project of the Labor Department, the Health and Human Services Department and the IRS — examine the effects new regulations would have on existing, or “grandfathered,” employer-based health care plans. …Under interim regulations, current employer-based coverage would not be grandfathered and hence subject to the health care laws’ consumer provisions if: * The plan eliminates benefits related to diagnosis or treatment of a particular condition. * The plan increases the percentage of a cost-sharing requirement (such as co-insurance) above the level at which it was on March 23, 2010. * The plan increases the fixed amount of cost sharing such as deductibles or out-of-pocket limits by a total percentage measured from March 23, 2010, that is more than the sum of medical inflation plus 15 percentage points. * The plan increases co-payments as a total percentage measured from March 23, 2010, that is more than the sum of medical inflation plus 15 percentage points or medical inflation plus $5. * The employer’s share of the premium decreases more than 5 percentage points below what the share was on March 23, 2010. According to the report, by 2013 51% of all employers — 66% of small employers (3-99 employees) and 45% of large employers — would have to relinquish current coverage. In a worst-case scenario, 69% of firms would lose their grandfathered status. This could pose a serious threat to President Obama’s claim that if you like your coverage, you’d get to keep it (emphasis mine). Do ‘ya think? See: http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/1830-administration-51-of-companies-health-plans-wont-pass-muster 5b) Senate fails to spare doctors from Medicare cuts WASHINGTON – After a week of partisan wrangling, the Senate on Friday passed legislation to spare doctors a 21 percent cut in Medicare payments looming for months. But the last-ditch effort came too late. Moments after the Senate acted, Medicare announced it would begin processing claims it has already received for June at the lower rate. The reason: the House cannot act on the fix until next week. That means doctors, nurse practitioners, physical therapists and other providers who bill under Medicare's physician fee schedule will have to resubmit their claims if they want to be made whole, with added paperwork costs both for the providers and for taxpayers. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100619/ap_on_bi_ge/us_congress_spending 6) Daily Presidential Tracking Poll: 56% now disapprove of president’s performance The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-six percent (46%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20. …Overall, 43% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove. The president’s approval rating has held steady in the 46% - 47% range for six months and it remains to be seen whether this new low is merely statistical noise or the start of a lasting change. See: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll 7) Obama Administration Secretly Working With Russia to Limit US Missile Defense The Obama administration is secretly working with Russia to conclude an agreement that many officials fear will limit U.S. missile defenses, a key objective of Moscow since it opposed plans for a U.S. missile defense interceptor base in Eastern Europe, according to American officials involved in arms control issues. According to the officials, the administration last month presented a draft agreement on missile defenses to the Russians as part of talks between Ellen Tauscher, undersecretary of state for international security and arms control, and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Rybakov. The secret talks and possible agreement have triggered alarm among pro-missile defense advocates who are concerned that the administration, in its effort to "reset" ties with Moscow, will make further concessions constraining current and future missile defenses. See: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/16/inside-the-ring-382424672/ 8) White House Presses Congress to Weaken Iran Sanctions After securing a mild sanctions resolution at the U.N. Security Council against Iran earlier this week, the Obama Administration is now lobbying Congress to dilute pending Iran sanctions legislation. The administration wants the authority to waive penalties against companies that sell gasoline or other refined oil products to Iran if those companies are based in countries that have cooperated in imposing U.N. sanctions on Iran. This is viewed by many in Congress as another concession to Russia, China, and European countries that have resisted American efforts to impose much tougher sanctions on Iran. The administration’s schizophrenic policy on Iran has long been apparent to Capitol Hill observers, but increasingly has frustrated even members of the President’s own party. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), who has been a leading advocate of stronger sanctions on Iran, complained that “The administration doesn’t carry out the laws that are on the books, and they want the new law to be as weak and loophole-ridden as possible.” See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/11/white-house-presses-congress-to-weaken-iran-sanctions 9) EXCLUSIVE: Alert Issued for 17 Afghan Military Members AWOL From U.S. Air Force Base A nationwide alert has been issued for 17 members of the Afghan military who have gone AWOL from an Air Force base in Texas where foreign military officers who are training to become pilots are taught English, FoxNews.com has learned. The Afghan officers and enlisted men have security badges that give them access to secure U.S. defense installations, according to the lookout bulletin, "Afghan Military Deserters in CONUS [Continental U.S.]," written by Naval Criminal Investigative Service in Dallas and obtained by FoxNews.com. …Afghans are not the only foreign military who have gone AWOL from Lackland, Emery said. "In 2009, the Defense Language Institute English Language Center reported two other students from countries other than Afghanistan went missing," he told FoxNews.com. "They include one Iraqi who requested asylum in Houston and one Djiboutian whose status is unknown. To date in 2010, one student from Tunisia and one from Guinea Bissau have gone AWOL in addition to the Afghani student [Aryan] who went AWOL in January. See: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/17/afghan-military-deserters-missing-air-force-base/ 10) Congressman Bob Etheridge (D-NC2) Assaults Student on Washington Sidewalk Last week, Democrat Congressman Bob Etheridge (D-NC2) attended a fundraiser headlined by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He was asked by some students on the street whether he supported the “Obama Agenda.” He didn’t take it well. See: http://biggovernment.com/mikeflynn/2010/06/14/long-hot-summer-begins-congressman-attacks-student/ 11) Pastor tests IRS by endorsing candidate A South Dakota minister says he wants to do for religious freedom what the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. did for civil rights. The Rev. H. Wayne Williams, pastor of Liberty Baptist Tabernacle in Rapid City, last month endorsed GOP state Sen. Gordon Howie in the South Dakota governor's race, in defiance of the Internal Revenue Service and a federal court ruling and in hopes of producing a landmark constitutional test case. At issue is an IRS regulation called the Johnson Amendment, enacted in 1954, that says that 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, the section of the tax code under which most churches file, cannot endorse a specific political candidate and retain its nonprofit classification. "Why is it that I cannot walk with my Master, my Lord, in speaking on government issues?" asked Mr. Williams, citing the example of other religious leaders such as King, John the Baptist and biblical prophets, all of whom involved themselves in political issues. …The court ruled on the Johnson Amendment in a 1992 case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that a church does not have a constitutional right to endorse a political candidate, but can speak on political issues. Although the original idea was to prevent entanglement of church and state, Mr. Stanley said, the Johnson Amendment winds up giving the state oversight of the content of churches' political speech in order to determine whether it constitutes "endorsement" of a candidate. See: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/15/pastor-tests-irs-by-endorsing-candidate/

2011 Economic Collapse; Journalism 'Reinvention'; 25 million people eliminated?

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand Between their loved home and the war's desolation! Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation. Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto: "In God is our trust." And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave! - the last verse of “The Star Spangled Banner”, Francis Scott Key, 1814 1) Glenn Beck: Audio from 1982 that will blow your mind: A Weather Underground Infiltrator describes conservation with Weather Underground Re: what will happen after “we take over the government” GLENN…This is a former FBI agent from 1982 exposing for the first time what he found while sitting in a room full of Weather Underground leaders, including Bill Ayers. Listen and remember. VOICE: I brought up the subject of what's going to happen after we take over the government. You know, we become responsible then for administrating, you know, 250 million people. And there was no answers. No one had given any thought to economics, how are you going to clothe and feed these people. The only thing that I could get was that they expected that the Cubans and the North Vietnamese and the Chinese and the Russians would all want to occupy different portions of the United States. They also believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect against what they called the counterrevolution and they felt that this counterrevolution could best be guarded against by creating and reestablishing reeducation centers in the southwest where we would take all the people who needed to be reeducated into the new way of thinking and teach them how things were going to be. I ask, well, what is going to happen to those people that we can't reeducate, that are diehard capitalists? And the reply was that they would have to be eliminated. And when I pursued this further, they estimated that they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers. And when I say eliminate, I mean kill. 25 million people (emphasis mine). See: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/41773/ 2) Journalism 'Reinvention' Smacks of Government Control, Critics Say A list of potential policy recommendations to reinvent the field of journalism that has been compiled by the Federal Trade Commission is a "dangerous" overreach of power and a waste of taxpayer funds, critics of the project told FoxNews.com. FTC officials began a project in May 2009 to consider the challenges the journalism industry faces in the digital age. The federal agency recently released a discussion draft titled "Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism," a 47-page document that outlines a major government push to rescue the country's flailing media platforms -- specifically newspapers, which have seen advertising revenues drop roughly 45 percent since 2000. Among the numerous proposals mentioned in the document are: -- the creation of a "journalism" division of AmeriCorps, the federal program that places 75,000 people with local and national nonprofit groups annually; -- tax credits to news organizations for every journalist employed; -- establishing citizenship news vouchers, which "would allow every American tax payer to allocate some amount of government funds to the non-profit media organization" of their choice; -- increased funding for public radio and television; -- providing grants to universities to conduct investigative journalism; -- increased postal subsidies for newspapers and periodicals; -- a 5 percent tax on consumer electronics, which would generate roughly $4 billion annually, to pay for increased public funding. But some critics are voicing concerns about the draft document, saying that if the government has any influence over the Fourth Estate, it could lead to a dizzying web of conflicting interests and the eradication of independent journalism. NOT TO MENTION THE FIRST AMENDMENT! See: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/02/journalism-reinvention-smacks-government-control-critics-say/ 2a) EDITORIAL: FTC floats Drudge tax Journalism can reinvent itself without government 'help' The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is seeking ways to "reinvent" journalism, and that's a cause for concern. According to a May 24 draft proposal, the agency thinks government should be at the center of a media overhaul. The bureaucracy sees it as a problem that the Internet has introduced a wealth of information options to consumers, forcing media companies to adapt and experiment to meet changing market needs. FTC's policy staff fears this new reality. "There are reasons for concern that experimentation may not produce a robust and sustainable business model for commercial journalism," the report states. With no faith that the market will work things out for the better, government thinks it must come to the rescue. The ideas being batted around to save the industry share a common theme: They are designed to empower bureaucrats, not consumers. For instance, one proposal would, "Allow news organizations to agree jointly on a mechanism to require news aggregators and others to pay for the use of online content, perhaps through the use of copyright licenses." See: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/4/ftc-floats-drudge-tax/ 3) Obama's greenhouse gas rules survive Senate vote WASHINGTON – In a boost for the president on global warming, the Senate on Thursday rejected a challenge to Obama administration rules aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other big polluters. The defeated resolution would have denied the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to move ahead with the rules, crafted under the federal Clean Air Act. With President Barack Obama's broader clean energy legislation struggling to gain a foothold in the Senate, the vote took on greater significance as a signal of where lawmakers stand on dealing with climate change. …The vote was 53-47 to stop the Senate from moving forward on the Republican-led effort to restrain the EPA. …Republicans, and the six Democrats who voted with them to advance the resolution, said Congress, not bureaucrats, should be in charge of writing climate change policy. They said the EPA rules would drive up energy costs and kill jobs. What this means is that the Senate just voted down a resolution that would have stopped the EPA from unconstitutionally crafting its own law on climate change - when it declared that CO2 is a pollutant some weeks ago. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100611/ap_on_bi_ge/us_greenhouse_gases 4) Tax Hikes and the 2011 Economic Collapse People can change the volume, the location and the composition of their income, and they can do so in response to changes in government policies. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the nine states without an income tax are growing far faster and attracting more people than are the nine states with the highest income tax rates. People and businesses change the location of income based on incentives. Likewise, who is gobsmacked when they are told that the two wealthiest Americans—Bill Gates and Warren Buffett—hold the bulk of their wealth in the nontaxed form of unrealized capital gains? The composition of wealth also responds to incentives. And it's also simple enough for most people to understand that if the government taxes people who work and pays people not to work, fewer people will work. Incentives matter. People can also change the timing of when they earn and receive their income in response to government policies. According to a 2004 U.S. Treasury report, "high income taxpayers accelerated the receipt of wages and year-end bonuses from 1993 to 1992—over $15 billion—in order to avoid the effects of the anticipated increase in the top rate from 31% to 39.6%. At the end of 1993, taxpayers shifted wages and bonuses yet again to avoid the increase in Medicare taxes that went into effect beginning 1994." Just remember what happened to auto sales when the cash for clunkers program ended. Or how about new housing sales when the $8,000 tax credit ended? It isn't rocket surgery, as the Ivy League professor said. On or about Jan. 1, 2011, federal, state and local tax rates are scheduled to rise quite sharply. President George W. Bush's tax cuts expire on that date, meaning that the highest federal personal income tax rate will go 39.6% from 35%, the highest federal dividend tax rate pops up to 39.6% from 15%, the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 15%, and the estate tax rate to 55% from zero (emphasis mine). Lots and lots of other changes will also occur as a result of the sunset provision in the Bush tax cuts. …Now, if people know tax rates will be higher next year than they are this year, what will those people do this year? They will shift production and income out of next year into this year to the extent possible. As a result, income this year has already been inflated above where it otherwise should be and next year, 2011, income will be lower than it otherwise should be. Also, the prospect of rising prices, higher interest rates and more regulations next year will further entice demand and supply to be shifted from 2011 into 2010. In my view, this shift of income and demand is a major reason that the economy in 2010 has appeared as strong as it has. When we pass the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 2011, my best guess is that the train goes off the tracks and we get our worst nightmare of a severe "double dip" recession (emphasis mine). …It has always amazed me how tax cuts don't work until they take effect. Mr. Obama's experience with deferred tax rate increases will be the reverse. The economy will collapse in 2011 (emphasis mine). See: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704113504575264513748386610.html 5) U.S. Will be Like Greece in ‘Seven to 10 Years,’ Say Congressmen, Experts CNSNEws.com) - Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), along with other members of Congress and leading financial experts, is warning that the United States is in danger of being in the same dire situation as Greece – national bankruptcy -- in seven to 10 years unless the federal government radically curtails spending. Last month, Gregg, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, said the United States will “essentially be where Greece is in about seven years.” “If we continue to spend much more than we take in," he says. "We'll double our debt in five years and triple it in 10 years and essentially be where Greece is in about seven years,” Gregg told the Fox Business Network in May. See: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/67183 6) Morning Bell: The Jobless Obama Recovery …The Labor Department's Bureau of Labor and Statistics released its monthly jobs report today showing that the economy added 431,000 jobs in May. But don't let that number fool you. Of those 431,000 jobs, 411,000 jobs were temporary government Census jobs. In fact, private sector job growth actually fell in May, from 231,000 new private sector jobs in April to just 41,000 new private sector jobs in May. Combining the private and public sectors--the nation's unemployment rate fell to 9.7% as 286,000 workers left the labor force. In total the U.S. economy has now lost a net of 2.2 million jobs since President Barack Obama signed his stimulus bill and his administration is now 7.2 million jobs short of what he promised the American economy would support by 2010. See: http://blog.heritage.org/?p=35225 7) Ax may fall on tax break for mortgages The popular tax break for mortgage interest, once considered untouchable, is falling under the scrutiny of policymakers and economic experts seeking ways to close huge deficits. Although Congress last year rejected the White House’s proposed cut to the amount wealthier taxpayers can deduct for home mortgage interest payments, the administration included it again in its 2010 budget — saying it could save $208 billion over the next decade. And now that sentiment has turned against all the federal red ink — and cost-cutting is in vogue — Democrats on President Barack Obama’s financial commission are considering the wisdom of permanent tax breaks such as the mortgage deduction and corporate deferral. Calling them “tax entitlements,” senior Democratic lawmakers have argued they should be on the table for reform just like traditional entitlement programs Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. NOT paying a tax is a “tax entitlement”? Using this logic the government must be “entitled” to all of my earnings. Can you see the absurdity in this? See: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/101883-axe-may-fall-on-tax-break-for-mortgages 8) Democrats eyeing 401k takeover As a kind of bailout for bankrupt union retirement schemes, Democrats are considering yet another Constitution-trampling government takeover, this time, of private 401k retirement accounts. The idea would be to create yet another entitlement program through which government would dictate the terms of everyone's retirement--while making it so difficult and costly to have a private 401k that everyone is forced into it. Under Obama, the federal government has now illegally taken over the auto industry, the banks, housing, health care, student loans...and coming soon, apparently even private retirement accounts. But don't worry. It's not like history is jam-packed full of warnings against continuously surrendering freedoms and nationalizing all power into the hands of the few. See: http://www.examiner.com/x-35976-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m5d5-Democrats-eyeing-401k-takeover 9) Palin to Obama on oil companies: 'Give me a call' JUNEAU, Alaska – Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said President Barack Obama's acknowledgment that he hasn't directly spoken to BP's chief executive shows it "bodes well to have some sort of executive experience before occupying the Oval Office." Then, in a Facebook posting Tuesday, she outlined her experience. And she urged Obama to contact experts, including those in Alaska, who have held oil companies accountable. In parts of this state, the effects of the Exxon Valdez disaster are still being felt 21 years after that massive oil spill. "Give them a call," she wrote. "Or, what the heck, give me a call." Palin's latest missive is extensive, chiding not only Obama but also the media for not calling him out in his handling of the massive oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico. Obama, in an interview with NBC's "Today" show, broadcast Tuesday, said he hadn't spoken directly to BP CEO Tony Hayward because his experience tells him someone like that would say "all the right things" and that he's more interested in action than in words. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100609/ap_on_re_us/us_gulf_oil_spill_palin 9a) Obama Seeking "Ass To Kick" Over Oil Spill "I don't sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar, we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick." Oh so very presidential of him… See: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/07/obama_seeking_ass_to_kick_over_oil_spill.html 9b) Morning Bell: How the White House is Making Oil Recovery Harder Five weeks ago Escambia County officials requested permission from the Mobile Unified Command Center to use a sand skimmer, a device pulled behind a tractor that removes oil and tar from the top three feet of sand, to help clean up Pensacola’s beaches. County officials still haven’t heard anything back. Santa Rosa Island Authority Buck Lee told The Daily Caller why: “Escambia County sends a request to the Mobile, Ala., Unified Command Center. Then, it’s reviewed by BP, the federal government, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard. If they don’t like it, they don’t tell us anything.” Keeping local governments in the dark is just one reason why the frustration of residents in the Gulf is so palpable. State and local governments know their geography, people, economic impacts and needs far better than the federal government does. Contrary to popular belief, the federal government has actually been playing a bigger and bigger role in running natural disaster responses. And as Heritage fellow Matt Mayer has documented, the results have gotten worse, not better. And when the federal government isn’t sapping the initiative and expertise of local governments, it has been preventing foreign governments from helping. Just three days after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, the Dutch government offered to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms and proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands. LA Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) supported the idea, but the Obama administration refused the help. All told, thirteen countries have offered to help us clean up the Gulf, and the Obama administration has turned them all down. See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/10/morning-bell-how-the-white-house-is-making-oil-recovery-harder 10) Health law could ban low-cost plans Part of the health care overhaul due to kick in this September could strip more than 1 million people of their insurance coverage, violating a key goal of President Barack Obama’s reforms. Under the provision, insurance companies will no longer be able to apply broad annual caps on the amount of money they pay out on health policies. Employer groups say the ban could essentially wipe out a niche insurance market that many part-time workers and retail and restaurant employees have come to rely on. This market’s limited-benefit plans, also called mini-med plans, are priced low because they can, among other things, restrict the number of covered doctor visits or impose a maximum on insurance payouts in a year. The plans are commonly offered by retail or restaurant companies to low-wage workers who cannot afford more expensive, comprehensive coverage. Depending on how strictly the administration implements the provision, the ban could in effect outlaw the plans or make them so restrictive that insurance companies would raise rates to the point they become unaffordable. “If you like your coverage you can keep it?” Yeah, right. See: http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=142CBE3B-18FE-70B2-A82B15071E682918 11) Dems launch $125M health campaign Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and Victoria Kennedy — widow of Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) — are expected to be named co-chairmen of a $125 million campaign that White House allies are rolling out to defend health care reform amid growing signs Democrats are failing to get political traction on the issue. The extraordinary campaign, which could provide an unprecedented amount of cover for a White House in a policy debate, reflects urgency among Democrats to explain, defend and depoliticize health care reform now that people are beginning to feel the new law’s effects. They KNOW the American people hate it. No amount of selling is going to make us like it, Tom Daschle. See: http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=123C4723-18FE-70B2-A89C3D9E06224F6F 12) Out of the Gate: Poll Shows Angle Ahead in Nevada For Sharron Angle, who just won the GOP nomination (HORAY! HORAY! - comment mine) to take on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada, it’s not a bad way to start. voters found that 50% supported Angle, 39% supported Reid; 5% liked some other candidate and 6% were on the fence. The survey was done Wednesday night, amid a blitz of news coverage of Angle’s primary election victory the night before. A Mason-Dixon poll out over the weekend showed Angle up by three percentage points over Reid, 44%-41%. Republicans have quickly lined up behind Angle, with 88% of GOP voters supporting her, the Rasmussen poll shows. Reid and Angle’s favorability ratings aren’t hugely different: 46% view Reid favorably while 54% have an unfavorable view; for Angle, it’s 48% favorable, 45% unfavorable, with 8% having no opinion. The big difference is in intensity: 45% view Reid as “very unfavorable” while 23% have that view of Angle. See: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/06/10/out-of-the-gate-poll-shows-angle-ahead-in-nevada/ 13) Barack Obama Ignores D-Day Anniversary – Goes to Theatre Party On June 6, 1944, the D-Day invasion of Europe took place during World War II as Allied forces stormed the beaches of Normandy, France. America lost 2,499 of its finest men that day. It’s too bad Barack Obama missed the anniversary today. The White House website has nothing posted today on the 66th Anniversary of the D-Day landing. The president had other things on his mind. He was attending his second party this week, tonight at the Ford Theatre. The President will also be honoring far left Bush-basher and Jew-hater Archbishop Desmond Tutu at the gala. Everyone must have their priorities. See: http://biggovernment.com/jhoft/2010/06/06/barack-obama-ignores-d-day-anniversary-goes-to-theatre-party/ 14) Teens Face Worst Summer Job Market in 41 Years Employment among 16-to 19-year olds in May grew by just 6,000, the smallest increase since 1969, when teen jobs fell by 14,000, according to government data analyzed by employment firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas. In May 2008 and 2009, teen employment grew by over 110,000. “It’s certainly a preliminary strong indication that it’s going to be a tough job market for teens,” said John Challenger, CEO of Challenger, Gray & Christmas. …"Also impacting the job market for young adults are the large number of older adults who are willing to accept even a temporary, seasonal position simply to generate some income," said Steven Rothberg, chief executive officer of CollegeRecruiter.com, an online entry-level job-posting site. "We're seeing experienced candidates taking jobs normally reserved for college grads and college grads taking jobs normally reserved for college students," said Rothberg. See: http://www.cnbc.com/id/37573330 15) Barney Frank To Young Democrats: "Give Us More Authority" Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): "You can reach out to your fellow young people and make it clear to them, that when [sic] they may not be satisfied with everything we've done -- we're not satisfied with everything we've done. The way to cure that is to give us more authority and more ability." WHAT?!?!!? See: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/08/barney_frank_to_young_democrats_give_us_more_authority.html 16) Pelosi: We'll Stop Blaming Bush "When The Problems Go Away" Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is asked when the "blame Bush" line has run out. Pelosi says it is very "relevant" to blame him now, referring to the financial crisis and oil spill. See: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/11/pelosi_well_stop_blaming_bush_when_the_problems_go_away.html 17) Financier of Gaza flotilla wants to build mosque at Ground Zero Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, one of the key financiers behind last week's violent "aid" flotilla to Gaza, is also the Muslim cleric proposing the construction of an enormous mosque where New York's World Trade Center once stood. The deep indentation where the towers fell, now known as Ground Zero, is almost holy ground for Americans determined to not let their enemies prevail. The proposal to build a mosque at the site after Muslim terrorists were responsible for the attacks is seen as a deep insult. It is unclear why certain elements in the New York municipality have given tacit approval to the mosque project, but it has stirred up a national controversy that is likely to only further enflame the current war of civilizations. Of course, that may be precisely what the Muslims want. See: http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=21242 18) Pence: "Mr. President, Whose Side Are You On?" “We all grieve the loss of life that occurred last week when a flotilla designed to challenge Israel's effective blockade of Gaza ended in military confrontation. But Israel has a right to defend itself. “The history is clear in that region; Gaza is controlled by a terrorist organization known as Hamas. Hamas used Gaza as a launching pad for thousands of rockets that killed innocent civilians in Israel. Israel responded with military force and has instituted a blockade that has saved lives in Gaza and in Israel. And there's no humanitarian crisis. Ten thousand tons of food and medical supplies are transferred into Gaza every single week. “Remarkably, yesterday the president said it was time for Israel to sharply limit its effective blockade in Gaza, saying ‘the situation in Gaza is unsustainable.’ “The truth is, Mr. President, your policy in Israel is unsustainable. “The American people are on the side of Israel and Israel’s right to defend herself. “Mr. President, whose side are you on?” See: http://mikepence.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4158&Itemid=94 19) Helen Thomas ends White House career amid uproar WASHINGTON – Helen Thomas, the opinionated White House correspondent who used her seat in the front row of history to grill 10 presidents and often exasperate them, lost her storied perch Monday in a flap over calling on Israelis to get "out of Palestine." Thomas, 89, who made her name as a bulldog for United Press International and was a pioneer for women in journalism, abruptly retired as a columnist for Hearst News Service. The announcement, in a terse statement by Hearst, came after videotaped remarks she made to an independent filmmaker spread virally through the Internet. Good riddance, Helen Thomas! See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100608/ap_on_re_us/us_helen_thomas 20) Obama proclaims June as "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month" "...Much work remains to fulfill our Nation’s promise of equal justice under law for LGBT Americans. That is why we must give committed gay couples the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple, and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. We must protect the rights of LGBT families by securing their adoption rights, ending employment discrimination against LGBT Americans, and ensuring Federal employees receive equal benefits. We must create safer schools so all our children may learn in a supportive environment. I am also committed to ending ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ so patriotic LGBT Americans can serve openly in our military, and I am working with the Congress and our military leadership to accomplish that goal." "...NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2010 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon all Americans to observe this month by fighting prejudice and discrimination in their own lives and everywhere it exists." Psalm 12:8: The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men. See: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-13672.pdf.

White House linked to flotilla organizers; 'Unlawful influence' on elections?; Fired for speaking at tea party

1) Jobs flap seeps across Senate map Blowback from White House attempts to dangle administration jobs in front of insurgent Democratic challengers is now threatening to burn candidates in some of the most competitive Senate contests in the nation, expanding the scope of damage well beyond the two states where the furor originated. Unresolved questions surrounding Rep. Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania and former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff in Colorado — and Republican attempts to provide accelerant to the incumbent protection flap — have suddenly forced Senate candidates in a handful of other states, including Arkansas, Illinois and Ohio, to respond to queries about possible White House involvement in their own races, throwing them off message and on the defensive. …In Illinois, the state Republican Party singled out a supporting actor in the ongoing drama surrounding Romanoff White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, the aide who directly reached out to Romanoff with three distinct job possibilities—for scrutiny by highlighting his expected presence at an upcoming fundraiser for Democratic Senate nominee Alexi Giannoulias. “On the day Rod Blagojevich goes on trial for pay-to-play corruption, will Alexi Giannoulias cancel his planned Messina fundraiser?” headlined a GOP press release, which attempted to link the Democrat to a key player in the jobs flap as well as the state’s disgraced former governor. Gotta’ love Illinois! …"It's ironic that Jim Messina currently holds the exact same job that Karl Rove once held in the White House,” wrote Executive Director Rob Jesmer. “Can you imagine what then-Sens. Obama and Clinton, along with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would say if this had taken place under Karl Rove?" See: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38115.html 1a) Prez wielding 'unlawful influence' on elections? Letter seeks list of times White House tried to 'persuade' candidates to drop out The ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform formally is asking President Obama for a list of all of the times the White House tried to "persuade" candidates to drop out of races. The letter today from Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., to Obama's counsel, Robert Bauer, seeks, "A full and complete list of all elections in which the White House engaged in efforts to persuade specific candidates to drop election bids." Issa wrote that, "If a job or any other thing of value meant to entice a candidate to withdraw from or not to enter the race was offered, please specify to whom it was offered, and by whom it was offered." He also asked Bauer publicly to commit to preserving all records concerning "job offers made to Rep. Sestak, Mr. Romanoff, and any other candidates." Issa said he was making the request, "so that the American people can better understand the extent to which the White House systematically interfered with elections across the country." …"In neither the case of Rep. Sestak nor in the case of Mr. Romanoff was it the White Hosue that first revealed that a job was offered to entice the candidates to abandon his campaign," the letter said. "American people should not have to rely on candidates and party leaders who have been on the wrong end of inappropriate and unlawful job offers to disclose those offers months after the fact. Instead, the White House should honor the president's commitment to making his administration the most open and transparent in history…" House GOP Leader John Boehner said while the White House "unsurprisingly acquitted itself of any wrongdoing, " the fastest way for the American people to get answers "is for the White House to come clean and fully disclose its use of federal appointments to manipulate elections." …Peter Ferrar, director of budget policy at the Institute for Policy Innovation and a policy adviser to the Heartland Institute, went further. "Months ago, I predicted in this column that President Obama would so discredit himself in office that he wouldn't even be on the ballot in 2012, let alone have a prayer of being re-elected. Like President Johnson in 1968, who had won a much bigger victory four years previously than Obama did in 2008, President Obama will be so politically defunct by 2012 that he won't even try to run for re-election," he wrote. "I am now ready to predict that President Obama will not even make it that far. I predict that he will resign in discredited disgrace before the fall of 2012. Like my previous prediction, that is based not just on where we are now, but where we are going under his misleadership." See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=162221 More on this…A White House response to Politico on the issue said, "Congressman Issa can continue to chase his tail all he wants, but President Bush's own ethics attorney (Richard Painter) said this was a 'non issue' and called on Republicans to 'move on.' Nothing here is unusual or ever thought to be illegal." "For a president who campaigned by assailing the policies and practices of the Bush administration to justify his actions by invoking his predecessor is ironic. This White House has frequently blamed the policies of the Bush administration when addressing problems, and yet in this case when those policies align with the president's agenda, the White House did not hesitate to embrace them," the letter said (emphasis mine). …"We still don't have all the details about involvement of Obama administration officials in the sale of Obama's former Illinois U.S. Senate seat by Rod Blagojevich. And we still don't have answers about the charge that Obama Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina offered a federal job to Colorado Democratic Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff to keep him out of the Senate race. There is also the report that President Obama tried to push disgruntled White House Counsel Greg Craig out of the White House by offering a federal judgeship on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. And now we have Joe Sestak," he said. "The Chicago Machine has truly come to Washington." See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=161765 2) New Supreme Court Documents Show Elena Kagan's Pro-Abortion Position Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- New documents obtained by CBS News from Elena Kagan's time as a law clerk for pro-abortion Justice Thurgood Marshall reveal more about her position in favor of abortion. They buttress the previous documents and writings pro-life groups have profiled to show Kagan is well outside the judicial mainstream. CBS News found the documents in Marshall's papers in the Library of Congress and they are legal memos outlining cases the high court would consider. They show Kagan backing abortion at a time when the Supreme Court was trying to mitigate the far-reaching effects of Roe v. Wade and its allowance for unlimited abortions at any time during pregnancy. One of the documents relates to a case of a prisoner who wanted her state to use taxpayer funds to pay for her abortion. Kagan expressed her concern to Marshall that the Supreme Court would use the case to finally place some limits on abortion. "This case is likely to become the vehicle that this court uses to create some very bad law on abortion and/or prisoners' rights," she wrote in the 1988 memo, and recommended Marshall vote against reviewing the case. Kagan also wrote that a court order that mandated taxpayers to pay for the abortions of inmates was “well-intentioned.” Americans United for Life informed LifeNews.com today that the case involved female inmates in the Monmouth County jail who wanted the county to fund their abortions. "Kagan’s memo reveals her pro-abortion sympathies, her inconsistent statements about the role of a Supreme Court clerk, and her desire to put policy above the law," the pro-life group noted. "Kagan’s belief that the lower court’s decision was 'well-intentioned' indicates she thought a ruling expanding abortion rights was a good thing, even if she thought it was wrong on the law." See: http://lifenews.com/nat6394.html 2a) EXCLUSIVE: Documents Show Kagan's Liberal Opinion on Social Issues Elena Kagan has kept her cards so close to the vest that in the days after President Obama nominated her to the Supreme Court, some on the left worried she was too moderate to replace liberal Justice John Paul Stevens. But in documents obtained by CBS News, Kagan--while working as a law clerk to the late Justice Thurgood Marshall - made her positions clear on some of the nation's most contentious social issues. The documents, buried in Marshall's papers in the Library of Congress, show Kagan standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the liberal left, at a time when the Rehnquist Supreme Court was moving to the conservative right. They also provide a remarkably candid picture of her opinions, including on the most controversial issue Supreme Court nominees ever confront: abortion. Although Kagan's confirmation has thus far been an all but foregone conclusion, sources say these documents will give Republicans a few cards of their own to mount a strong fight against her. And they will only heighten demands for more information on her views--including interest in her papers in the Clinton Library. Some of the Clinton Library documents, which cover her time working in that administration, could be released as early as Friday. …Then there was the recently disclosed memo on gun rights. In a case challenging the District of Columbia's handgun ban as unconstitutional, Kagan was blunt: "I am not sympathetic." The Supreme Court took the opposite approach two years ago, striking down the D.C. gun ban as unconstitutional. Taken together, these documents are certain to provoke considerably more questions than the less controversial papers unearthed before her confirmation hearings for solicitor general. See: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-20006769-504564.html 3) White House linked to flotilla organizers Israel official ties president's adviser to controversial 'Free Gaza Movement' A top adviser to President Obama is the contact person within the White House for communications with the Free Gaza Movement over plans to challenge Israel's blockade of the terrorist Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, according to a reputable source close to the Netanyahu government. The source, a career official whose reliability was established through his tips for the book, "Why Israel Can't Wait," identified John O. Brennan, deputy national security adviser for homeland security and counterterrorism, as the contact. The allegation raises the bizarre possibility that the Free Gaza Movement's flotilla action in the Mediterranean was being coordinated with the White House, something that would align with a shift in U.S. policy toward Israel being debated within the Obama administration (emphasis mine). Mike Hammer, a National Security Council spokesman, told WND flatly the report "is not true." …WND further reported that at a meeting with Muslim law students at New York University, Brennan declared himself a "citizen of the world" who believed the United States government should never engage in "profiling" in pursuit of national security. The New York Times reported this week that the Obama administration's policy toward Israel was changing in a re-evaluation that now considers Israel's blockade of Gaza to be untenable. But Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu insisted in a special press conference in his office Thursday that "Israel will not apologize for defending itself," which strongly suggested Israel fully intends to continue its blockade. See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=162377 3a) 'Guns may have been thrown overboard' Firearms may have been thrown overboard by passengers of the Mavi Marmara, Israel Radio reported Friday, citing IDF sources. According to the report, gun-sights and rifle cartridges not fitting IDF weapons were discovered upon inspection of the ship, leading defense officials to believe that there may have been weapons on board when the ship set out from Turkey aside from the knifes, rocks and slingshots found in the search. Coded messages apparently alluding to scenarios of soldier-kidnapping and soldier fatalities were also found on board the ship. See: http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177479 3b) IDF releases new 'Marmara' clip The IDF Spokesperson on Friday released a new clip depicting Monday's events on board the Mavi Marmara, this time an audio recording of the exchange between the ship and a radio operator from the Navy who urged the captain to turn back. "You are approaching an area which is under a naval blockade," said the radio operator, to which one passenger on the ship replied, "Shut up, go back to Auschwitz." See: http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177505 3c) Helen Thomas (White House Press Corps: Hearst Newspapers) Tells Jews — ‘Get the Hell Out of Palestine’ and Go Back to Germany & Poland Apparently Helen Thomas agrees with Hamas members on board the Mavi Marmara. See: http://www.breitbart.tv/helen-thomas-tells-jews-get-the-hell-out-of-palestine-and-go-back-to-germany-poland 3d) Israeli Forces Board Gaza-Bound Vessel Israeli forces seized a Gaza-bound vessel swiftly and without meeting resistance on Saturday, preventing it from breaking a naval blockade of the Hamas-ruled territory days after a similar effort turned bloody. Israel has faced mounting international pressure to lift the blockade since Monday's deadly confrontation aboard a Turkish vessel headed for Gaza. But it stood by the embargo -- which it says is needed to prevent the Islamic militant group from getting weapons -- even as the Obama administration called the current restrictions "unsustainable." See: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/05/israeli-forces-board-gaza-bound-aid-vessel/ 4) Poll shocker! Majority wants Obama records Maintain president should be chased from office if he doesn't come clean At a time when Barack Obama is getting heat for stonewalling information about an alleged administration bribery scandal, a new poll shows more Americans than ever suspect the president is hiding information about his own background and want him to come clean. Questions about Obama's eligibility to be president, exacerbated by his refusal to answer questions, release ordinary background documentation and his extraordinary legal maneuvers to keep his background hidden, have been on the radar of a number of top-level investigative reporters and news organizations since before his election. …"Our latest polling shows a majority of Americans – 55 percent – want Obama to release all records relating to his childhood and his education, including college records, Harvard Law School papers, passport records, travel records, and other similar documentation," he said. "Asked what should be done should it be found that Obama does not meet the qualifications to be president, 59 percent said he should be removed from office, and 35 percent said all bills signed into law by Obama should be repealed," he said. The poll said when asked about whether Obama's background documentation – the school records, birth records and others – should be released, the 55 percent who said yes included more than 82 percent of the GOP, 55 percent of independents and nearly 28 percent of Democrats. Further, another 17.1 percent of Americans said Obama should release some of his documentation, making it nearly three in four Americans who want the president to unlock the steel door on some or all of his background information. See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=159317 5) Speaking at a tea party? You're fired! 'I shouldn't have to trade my constitutional rights for a paycheck' When an assistant state attorney in Florida spoke at several tea-party rallies about her beliefs and the Constitution, her boss, a prominent Democrat, fired her – but now protesters are taking to the streets to get her job back. Former Live Oak prosecutor KrisAnne Hall, was ousted May 24 by Democrat Robert "Skip" Jarvis, state attorney for the Third Judicial Circuit of Florida, after he said she refused to stop speaking at tea-party rallies, on the radio and to the Suwannee County Republican Executive Committee. Hall, a 40-year-old mother and U.S. Army veteran who describes herself as a "constitutional originalist" and "fan of American Revolutionary history," sought an injunction in federal court to allow her to continue speaking. Three days later, Jarvis received the motion and fired her. Now Hall is suing, claiming her First Amendment rights have been violated. "I shouldn't have to trade my constitutional rights for a paycheck," she told Florida's Fox 30 News. "If we don't learn why we have the Constitution that we have, we are doomed to repeat the history that brought it to us." …Hall claims she didn't discuss cases handled by the state's attorney's office during her speaking engagements, and she was introduced only as an attorney with expertise in constitutional matters. Hall also explained that she spoke at the events on her own time as a private citizen – not an employee of the state's attorney's office. "I never said anything bad about my office," she told WND. "I never said anything bad about my boss. I never talked about my cases." She added, "When I stand up to speak, I don't consider myself a motivational speaker. I consider myself a teacher. That's why I was asked to come and speak on the Constitution, based on the perspective of our Founding Fathers and blend it with current events. I think that's what my speeches did." …Jarvis, who claims Florida law allows him to appoint and fire his assistants without cause, wrote a series of e-mails on April 22 and 23, according to the complaint. He told her to stop speaking before a "fringe right-wing group" and ordered her to "disassociate yourself from these folks." "He wrote a letter to my attorney telling him that he could hire and fire me at will and I had a choice to make: I could speak or I could work for him," Hall said. "He was clearly throwing down the gauntlet, saying you can keep your First Amendment rights or you can work for me." See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=162041 6) McDonald’s Airs TV Commercial Featuring Homosexual Teen in France (CNSNews.com) – A McDonald’s commercial running in France gives a whole new meaning to the company’s slogan, “I’m Lovin’ It.” The ad shows a teenage boy talking, apparently, to his homosexual boyfriend on a cell phone, followed by an awkward conversation with his father who does not know his son is gay. …According to McDonald’s, the ad “recognizes the diversity of McDonald’s customers in France.” Some homosexual activists in the United States, however, are not happy about the commercial and view it as an attempt to appeal to gays overseas while not reaching out to them in America. The ad begins with the young man sitting at the restaurant table waiting for his father to come back with their food. The boy pulls out a picture, then answers a cell phone call and says, “Hello? I was thinking about you too. I’m looking at our class picture.” He continues, while running his thumb over the picture, saying, “I miss you too. My dad’s coming, I have to hang up.” The boy’s father sits down and says, “Is this your class picture? You look just like me at your age. Let me tell you, I was quite the ladies’ man! Too bad your class is all boys, you could get all the girls.” The boy silently smirks, and the message “come as you are” (venez comme vous etes) pops up. See: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/67082