The world unites against Israel; Chicago politics in the WH; Losing free speech

1) Sestak Job Offer Violated Federal Law? Federal statutes seem to contradict a memorandum from the White House counsel released on Friday that claimed that no law was violated when Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) was offered a government post in exchange for dropping out of the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary against Sen. Arlen Specter. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs blithely dismissed the issue for months. “Lawyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak, and nothing inappropriate happened,” he said. But the two-page memorandum admitted that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel asked former President Bill Clinton to offer Sestak a position on a presidential or senior executive branch advisory board. Apparently Gibbs and the White House expect us to accept their self-investigation and self-evaluation that nothing “inappropriate” happened. …A 1980 opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the Justice Department outlines the key distinction between what is legal and what is illegal under federal law. What is perfectly legal and what happens all the time in Washington is individuals being offered jobs for past political activity. A new President has several thousand patronage jobs to fill in the top ranks of the executive branch. Those jobs are filled based on a mix of professional competence and past political activity and support for the President or his party. That process does not violate federal law. Thus, if someone in the White House simply offered Sestak a job and did not tie the offer to anything related to the Senate race, then, that would arguably constitute business as usual. However, what is illegal and not normal practice in Washington is to promise a federal job or appointment to an individual in exchange for future political activity. 18 U.S.C. § 600 prohibits the use of government-funded jobs or programs to advance partisan political interests. The statute makes it unlawful for anyone to “promise any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit” to any person as a “consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party…in connection with any primary election.” As the OLC opinion says, § 600 “punishes those who promise federal employment or benefits as an enticement to or reward for future political activity, but does not prohibit rewards for past political activity.” Future political activity would arguably include dropping out of a contested primary in order to benefit the White House-endorsed candidate (here, Sen. Specter). It does not matter that Sestak did not accept the offer or that the offer was, according to the White House memorandum, for an uncompensated federal appointment. The statute prohibits making such an offer in the first place (emphasis mine). See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/01/sestak-job-offer-violated-federal-law 1a) White House says it contacted candidate about jobs WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama was unaware a top aide encouraged a Colorado Democrat to apply for an international development job instead of challenging the candidate whom the president favored in a Senate race, the White House said Thursday. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs faced fresh questions about another backroom political deal — the first involving a Pennsylvania candidate, now a Colorado hopeful — that put the Obama administration on the defensive. The White House acknowledged that it had contacted former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff about possible jobs in hopes of persuading him to skip the Senate primary. Asked whether Obama was knew about the outreach, Gibbs told reporters: "He's not aware of the individual circumstances." At the same time, Gibbs defended the White House's involvement in primaries as Democrats struggle to maintain their majorities in the House and Senate in a tough political environment. Yeah, that justifies breaking the law…with liberals, the ends always justify the means. …Just last Friday, the White House acknowledged under pressure that it had turned to former President Bill Clinton last year to approach Pennsylvania Senate candidate Joe Sestak about backing out of a Democratic primary in favor of an unpaid position on a federal advisory board. "Clearly there is a quid pro quo process that was put in place by the West Wing of the White House, orchestrated and implemented by (White House chief of staff) Rahm Emanuel," Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele told Colorado's KRAI. He said the White House "is going to have more explaining to do." Romanoff on Wednesday night released a copy of an e-mail in which Messina described three federal international development jobs that might be available to him if he were not challenging Bennet for the Democratic Senate nomination. …The revelations about the administration's political dealings come at the start of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's trial on charges of scheming to profit from his ability to fill Obama's old Senate seat. Blagojevich, 53, has pleaded not guilty to 24 counts including racketeering, wire fraud, attempted extortion and bribery. He has denied scheming to sell or trade the Senate seat for personal gains. Obama's top aides — Emanuel and Valerie Jarrett — were subpoenaed to testify about their role in picking Obama's replacement during private phone calls; no one from Obama's administration has been charged with wrongdoing. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100603/ap_on_el_se/us_colorado_senate 2) Groups want FCC to police hate speech on talk radio, cable news networks The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is being urged to monitor "hate speech" on talk radio and cable broadcast networks. A coalition of more than 30 organizations argue in a letter to the FCC that the Internet has made it harder for the public to separate the facts from bigotry masquerading as news. The groups also charge that syndicated radio and cable television programs "masquerading as news" use hate as a profit model. "As traditional media have become less diverse and less competitive, they have also grown less responsible and less responsive to the communities that they are supposed to serve," the organizations wrote to the FCC. "In this same atmosphere hate speech thrives, as hate has developed as a profit-model for syndicated radio and cable television program masquerading as 'news.'" The organizations, which include Free Press, the Center for Media Justice, the Benton Foundation and Media Alliance, also argue that the anonymity of the Web gives ammunition to those that would spread hate. How about infringement of our first amendment rights masquerading as a legitimate reason to end “hate speech”? Furthermore, how elitist and bigoted is it to assume the “public can’t separate facts from bigotry”? See: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/100833-groups-want-fcc-to-police-hate-speech 2a) Obama's FTC plan to reinvent America's news media What hasn't been widely-known, until now, is that a year ago the new Democrat administration of Barack Obama launched a major internal study intended to design a major government rescue plan for the nation's financially-troubled information media, primarily newspapers. That strident sound you hear are the alarms going off in minds and offices across the country: Government helping the press? Which press? How help? In return for what? …silly you thought the private business of journalism was doing that by itself in its own stumbling ways without the help of the Washington branch of the Chicago Democratic political machine. The study notes those industry-wide revival efforts and adds: There are reasons for concern that experimentation may not produce a robust and sustainable business model for commercial journalism. History in the United States shows that readers of the news have never paid anywhere close to the full cost of providing the news. Rather, journalism always has been subsidized to a large extent by, for example, the federal government, political parties, or advertising. True, there have been government subsidies over the decades in the form of below-cost postal rates and printing contracts. But this FTC study is rated R for anyone who thinks the federal government, the object of copious news coverage itself, has no business deciding which sectors of the private media business survive and thrive through its support, subsidies and encouragement with things like tax incentives. Yet that's what this Obama administration paper is suggesting as another of the ex-community organizer's galactic reform plans. Would you believe: major changes to the copyright law, including government licensing provisions; government pilot programs to investigate potential new media business models, antitrust changes to allow media companies to unite on imposing online pay walls, establish a journalism division of AmeriCorps with government underwriting the training of young journalists, tax incentives per news employee, increased funding of public broadcasting, a 5% tax on consumer electronics and/or assessments on users of public airwaves. See: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/06/federal-trade-commission-free-press.html 3) Robert Reich to Obama: Nationalize BP! Snort. Robert Reich argues that the only way the American public can be kept informed about the BP oil spill is to have the transparency-challenged Obama administration take over the company — through a “temporary receivership.” Banking. Auto manufacturing. Health care. Now oil. There’s no such thing as a “temporary” government power grab, let alone a “temporary receivership” in the hands of Team Obama control freaks: [Reich]: It’s time for the federal government to put BP under temporary receivership, which gives the government authority to take over BP’s operations in the Gulf of Mexico until the gusher is stopped. This is the only way the public know what’s going on, be confident enough resources are being put to stopping the gusher, ensure BP’s strategy is correct, know the government has enough clout to force BP to use a different one if necessary, and be sure the President is ultimately in charge. See: http://michellemalkin.com/2010/06/01/robert-reich-to-obama-nationalize-bp/ 4) Side Effects: Obamacare Creates a Costly Drop in Employer Health Coverage The President repeatedly promised that if you liked your health plan, you would be able to keep it. Nothing would change. Fat chance. In fact, millions of Americans of Americans will lose or be transitioned out of their existing employer based health insurance. The official Actuary at HHS- who doesn’t speak for the Administration- said it would be 14 million. But a new report by former Director of the Congressional Budget Office Douglas Holtz-Eakin predicts it could be as high as 35 million. That kind of disruption comes at a high price: It’ll cost taxpayers nearly $1 trillion more than previously estimated. Why? Because Obamacare calls for lavish subsidies to help low- and middle-income Americans buy health insurance. Indeed, households earning up to four times the federal poverty level are eligible for subsidies. According to 2008 Census data, some 127 million Americans would qualify. Yet the official CBO analysis of Obamacare estimated only 19 million would get subsidies. Why did CBO think the other 108 eligibles wouldn’t ask for “free” federal money? Because Congress added a “firewall” provision: You can’t get a subsidy unless you have no employer-sponsored coverage, or your contribution toward employer-based coverage exceeds 9.8 percent of your income. But this firewall is flimsy. The inducement Obamacare gives employers to keep providing generous health coverage is the threat of slapping them with a $2,000 per employee penalty if they drop coverage. …The employer gets to dump expensive federally mandated health coverage, and the employee, who may have liked that coverage, still gets a pay raise. The only big loser is the employer and employee who happens to be a taxpayer. The feds will have to dole out subsidies to even middle class families whose employers drop coverage due to the programs perverse incentives. After crunching the numbers, Holtz-Eakin and Smith concluded that as many as 35 million could lose employer-sponsored coverage, bringing the price tag of the subsidies from a” measly” $450 billion to about $1.4 trillion. Have a nice day. See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/02/side-effects-obamacare-creates-a-costly-drop-in-employer-health-coverage 5) Hispanic Caucus wants Napolitano to cut ties with Arizona police Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) have called on the Department of Homeland Security to sever its ties with Arizona police in response to the state's new immigration enforcement law. Calling Arizona's recently-enacted law requiring police to question and verify the citizenship of anyone they reasonably suspect to be an illegal immigrant "appaling," three leaders of the Hispanic Caucus wrote Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to demand the termination of its immigration-enforcement partnerships with law enforcement entities in the state. “The federal government should not be an accessory to the unconstitutional actions of the Arizona state government,” Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.) said in a statement. “By continuing to work with Arizona police departments operating under SB 1070, the Department is implicitly condoning the shameful tactics authorized by the new law." Roybal-Allard was joined in signing the letter by CHC Chairwoman Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.) and Immigration Task Force Chairman Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.). UNBELIEVABLE! See: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/100887-hispanic-caucus-wants-homeland-security-to-sever-ties-with-ariz-police 6) Pelosi Says She Has a Duty to Pursue Policies in Keeping With The Values of Jesus, 'The Word Made Flesh' (CNSNews.com) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says she believes she must pursue public policies "in keeping with the values" of Jesus Christ, "The Word made Flesh." Pelosi, who is a Catholic and who favors legalized abortion, voted against the ban on partial-birth abortion that was enacted into law in 2003 (emphasis mine). At a May 6 Catholic Community Conference on Capitol Hill, the speaker said: “They ask me all the time, ‘What is your favorite this? What is your favorite that? What is your favorite that?’ And one time, ‘What is your favorite word?’ And I said, ‘My favorite word? That is really easy. My favorite word is the Word, is the Word. And that is everything. It says it all for us. And you know the biblical reference, you know the Gospel reference of the Word.” “And that Word," Pelosi said, "is, we have to give voice to what that means in terms of public policy that would be in keeping with the values of the Word. The Word. Isn’t it a beautiful word when you think of it? It just covers everything. The Word. “Fill it in with anything you want. But, of course, we know it means: ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us.’ And that’s the great mystery of our faith. He will come again. He will come again. So, we have to make sure we’re prepared to answer in this life, or otherwise, as to how we have measured up.” See: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/66208 Luke 6:46: "Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? Matthew 7:15-23: "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" 7) Our World: Ending Israel's losing streak …The reality is simple and stark. Israel is the target of a massive information war, unprecedented in scale and scope (emphasis mine). This war is being waged primarily by a massive consortium of the international Left and the Arab and Islamic worlds. The staggering scale of the forces aligned against us (emphasis mine) is demonstrated by two things. The Hamas abetting Free Gaza Web site published a list of some 222 organizations that endorsed the terror-supporting flotilla. The listed organizations from the four corners of the earth include Jewish anti-Israel groups as well as Christian, Islamic and nonreligious anti-Israel groups. It is hard to think of any cause other than Israel-bashing that could unite such disparate forces. The second indicator of the scope of the war is far more devastating than the list of groups that endorsed the pro-Hamas flotilla. That indicator is the fact that at the UN on Friday, 189 governments came together as one to savage Israel. There is no other issue that commands such unanimity. The NPT review conference demonstrated that the only way the international community will agree on anything is if its members are agreeing that Israel has no right to defend itself. The conference’s campaign against Israel shows that the 222 organizations supporting Hamas are a reflection of the will of the majority of the nations of the world (emphases mine). …The red-green alliance’s aims are twofold. It seeks to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist and it seeks to make it impossible for Israel to defend itself. If these aims are met, Israel’s destruction will become an inevitability. UNTIL US President Barack Obama took office, Israel’s one steady asset in this war was the US (emphasis mine). Until last year, the US consistently refused to join the red-green alliance because its leaders recognized that the alliance’s campaign was part and parcel of its campaign against US superpower status. Indeed, some US leaders recognized that the alliance’s animus toward Israel stemmed from the same source as its rejection of American exceptionalism. Dismally, what the US’s vote in favor of the NPT review conference’s final anti-Israel (and by default pro-Iranian) resolution makes clear is that under Obama, the US is no longer Israel’s reliable ally (emphasis mine). Indeed, what the US’s vote shows is that the Obama administration’s ideological preferences place it on the side of the red-green alliance. No amount of backpedalling by the Obama administration can make up the damage caused by its act of belligerence. See: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=177082 BEWARE AMERICA! Because, when you unite against Israel, you touch the apple of His eye (Zechariah 2:8b). It will not go well for you; indeed it will not go well for you when you support a president who HATES Israel and America and the ideals for which they stand. The world and its system, under the prince of the power of the air, are uniting against God's chosen people. And one day, perhaps not so far in the distant future, all the armies of the world will surround Jerusalem. Zechariah 14:2-5: I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city. Then the LORD will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights in the day of battle (emphasis mine). On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south. You will flee by my mountain valley, for it will extend to Azel. You will flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the LORD my God will come, and all the holy ones with him. Luke 21:20: “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near.” 7a) Sarah Palin: Israeli Flotilla: Don’t Take Mainstream Media Coverage at Face Value As far too many in the media, and in various governments, rush to condemn Israel, we must put the recent events off Israel’s coast into the right perspective. This “relief” convoy was not about humanitarian aid, as the liberal mainstream media keeps reporting. The whole operation was designed to provoke Israel, not to provide supplies to Palestinians held hostage by Hamas terrorists in Gaza. Anyone who sees the video of Israeli commandos being attacked as they land on that ship knows the people aboard were vicious thugs, not “peace activists.” The media insults our intelligence with their outright mischaracterization of who these enemies are. Israel delivers thousands of tons of humanitarian supplies every week to Gaza. These ships could have offloaded their cargoes at a nearby Israeli port if they really wanted to help the people of Gaza. Instead, they chose to incite confrontation and violence. Israel has a right to prevent arms shipments to Gaza that will be used to target innocent Israelis, so they were legitimately checking the cargo on the flotilla. Turkey has chosen to condemn Israel but we should be asking some serious questions about Turkey’s role in this whole affair. Why is a fellow member of NATO sponsoring such a dangerous publicity stunt? As one expert points out: “Three ships of that six-ship pro-terror convoy flew Turkish flags and were crowded with Turkish citizens. The Ankara government – led by Islamists these days – sponsored the ‘aid’ operation in a move to position itself as the new champion of the Palestinians. And Turkish decision-makers knew Israel would have to react – and were waiting to exploit the inevitable clash. The provocation was as cynical as it was carefully orchestrated.” See: http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/israeli-flotilla-dont-take-mainstream-media-coverage-at-face-value/394980903434 7b) IDF: Global Jihad links on flotilla Dozens of passengers who were aboard the Mavi Marmara Turkish passenger ship are suspected of having connections with global jihad-affiliated terrorist organizations, defense officials said on Tuesday, amid growing concerns that Turkish warships would accompany a future flotilla to the Gaza Strip. According to the defense officials, the IDF has identified about 50 passengers on the ship who could have terrorist connections with global jihad-affiliated groups. See: http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177169 8) Iran Caught Cheating Again: Pyroprocessing for Pyromaniacs? Diplomats based in Vienna leaked some interesting news on Friday: IAEA nuclear inspectors have discovered that Iran has removed equipment that was the focus of an investigation into experiments to advance Iran’s clandestine nuclear weapons program. The inspectors are concerned that the Iranians may be involved in yet another cover-up: “At issue is pyroprocessing, a procedure that can be used to purify uranium metal used in nuclear warheads. Iran in January confirmed to the agency that it had carried out pyroprocessing experiments, prompting a request from the nuclear agency for more information — but then backtracked in March in comments at a closed meeting of the IAEA’s governing board.” This sudden about-face by Tehran is one more example of Iran’s deceitful nuclear diplomacy, which involves repeated promises of full cooperation (to defuse momentum for new sanctions) followed by the willful withholding of information, denial, deception and outright lies. See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/05/31/iran-caught-cheating-again-pyroprocessing-for-pyromaniacs