Is there finally going to be a more centrist candidate in the presidential office of Iran? Only time will tell but at this point things are not looking good for Ahmadinejad. A new "president" in Iran could spell better relations between Tehran and the US. Ahmadinejad has long denied the Holocaust and the repeated calls to wipe Israel off the map has made it impossible for relations with countries that are not radical.
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's supreme leader publicly rebuked the president over his removal of a top official, a rare show of discontent with the hard-line Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by the country's most powerful figure.
The flap centered around control of a body that organizes the annual hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, traditionally part of responsibilities under supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's vast powers. Khameini overturned the government's removal of the head of the organization.
The rebuke, issued in the press on Monday, comes at a time when Iranians are watching carefully for any sign as to whether Khamenei's support for Ahmadinejad is weakening as the president faces a tough battle for a second term in June 12 elections. Khameini's backing is important for any presidential candidate to win.
But given Iran's notoriously murky politics, it is hard to gauge where Khameini stands. The supreme leader has overruled Ahmadinejad at times in the past, only to later reaffirm his strong support for the president.
Some have seen other signs of weakening support. In March, the supreme leader said his stance is to support the president in power. But he also said that position was not connected to the elections and that he does not tell anyone who to vote for.
Ahmadinejad faces a strong challenge in the elections from reformists, who call for greater freedoms at home and better relations with the West. At the same time, Ahmadinejad's popularity has fallen among some in his conservative base, mainly because of the country's economic woes. His critics also accuse him of hurting Iran by his insistence on pursuing a nuclear program the West suspects is aimed at producing weapons and by denying the Holocaust.
Khamenei holds ultimate power in Iran, at the top of the Muslim clerical hierarchy above elected figures such as the president. If his support for Ahmadinejad is clear, then it would likely rally conservatives behind the president. If not, conservatives could take it as a signal to back an alternative candidate.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Specter Is A True Democrat
Specter decided he would follow in the footsteps of democrats like Joe Biden, Obama, and Kerry and say something really stupid on national TV. I think it is a requirement to be in the Democratic party. If you are unable to stay stupid stuff you are not allowed! Now if Specter were still a RINO he would have been blasted by everyone in the media.
Jack Kemp would still be alive if the federal government had done a better job funding cancer research, Sen. Arlen Specter said Sunday, one day after Kemp, the 1996 Republican vice presidential nominee and former congressman, died of cancer.
The Pennsylvania senator, who last week switched his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat, made the claim on two Sunday shows.
On CBS' "Face the Nation," Specter suggested that one of the reasons he left the GOP was because it did not share his interest in funding medical research.
"Frankly, I was disappointed that the Republican Party didn't want me as their candidate. But as a matter of principle, I'm becoming much more comfortable with the Democrats' approach," Specter said. "And one of the items that I'm working on ... is funding for medical research. I've been the spear carrier to increase medical research."
Specter added: "If we had pursued what President Nixon declared in 1970 as the war on cancer, we would have cured many strains. I think Jack Kemp would be alive today. And that research has saved or prolonged many lives, including mine."
Specter has been treated for Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymphatic system. Through his Web site, specterforthecure.com, the senator has called for more federal resources and funding to be directed toward medical research.
Specter on Sunday touted his record of increasing funding for research for the National Institutes of Health. His Web site details the strides he's made -- "doubling the nation's health research budget" and helping include funding for the NIH in the stimulus bill.
But his claims about Nixon's "war on cancer" and Kemp, the former Buffalo Bills MVP who died of an undisclosed cancer after a lengthy illness, raised eyebrows -- since the government has devoted billions to cancer research since Nixon's call in 1971 for a campaign to find a cancer cure.
The National Cancer Institute had a $4.8 billion budget in fiscal 2008. Since the early '70s, the National Cancer Institute's budgets have totaled more than $80 billion, according to historical budget statistics.
"We are spending more money on cancer research -- public and private -- than President Nixon ever dreamed," said one column critical of Specter's comments on The American Thinker blog.
In a statement to FOXNews.com, the American Cancer Society's chief medical officer said there's "room for more progress" but noted the achievements researchers have made in past decades in the areas of cancer prevention and treatment.
Courtesy of www.foxnews.com
Jack Kemp would still be alive if the federal government had done a better job funding cancer research, Sen. Arlen Specter said Sunday, one day after Kemp, the 1996 Republican vice presidential nominee and former congressman, died of cancer.
The Pennsylvania senator, who last week switched his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat, made the claim on two Sunday shows.
On CBS' "Face the Nation," Specter suggested that one of the reasons he left the GOP was because it did not share his interest in funding medical research.
"Frankly, I was disappointed that the Republican Party didn't want me as their candidate. But as a matter of principle, I'm becoming much more comfortable with the Democrats' approach," Specter said. "And one of the items that I'm working on ... is funding for medical research. I've been the spear carrier to increase medical research."
Specter added: "If we had pursued what President Nixon declared in 1970 as the war on cancer, we would have cured many strains. I think Jack Kemp would be alive today. And that research has saved or prolonged many lives, including mine."
Specter has been treated for Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymphatic system. Through his Web site, specterforthecure.com, the senator has called for more federal resources and funding to be directed toward medical research.
Specter on Sunday touted his record of increasing funding for research for the National Institutes of Health. His Web site details the strides he's made -- "doubling the nation's health research budget" and helping include funding for the NIH in the stimulus bill.
But his claims about Nixon's "war on cancer" and Kemp, the former Buffalo Bills MVP who died of an undisclosed cancer after a lengthy illness, raised eyebrows -- since the government has devoted billions to cancer research since Nixon's call in 1971 for a campaign to find a cancer cure.
The National Cancer Institute had a $4.8 billion budget in fiscal 2008. Since the early '70s, the National Cancer Institute's budgets have totaled more than $80 billion, according to historical budget statistics.
"We are spending more money on cancer research -- public and private -- than President Nixon ever dreamed," said one column critical of Specter's comments on The American Thinker blog.
In a statement to FOXNews.com, the American Cancer Society's chief medical officer said there's "room for more progress" but noted the achievements researchers have made in past decades in the areas of cancer prevention and treatment.
Courtesy of www.foxnews.com
Letter From Senator Kaufman
May 4, 2009
I was unfortunate enough to receive another form letter from Senator Kaufman. This is evident that he does not read the letters that are sent in because in my letter to him I insisted he either send me a self crafted response or no response at all. I will be doing everything I can to ensure this clown does not get elected the first time he runs because unfortunately the peoples of Delaware did not have the option to voice their opinion on Kaufman being a senator.
Dear Mr. James:
Thank you for writing me in regard to the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2010. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
Our federal budget is a general statement of priorities. Every budget, whether that of a family or of the United States government, reflects difficult choices and this year's choices are made more difficult because of the economic situation that the country is in today.
This budget reflects two realities. We must first deal with the deep, inherited troubles of the current crisis and then lay the groundwork for our future success. This budget responds to the severe economic circumstances with emergency action and makes strategic investments to build a stronger future.
As you may already know, the Congress recently passed its budget with my support. I was proud to support this crucial blueprint because it provides for tax cuts to the middle class and putting people back to work. It will allow us to make college more affordable, health care more accessible, and fund research and development of domestic renewable energy sources which will create new industries, jobs, products, and improve our energy independence and security.
At this stage in the formulation of the budget, dollar amounts involved are assigned to broad categories that will become more specific through later legislation. You can be sure that I welcome your input as the Senate continues to work through this crucial process.
Thank you, again, for contacting me. I hope you continue to keep in touch on matters of importance to you.
Sincerely,
Edward E. Kaufman
United States Senator
I was unfortunate enough to receive another form letter from Senator Kaufman. This is evident that he does not read the letters that are sent in because in my letter to him I insisted he either send me a self crafted response or no response at all. I will be doing everything I can to ensure this clown does not get elected the first time he runs because unfortunately the peoples of Delaware did not have the option to voice their opinion on Kaufman being a senator.
Dear Mr. James:
Thank you for writing me in regard to the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2010. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
Our federal budget is a general statement of priorities. Every budget, whether that of a family or of the United States government, reflects difficult choices and this year's choices are made more difficult because of the economic situation that the country is in today.
This budget reflects two realities. We must first deal with the deep, inherited troubles of the current crisis and then lay the groundwork for our future success. This budget responds to the severe economic circumstances with emergency action and makes strategic investments to build a stronger future.
As you may already know, the Congress recently passed its budget with my support. I was proud to support this crucial blueprint because it provides for tax cuts to the middle class and putting people back to work. It will allow us to make college more affordable, health care more accessible, and fund research and development of domestic renewable energy sources which will create new industries, jobs, products, and improve our energy independence and security.
At this stage in the formulation of the budget, dollar amounts involved are assigned to broad categories that will become more specific through later legislation. You can be sure that I welcome your input as the Senate continues to work through this crucial process.
Thank you, again, for contacting me. I hope you continue to keep in touch on matters of importance to you.
Sincerely,
Edward E. Kaufman
United States Senator
Daily Constitution Reading 5-4-2009
Article 1 Section 9.1
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Constitution Reading Of The Day 4-30-2009
Article 6 Section 1
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Delmarva Sign
This picture was taken on Delmarva. I doctored it up a little to protect the identity of the business that posted it. They are not ashamed of it but it is not my place to put their name out there.
Hate Crime Prevention Act 2009
Here goes our buddy Congressman Castle again off on a liberal tangent. It is when he does things like this that I hope he resigns his house seat and runs for Bidens seat, and loses. Castle has a very "Specteress" voting record. You never really know where he is going to come down. The GOP in Delaware is just so happy to have a "Republican" as out lone congressman because the state is so ridiculously blue they allow him to do as he pleases without any resistance. Personally I would rather have an admitted Democrat in that seat so we could run a strong conservative against him.
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 has just passed its first test to becoming law. The Act has added sexual orientation to it's protection. Meaning it could be understood to place pastors in violation of the law and arrested if they preach or teach the Bible on Romans 1 or other related texts. Delaware Congressman Mike Castle is one of the sponsors of this bill. Has anyone heard anything different on this Congressional Bill and Castle's support?
Family Research Counsel
http://www.frc.org/
Hate Crimes legislation in the House
The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark-up the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. The enactment of so-called "hate crimes" legislation is a long stated objective of the homosexual agenda. The act, H.R. 1913, would establish a new FEDERAL offense for so-called "hate crimes" and add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" as protected classes. It will mandate a separate federal criminal prosecution for state offenses. Adding "sexual orientation" to thought crimes legislation gives one set of crime victims a higher level of protection than it gives to others. All people deserve to be protected from crime, and equal protection under the law means equal protection for ALL. In a hearing on this legislation last Congress, Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) admitted that under the legislation pastors could be arrested for hate crimes based on what they teach and preach, which is certainly a violation of free speech and an example of unfair treatment under the law.
See the bill HERE
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 has just passed its first test to becoming law. The Act has added sexual orientation to it's protection. Meaning it could be understood to place pastors in violation of the law and arrested if they preach or teach the Bible on Romans 1 or other related texts. Delaware Congressman Mike Castle is one of the sponsors of this bill. Has anyone heard anything different on this Congressional Bill and Castle's support?
Family Research Counsel
http://www.frc.org/
Hate Crimes legislation in the House
The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark-up the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. The enactment of so-called "hate crimes" legislation is a long stated objective of the homosexual agenda. The act, H.R. 1913, would establish a new FEDERAL offense for so-called "hate crimes" and add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" as protected classes. It will mandate a separate federal criminal prosecution for state offenses. Adding "sexual orientation" to thought crimes legislation gives one set of crime victims a higher level of protection than it gives to others. All people deserve to be protected from crime, and equal protection under the law means equal protection for ALL. In a hearing on this legislation last Congress, Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) admitted that under the legislation pastors could be arrested for hate crimes based on what they teach and preach, which is certainly a violation of free speech and an example of unfair treatment under the law.
See the bill HERE
Constitution Reading Of The Day 4-29-2009
Article 5 Section 1
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Marines Reaction To Two Different Presidents
This is utterly amazing. I knew how the service men and women felt about Bush and assumed they were much less "friendly" to Obama but this is staggering.
Specter Admits Hes A Liberal
Well not exactly but he has decided to run as a Democrat in the upcoming primary. I personally am happy to see him go. This is the coward thing to do but wish he would have done it long ago. No matter what party he decides to associate with he is going to loose.
Republican voters had sent him to the Senate five times. But faced with the prospect of a strong challenge from conservative Pat Toomey in the GOP primary and the state trending Democratic, Specter jumped ship.
The switch puts Democrats within one vote of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Democrats currently hold 56 seats in the Senate, and two independents typically vote with the party. Republicans have 41 seats, and there is one vacancy.
Democrats will reach the magical number of 60 if Al Franken, who has been entangled in a protracted court battle with incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman, is seated in Minnesota.
Specter was facing a tough primary challenge from Pat Toomey, head of the conservative Club for Growth, who almost defeated Specter in a 2004 GOP primary.
Reaction from Republicans was swift and harsh.
"I regret his decision," Sen. John McCain said.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said some Republicans are happy about this, but he isn't.
"Let's be honest -- Sen. Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind," he said in a statement. "He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record.
"Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don't do it first."
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told FOX News that Specter's decision puts a lot of red state Democrats, who campaigned on conservative credentials, under a lot of pressure to step up.
"They may be the only thing that can stop this radical liberal agenda," he said. "The big loser could be the red state Democrats."
Graham added, "Everyone switches parties when you know you're going to lose."
Good riddance you liberal piece of garbage. The great people of Pennsylvania will vote your sorry self out and the American people will be better for it.
Republican voters had sent him to the Senate five times. But faced with the prospect of a strong challenge from conservative Pat Toomey in the GOP primary and the state trending Democratic, Specter jumped ship.
The switch puts Democrats within one vote of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Democrats currently hold 56 seats in the Senate, and two independents typically vote with the party. Republicans have 41 seats, and there is one vacancy.
Democrats will reach the magical number of 60 if Al Franken, who has been entangled in a protracted court battle with incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman, is seated in Minnesota.
Specter was facing a tough primary challenge from Pat Toomey, head of the conservative Club for Growth, who almost defeated Specter in a 2004 GOP primary.
Reaction from Republicans was swift and harsh.
"I regret his decision," Sen. John McCain said.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said some Republicans are happy about this, but he isn't.
"Let's be honest -- Sen. Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind," he said in a statement. "He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record.
"Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don't do it first."
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told FOX News that Specter's decision puts a lot of red state Democrats, who campaigned on conservative credentials, under a lot of pressure to step up.
"They may be the only thing that can stop this radical liberal agenda," he said. "The big loser could be the red state Democrats."
Graham added, "Everyone switches parties when you know you're going to lose."
Good riddance you liberal piece of garbage. The great people of Pennsylvania will vote your sorry self out and the American people will be better for it.
White House Apologizes For NYC Scare
Once again this arrogant administration has done something stupid. Yesterday the plane that bares the call sign "Air Force One" when the president is on board did a low fly over, with an F-16 in trail, of New York City.
The White House said they often update photos of Air Force One over national landmarks. They also said the FAA was notified.
"I'm annoyed -- furious is a better word -- that I wasn't told," said New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg at a news conference. A junior aide in the mayors office was informed of the flyover the night before but was told to keep it quiet by the FAA.
The stunt caused panic among many residents and workers. Buildings were evacuated and people were seen running down the street screaming. Fearing the worst, thousands of people streamed out of the skyscrapers and into the streets. Some buildings ordered evacuations. "Oh God, it was mayhem in here, just mayhem," says Rubin Shimon, manager of Styling Haircutters, a barbershop near Ground Zero. Many people took shelter in the shop to call loved ones on their cellphones.
The administration should be ashamed of themselves. This is one of the most insensitive things an administration could do. The residents of NYC that were present during the events of 9-11 have reason to be furious and scared.
SHAMEFUL!
The White House said they often update photos of Air Force One over national landmarks. They also said the FAA was notified.
"I'm annoyed -- furious is a better word -- that I wasn't told," said New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg at a news conference. A junior aide in the mayors office was informed of the flyover the night before but was told to keep it quiet by the FAA.
The stunt caused panic among many residents and workers. Buildings were evacuated and people were seen running down the street screaming. Fearing the worst, thousands of people streamed out of the skyscrapers and into the streets. Some buildings ordered evacuations. "Oh God, it was mayhem in here, just mayhem," says Rubin Shimon, manager of Styling Haircutters, a barbershop near Ground Zero. Many people took shelter in the shop to call loved ones on their cellphones.
The administration should be ashamed of themselves. This is one of the most insensitive things an administration could do. The residents of NYC that were present during the events of 9-11 have reason to be furious and scared.
SHAMEFUL!
Constitution Reading Of The Day 4-28-2009
Article 4 Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Second Amendment Supporters
I was browsing the web this morning and ran across the document below. It just goes to show not all republicans are interested in preserving your second amendment rights.
Click HERE for the document.
Click HERE for the document.
Trophy Rock Fish Season
I know this is supposed to be a political blog but this time of the year I spend a lot of time on the water fishing for trophy rock fish. The season has been open for a week and after many hours spent on the water catching nothing I finally was able to land a couple of trophy's.
Constitution Reading Of The Day 4-27-2009
Article 4 Section 3
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Obama Is Not Playing Nice?
There are not really people that are surprised this president, the most radical liberal ever to be elected, would not honor his promise of bipartisanship is there? The Republicans that have voted with the Democrats since this radical took office should be voted out of office as soon as their current term expires.
Mark your calendar: April 21, 2009. That's when the Era of Bipartisanship died.
That's what some Republicans suggested after President Obama opened the possibility of a congressional investigation and prosecution of Justice Department lawyers who authorized "enhanced" interrogation techniques on terror suspects during the Bush administration.
If the coffin needs a final nail, it will come if Democrats decide to fast-track Obama's legislative priorities through a budget maneuver known as "reconciliation."
Democrats in the House and Senate agreed Friday on a budget framework that would protect Obama's health care plan from a Republican filibuster using the tactic.
Republicans and some Democrats oppose reconciliation because it would prevent a long debate on what they consider complex issues.
Bipartisanship was already on life support after Republicans largely opposed the president's economic policies, and it took a turn for the worse on Tuesday when Obama said it would be up to his attorney general to determine whether "those who formulated those legal decisions" behind the interrogation methods should be prosecuted.
Those methods, described in Bush-era memos Obama released last week, included tactics such as slamming detainees against walls and subjecting them to a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding.
Obama acknowledged the complexities involved with prosecuting Bush officials.
"As a general deal, I think that we should be looking forward and not backwards," he said. "I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our ability to carry out national security operations."
He suggested that Congress might set up a bipartisan review, outside its typical hearings, if it wants a "further accounting" of what happened during the period when the interrogation methods were authorized. His press secretary later said the independent Sept. 11 Commission, which investigated and then reported on the terror attacks of 2001, might be a model.
But at a closed-door bipartisan meeting with congressional leaders Thursday, Obama reportedly resisted pressure from Democrats to probe Bush officials. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told Obama she wants a "Truth Commission" to investigate the interrogation policies -- an option that several congressional Democrats support.
But Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., apparently didn't embrace the idea.
Obama also addressed the "reconciliation" procedure at the meeting, saying it may be used as "a last resort" on health care reform legislation.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., warned the president that "reconciliation" would cause serious problems and hamper bipartisan cooperation, GOP aides told FOX News.
But some Republican leaders haven't given up on achieving bipartisanship.
House GOP leaders wrote Obama a letter dated April 22, detailing the policy proposals they wish to work with him on, including tax cuts for businesses and families and tax breaks for homeowners and potential homebuyers.
"We believe that if Washington can put aside petty politics and unite for the good of the American people, we can accomplish great things," the letter read. "Unfortunately, there has been a sad lack of bipartisanship. This lack of bipartisanship has been a major detriment to your stated desire to change the way that Washington works."
Republicans blamed Democrats for the lack of bipartisanship.
"Democratic leaders in Congress have so far ignored your call for a new era of bipartisanship in Washington," they wrote, claiming Democrats have not engaged in dialogue with them on legislation. "However the next 100 days can be different."
FOX News' Carl Cameron and Trish Turner and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Mark your calendar: April 21, 2009. That's when the Era of Bipartisanship died.
That's what some Republicans suggested after President Obama opened the possibility of a congressional investigation and prosecution of Justice Department lawyers who authorized "enhanced" interrogation techniques on terror suspects during the Bush administration.
If the coffin needs a final nail, it will come if Democrats decide to fast-track Obama's legislative priorities through a budget maneuver known as "reconciliation."
Democrats in the House and Senate agreed Friday on a budget framework that would protect Obama's health care plan from a Republican filibuster using the tactic.
Republicans and some Democrats oppose reconciliation because it would prevent a long debate on what they consider complex issues.
Bipartisanship was already on life support after Republicans largely opposed the president's economic policies, and it took a turn for the worse on Tuesday when Obama said it would be up to his attorney general to determine whether "those who formulated those legal decisions" behind the interrogation methods should be prosecuted.
Those methods, described in Bush-era memos Obama released last week, included tactics such as slamming detainees against walls and subjecting them to a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding.
Obama acknowledged the complexities involved with prosecuting Bush officials.
"As a general deal, I think that we should be looking forward and not backwards," he said. "I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our ability to carry out national security operations."
He suggested that Congress might set up a bipartisan review, outside its typical hearings, if it wants a "further accounting" of what happened during the period when the interrogation methods were authorized. His press secretary later said the independent Sept. 11 Commission, which investigated and then reported on the terror attacks of 2001, might be a model.
But at a closed-door bipartisan meeting with congressional leaders Thursday, Obama reportedly resisted pressure from Democrats to probe Bush officials. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told Obama she wants a "Truth Commission" to investigate the interrogation policies -- an option that several congressional Democrats support.
But Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., apparently didn't embrace the idea.
Obama also addressed the "reconciliation" procedure at the meeting, saying it may be used as "a last resort" on health care reform legislation.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., warned the president that "reconciliation" would cause serious problems and hamper bipartisan cooperation, GOP aides told FOX News.
But some Republican leaders haven't given up on achieving bipartisanship.
House GOP leaders wrote Obama a letter dated April 22, detailing the policy proposals they wish to work with him on, including tax cuts for businesses and families and tax breaks for homeowners and potential homebuyers.
"We believe that if Washington can put aside petty politics and unite for the good of the American people, we can accomplish great things," the letter read. "Unfortunately, there has been a sad lack of bipartisanship. This lack of bipartisanship has been a major detriment to your stated desire to change the way that Washington works."
Republicans blamed Democrats for the lack of bipartisanship.
"Democratic leaders in Congress have so far ignored your call for a new era of bipartisanship in Washington," they wrote, claiming Democrats have not engaged in dialogue with them on legislation. "However the next 100 days can be different."
FOX News' Carl Cameron and Trish Turner and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Pelosi Is A LIAR!
Pelosi is a liar! I don't typically start a story with such harsh allegations but this creature is will say anything to get reelected and get the heat off her back. She knew of the interrogation techniques and anyone who does not believe she does is an idiot. I hope the citizens of her district wake up and vote this crazy ding bat out of office. I hope whoever runs against her plasters the television and newspapers with the story of her husband and American Samoa. She is a crook right along with Feinstein.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she was never told during a congressional briefing in 2002 that waterboarding or other "enhanced" interrogation techniques were being used on terrorism suspects.
But in a story published in the Washington Post in December 2007, two officials were quoted saying that the California Democrat and three other lawmakers had received an hour-long secret briefing on the interrogation tactics, including waterboarding, and that they raised no objections at the time.
The clash of accounts has stirred Republican claims that Democrats have selective and politically motivated amnesia when it comes to who knew what, and when, about the Bush-era interrogation programs.
"I saw a partial list of the number of members of the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, who were briefed on these interrogation methods, and not a word was raised at the time, not one word," House Minority Leader John Boehner said Thursday.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., is seeking a detailed list of all lawmakers who were briefed on the tactics. Republicans are drawing attention to the briefings to challenge Democrats who now say they are open to investigating, and possibly prosecuting, officials and lawyers involved in the drafting of the harsh interrogation techniques.
Pelosi is among those lawmakers who want an independent commission established to probe the evolution of the policies -- but it's still unclear what she knew early on in the Bush administration.
Asked about the briefings on Thursday, Pelosi said: "We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used."
But she also did not explicitly say that waterboarding was not part of the conversation. She indicated instead that any discussion they may have had was hypothetical.
"What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel ... opinions, that they could be used, but not that they would," she said.
Pelosi indicated the briefings could have been incomplete, saying: "We only know what they choose to tell us, and the manner and timing which they tell us."
The Post article noted that strict rules during the secret briefings prohibit lawmakers from taking notes or consulting with legal experts, hindering the lawmakers' ability to challenge what they are being told -- in this case, about interrogation tactics.
But that doesn't mean they can't ask critical questions.
Pelosi indicated Thursday she's being hamstrung from fully addressing the briefing, and publicly questioning the tactics described in it, because it was secret.
"It's very interesting that people are talking so freely," Pelosi said.
Story courtesy of www.foxnews.com
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she was never told during a congressional briefing in 2002 that waterboarding or other "enhanced" interrogation techniques were being used on terrorism suspects.
But in a story published in the Washington Post in December 2007, two officials were quoted saying that the California Democrat and three other lawmakers had received an hour-long secret briefing on the interrogation tactics, including waterboarding, and that they raised no objections at the time.
The clash of accounts has stirred Republican claims that Democrats have selective and politically motivated amnesia when it comes to who knew what, and when, about the Bush-era interrogation programs.
"I saw a partial list of the number of members of the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, who were briefed on these interrogation methods, and not a word was raised at the time, not one word," House Minority Leader John Boehner said Thursday.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., is seeking a detailed list of all lawmakers who were briefed on the tactics. Republicans are drawing attention to the briefings to challenge Democrats who now say they are open to investigating, and possibly prosecuting, officials and lawyers involved in the drafting of the harsh interrogation techniques.
Pelosi is among those lawmakers who want an independent commission established to probe the evolution of the policies -- but it's still unclear what she knew early on in the Bush administration.
Asked about the briefings on Thursday, Pelosi said: "We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used."
But she also did not explicitly say that waterboarding was not part of the conversation. She indicated instead that any discussion they may have had was hypothetical.
"What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel ... opinions, that they could be used, but not that they would," she said.
Pelosi indicated the briefings could have been incomplete, saying: "We only know what they choose to tell us, and the manner and timing which they tell us."
The Post article noted that strict rules during the secret briefings prohibit lawmakers from taking notes or consulting with legal experts, hindering the lawmakers' ability to challenge what they are being told -- in this case, about interrogation tactics.
But that doesn't mean they can't ask critical questions.
Pelosi indicated Thursday she's being hamstrung from fully addressing the briefing, and publicly questioning the tactics described in it, because it was secret.
"It's very interesting that people are talking so freely," Pelosi said.
Story courtesy of www.foxnews.com
Constitution Reading Of The Day 4-24-2009
Article 3 Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Napolitano Is A Joke And A Clown
This lady is an idiot. Once again I will say if she were a Republican she would have been out of a job when the report was released. As if that were not enough she decided to blame our neighbors to the north for the 9-11 attacks. It is time for this lady to go back to New Mexico and lets get a competent person to fill the job.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is under fire for what critics see as a string of gaffes, with a small but vocal group of conservatives calling for her to step down.
The outrage continues to build over a report from her department that warned of the danger of right-wing "extremists," and singled out returning war veterans as susceptible to recruitment.
Napolitano expressed regret for the reference to veterans -- but she raised eyebrows again this week when she suggested that the Sept. 11 hijackers entered the United States through Canada, even though the 9/11 Commission determined they came to the United States from overseas.
"I don't know that the secretary understands the depth of the disruption that she's caused," Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, told FOX News on Thursday, referring to the report on extremist threats. "I think the appropriate thing to do is for her to step down and let's move on."
Conservatives made a stern call for her ouster Wednesday night on the House floor.
"Mr. President, fire that woman," said Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, complaining that Napolitano's comments on the controversial report were half-hearted. "To go on television and say your apology to be, 'I'm sorry you were offended by this report,' that's no apology."
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., also said Napolitano's resignation is in order, and she should be brought before Congress for a hearing.
Napolitano on Thursday acknowledged the criticism and reiterated that the extremist report was "not well written" and should not have been released in that form. She said she would meet with the leadership of the American Legion on Friday over the reference to returning war veterans.
But she rebuffed those who say an apology is not enough.
"That's what they're going to get," Napolitano said.
She also corrected her statements on Canada, admitting that she falsely suggested Sept. 11 terrorists crossed over from Canada. "I knew the minute it came out of my mouth it was wrong," she said.
Napolitano first clarified her comments in a written statement that said: "I know that the September 11th hijackers did not come through Canada to the United States. There are other instances, however, when suspected terrorists have attempted to enter our country from Canada to the United States."
Her explanation was not so clear during the interview Monday with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that sparked the new controversy.
The secretary was asked to elaborate on comments about giving the Mexican and Canadian borders equal treatment, even though Canada is not experiencing a violent drug war.
"Yes, Canada is not Mexico, it doesn't have a drug war going on," she said. "Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it's been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there."
Napolitano was asked if she was referring to the Sept. 11 hijackers. She said: "Not just those but others as well."
This angered some Canadian officials, who called such claims an unfortunate "misconception" in media interviews.
The Canadian newspaper The National Post unleashed on Napolitano. One column called the interview a "train wreck." Another questioned how Napolitano could view the Canadian border as a "security threat on par" with Mexico's.
"Ms. Napolitano's brief interview with the CBC this week was confirmation we're dealing with an irrational senior U.S. official who can't differentiate between a secure border linking the world's largest trading partners and one that's a giant sucking sound for jobs going south and what's been described as an 'invasion' of desperate Mexicans illegally sneaking north," the column said.
Such criticism sprung in part from a speech Napolitano delivered last month at the Brookings Institution, in which she said "we shouldn't go light on one (border) and heavy on the other."
"If things are being done on the Mexican border, they should also be done on the Canadian border," she said. "This is one NAFTA, it's one area, it's one continent and there should be some parity there."
She said she intends to "visit myself" the Canadian border this spring or summer.
House Minority Leader John Boehner briefly addressed the criticism over Napolitano on Thursday.
"I think Secretary Napolitano has an awful lot of explaining to do," he said.
FOX News' Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is under fire for what critics see as a string of gaffes, with a small but vocal group of conservatives calling for her to step down.
The outrage continues to build over a report from her department that warned of the danger of right-wing "extremists," and singled out returning war veterans as susceptible to recruitment.
Napolitano expressed regret for the reference to veterans -- but she raised eyebrows again this week when she suggested that the Sept. 11 hijackers entered the United States through Canada, even though the 9/11 Commission determined they came to the United States from overseas.
"I don't know that the secretary understands the depth of the disruption that she's caused," Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, told FOX News on Thursday, referring to the report on extremist threats. "I think the appropriate thing to do is for her to step down and let's move on."
Conservatives made a stern call for her ouster Wednesday night on the House floor.
"Mr. President, fire that woman," said Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, complaining that Napolitano's comments on the controversial report were half-hearted. "To go on television and say your apology to be, 'I'm sorry you were offended by this report,' that's no apology."
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., also said Napolitano's resignation is in order, and she should be brought before Congress for a hearing.
Napolitano on Thursday acknowledged the criticism and reiterated that the extremist report was "not well written" and should not have been released in that form. She said she would meet with the leadership of the American Legion on Friday over the reference to returning war veterans.
But she rebuffed those who say an apology is not enough.
"That's what they're going to get," Napolitano said.
She also corrected her statements on Canada, admitting that she falsely suggested Sept. 11 terrorists crossed over from Canada. "I knew the minute it came out of my mouth it was wrong," she said.
Napolitano first clarified her comments in a written statement that said: "I know that the September 11th hijackers did not come through Canada to the United States. There are other instances, however, when suspected terrorists have attempted to enter our country from Canada to the United States."
Her explanation was not so clear during the interview Monday with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that sparked the new controversy.
The secretary was asked to elaborate on comments about giving the Mexican and Canadian borders equal treatment, even though Canada is not experiencing a violent drug war.
"Yes, Canada is not Mexico, it doesn't have a drug war going on," she said. "Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it's been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there."
Napolitano was asked if she was referring to the Sept. 11 hijackers. She said: "Not just those but others as well."
This angered some Canadian officials, who called such claims an unfortunate "misconception" in media interviews.
The Canadian newspaper The National Post unleashed on Napolitano. One column called the interview a "train wreck." Another questioned how Napolitano could view the Canadian border as a "security threat on par" with Mexico's.
"Ms. Napolitano's brief interview with the CBC this week was confirmation we're dealing with an irrational senior U.S. official who can't differentiate between a secure border linking the world's largest trading partners and one that's a giant sucking sound for jobs going south and what's been described as an 'invasion' of desperate Mexicans illegally sneaking north," the column said.
Such criticism sprung in part from a speech Napolitano delivered last month at the Brookings Institution, in which she said "we shouldn't go light on one (border) and heavy on the other."
"If things are being done on the Mexican border, they should also be done on the Canadian border," she said. "This is one NAFTA, it's one area, it's one continent and there should be some parity there."
She said she intends to "visit myself" the Canadian border this spring or summer.
House Minority Leader John Boehner briefly addressed the criticism over Napolitano on Thursday.
"I think Secretary Napolitano has an awful lot of explaining to do," he said.
FOX News' Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.
Congressional Dems Knew of "Torture"
Republicans, hoping to turn the tables on Democrats who are open to prosecuting Bush-era lawyers for justifying "enhanced" interrogation techniques, are seeking to reveal the names of those lawmakers who were briefed on the tactics as much as seven years ago.
FOX News has learned there were more than 30 meetings and briefings with members of Congress on the subject since 2002.
The first such briefing dealt with the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, the Al Qaeda operations chief who ran the training camps in Afghanistan where the Sept. 11 hijackers were trained. Sources said California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, now the speaker of the House, attended the meeting with then-Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla. (who later became CIA director), and she did not raise any objections.
The briefings were given to the chairmen and ranking members of the intelligence committees in the House and Senate until 2006. That could cover Sen. John Rockefeller, W.Va., and Rep. Jane Harman, Calif., both Democrats, as well as Sen. Pat Roberts, Kan., Sen. Lindsey Graham, S.C., Sen. Richard Shelby, Ala., and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, Mich., all Republicans.
Defenders of the interrogation program note that if Congress had wanted to kill the program, all it had to do was withhold funding, which didn't happen.
Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, has personally requested from Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair an unclassified list of names of all members of Congress who attended those briefings, complete with dates and locations.
He told FOXNews.com the list will probably show many members were briefed "early and often."
"The purpose of this, of course, is to underscore the fact that people in Congress knew or were aware of the program, its details, and they approved of this program and authorized its funding," said Jamal Ware, spokesman for Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee.
Republicans have criticized President Obama for opening the door to prosecuting Justice Department lawyers who drafted the so-called "torture memos," which authorized harsh interrogation methods, including waterboarding. But they've also raised the point that if Democrats pursue charges against the lawyers, they'd be shielding others involved in the interrogation program.
"They can't blame the politicians in Congress who approved these tactics in 2002 because these are their friends," Rep. Lamar Smith, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said in an e-mail. "So they're placing the blame on Bush administration officials, political appointees."
It's unclear how detailed the briefings with lawmakers on the interrogation programs were.
Pelosi said Thursday that at the briefing she attended, she was not told that waterboarding "or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods" were being used.
"What they did tell us is that they had some legislative council ... opinions that they could be used, but not that they would. And further, the point was that if and when they would be used, they would brief Congress at that time," she said.
Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday that he would follow the law with regard to the interrogation program.
A number of Democrats have defended the call for probes. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has been pushing for an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate.
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters Thursday that he will not throw his support behind any independent commission to look into Bush-era interrogation policy until the Senate Intelligence Committee has completed its review late this year.
"I think that's really the direction that I'm going to follow closely. I think the intelligence committee is a bipartisan committee. They will make a public report..And then I think it's appropriate to start talking about what we do with that information. But until we get that information, I think we would all be better off just relaxing, understanding how difficult this is," Reid said. "I think that we must get the information. It's spotty now, and I think that a few months waiting to determine the right way to go about this is certainly not going to hurt us."
While some aides back the idea of an independent, 9/11 Commission-style body to investigate, FOX News has learned that Obama opposes the idea.
Reid offered few details Thursday on the nature of the briefings with lawmakers, and said he doesn't remember specifically when he was briefed.
"Of course there were briefings on different subjects," he said. "I'm not going to get into all of this ... It's pretty clear that any time I had concerns, I raised them."
FOX News' Jim Angle and Trish Turner and FOXNews.com's Judson Berger contributed to this report.
FOX News has learned there were more than 30 meetings and briefings with members of Congress on the subject since 2002.
The first such briefing dealt with the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, the Al Qaeda operations chief who ran the training camps in Afghanistan where the Sept. 11 hijackers were trained. Sources said California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, now the speaker of the House, attended the meeting with then-Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla. (who later became CIA director), and she did not raise any objections.
The briefings were given to the chairmen and ranking members of the intelligence committees in the House and Senate until 2006. That could cover Sen. John Rockefeller, W.Va., and Rep. Jane Harman, Calif., both Democrats, as well as Sen. Pat Roberts, Kan., Sen. Lindsey Graham, S.C., Sen. Richard Shelby, Ala., and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, Mich., all Republicans.
Defenders of the interrogation program note that if Congress had wanted to kill the program, all it had to do was withhold funding, which didn't happen.
Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, has personally requested from Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair an unclassified list of names of all members of Congress who attended those briefings, complete with dates and locations.
He told FOXNews.com the list will probably show many members were briefed "early and often."
"The purpose of this, of course, is to underscore the fact that people in Congress knew or were aware of the program, its details, and they approved of this program and authorized its funding," said Jamal Ware, spokesman for Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee.
Republicans have criticized President Obama for opening the door to prosecuting Justice Department lawyers who drafted the so-called "torture memos," which authorized harsh interrogation methods, including waterboarding. But they've also raised the point that if Democrats pursue charges against the lawyers, they'd be shielding others involved in the interrogation program.
"They can't blame the politicians in Congress who approved these tactics in 2002 because these are their friends," Rep. Lamar Smith, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said in an e-mail. "So they're placing the blame on Bush administration officials, political appointees."
It's unclear how detailed the briefings with lawmakers on the interrogation programs were.
Pelosi said Thursday that at the briefing she attended, she was not told that waterboarding "or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods" were being used.
"What they did tell us is that they had some legislative council ... opinions that they could be used, but not that they would. And further, the point was that if and when they would be used, they would brief Congress at that time," she said.
Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday that he would follow the law with regard to the interrogation program.
A number of Democrats have defended the call for probes. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has been pushing for an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate.
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters Thursday that he will not throw his support behind any independent commission to look into Bush-era interrogation policy until the Senate Intelligence Committee has completed its review late this year.
"I think that's really the direction that I'm going to follow closely. I think the intelligence committee is a bipartisan committee. They will make a public report..And then I think it's appropriate to start talking about what we do with that information. But until we get that information, I think we would all be better off just relaxing, understanding how difficult this is," Reid said. "I think that we must get the information. It's spotty now, and I think that a few months waiting to determine the right way to go about this is certainly not going to hurt us."
While some aides back the idea of an independent, 9/11 Commission-style body to investigate, FOX News has learned that Obama opposes the idea.
Reid offered few details Thursday on the nature of the briefings with lawmakers, and said he doesn't remember specifically when he was briefed.
"Of course there were briefings on different subjects," he said. "I'm not going to get into all of this ... It's pretty clear that any time I had concerns, I raised them."
FOX News' Jim Angle and Trish Turner and FOXNews.com's Judson Berger contributed to this report.
Condoleezza Rice Ok'd Waterboarding
Not only did Sec Rice OK these techniques, the congress including Pelosi knew of these techniques and even questioned if they were harsh enough. We are headed down a slippery slop here folks. These are tactics of countries like Russia. Never before in US history have an administration threatened to drag the previous administration and their legal council into hearings.
Be warned President Obama and Eric Holder, you will not be in power forever. Some day sooner than later the Republicans will be back in power and turn about is fair play.
As national security adviser to former President George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice verbally approved the CIA's request to subject high-ranking Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah to waterboarding in July 2002, the earliest known decision by a Bush administration official to OK use of the simulated drowning technique.
Rice's role was detailed in a narrative released Wednesday by the Senate Intelligence Committee. It provides the most detailed timeline yet for how the CIA's harsh interrogation program was conceived and approved at the highest levels in the Bush White House.
The new timeline shows that Rice played a greater role than she admitted last fall in written testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The narrative also shows that dissenting legal views about the severe interrogation methods were brushed aside repeatedly.
The Intelligence Committee's timeline comes a day after the Senate Armed Services Committee released an exhaustive report detailing direct links between the CIA's harsh interrogation program and abuses of prisoners at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in Afghanistan and at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.
Both revelations follow President Barack Obama's release of internal Bush administration legal memos that justified the use of severe methods by the CIA, a move that kicked up a firestorm from opposing sides of the ideological spectrum.
According to the new narrative, which compiles legal advice provided by the Bush administration to the CIA, Rice personally conveyed the administration's approval for waterboarding of Zubaydah, a so-called high-value detainee, to then-CIA Director George Tenet in July 2002.
Last fall, Rice acknowledged to the Senate Armed Services Committee only that she had attended meetings where the CIA interrogation request was discussed and asked for the attorney general to conduct a legal review. She said she did not recall details. Rice omitted her direct role in approving the program in her written statement to the committee.
A spokesman for Rice declined comment when reached Wednesday.
Days after Rice gave Tenet the nod, the Justice Department approved the use of waterboarding in a top secret Aug. 1 memo. Zubaydah underwent waterboarding at least 83 times in August 2002.
In the years that followed, according to the narrative issued Wednesday, there were numerous internal legal reviews of the program, suggesting government attorneys raised concerns that the harsh methods, particularly waterboarding, might violate federal laws against torture and the U.S. Constitution.
But Bush administration lawyers continued to validate the program. The CIA voluntarily dropped the use of waterboarding, which has a long history as a torture tactic, from its arsenal of techniques after 2005.
According to the two Senate reports, CIA lawyers first presented the plan to waterboard Zubaydah to White House lawyers in April 2002, a few weeks after he was taken into custody in 2002 in a Pakistani safe house.
Tenet wrote in his memoir that CIA officers themselves originated the idea.
In May 2002, Rice, along with then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and White House counsel Alberto Gonzales met at the White House with the CIA to discuss the use of waterboarding.
The Armed Services Committee report says that six months earlier, in December 2001, the Pentagon's legal office already had made inquiries about the use of mock interrogation and detention tactics to a U.S. military training unit that schools armed forces personnel in how to endure harsh treatment. A former intelligence official said Wednesday the CIA officers also based their proposed harsh interrogations on the mock interrogation methods used by the unit.
He declined to be identified because the CIA had not authorized the disclosure of the information.
In July 2002, responding to a follow-up from the Pentagon general counsel's office, officials at the training unit, the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, detailed their methods for the Pentagon. The list included waterboarding.
But the training unit warned that harsh physical techniques could backfire by making prisoners more resistant. They also cautioned about the reliability of information gleaned from the severe methods and warned that the public and political backlash could be "intolerable."
"A subject in extreme pain may provide an answer, any answer or many answers in order to get the pain to stop," the training officials said in their memo.
Less than a week later, the Justice Department issued two legal opinions that sanctioned the CIA's harsh interrogation program. The memos appeared to draw deeply on the survival school data provided to the Pentagon to show that the CIA's methods would not cross the line into torture.
The opinion concluded that the harsh interrogation methods would be acceptable for use on terror detainees because the same techniques did not cause severe physical or mental pain to U.S. military students who were tested in the government's carefully controlled training program.
Several people from the survival program objected to the use of their mock interrogations in battlefield settings. In an October 2002 e-mail, a senior Army psychologist told personnel at Guantanamo Bay that the methods were inherently dangerous and students were sometimes injured, even in a controlled setting.
"The risk with real detainees is increased exponentially," he said.
Nevertheless, for the next two years, the CIA and military officials received interrogation training and direct interrogation support from JPRA trainers.
Last week, the Obama administration's top intelligence official, Dennis Blair, privately told intelligence employees that "high value information" was obtained through the harsh interrogation techniques. However, on Tuesday, in a written statement, Blair said, "The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means."
Story courtesy of www.foxnews.com
Be warned President Obama and Eric Holder, you will not be in power forever. Some day sooner than later the Republicans will be back in power and turn about is fair play.
As national security adviser to former President George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice verbally approved the CIA's request to subject high-ranking Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah to waterboarding in July 2002, the earliest known decision by a Bush administration official to OK use of the simulated drowning technique.
Rice's role was detailed in a narrative released Wednesday by the Senate Intelligence Committee. It provides the most detailed timeline yet for how the CIA's harsh interrogation program was conceived and approved at the highest levels in the Bush White House.
The new timeline shows that Rice played a greater role than she admitted last fall in written testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The narrative also shows that dissenting legal views about the severe interrogation methods were brushed aside repeatedly.
The Intelligence Committee's timeline comes a day after the Senate Armed Services Committee released an exhaustive report detailing direct links between the CIA's harsh interrogation program and abuses of prisoners at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in Afghanistan and at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.
Both revelations follow President Barack Obama's release of internal Bush administration legal memos that justified the use of severe methods by the CIA, a move that kicked up a firestorm from opposing sides of the ideological spectrum.
According to the new narrative, which compiles legal advice provided by the Bush administration to the CIA, Rice personally conveyed the administration's approval for waterboarding of Zubaydah, a so-called high-value detainee, to then-CIA Director George Tenet in July 2002.
Last fall, Rice acknowledged to the Senate Armed Services Committee only that she had attended meetings where the CIA interrogation request was discussed and asked for the attorney general to conduct a legal review. She said she did not recall details. Rice omitted her direct role in approving the program in her written statement to the committee.
A spokesman for Rice declined comment when reached Wednesday.
Days after Rice gave Tenet the nod, the Justice Department approved the use of waterboarding in a top secret Aug. 1 memo. Zubaydah underwent waterboarding at least 83 times in August 2002.
In the years that followed, according to the narrative issued Wednesday, there were numerous internal legal reviews of the program, suggesting government attorneys raised concerns that the harsh methods, particularly waterboarding, might violate federal laws against torture and the U.S. Constitution.
But Bush administration lawyers continued to validate the program. The CIA voluntarily dropped the use of waterboarding, which has a long history as a torture tactic, from its arsenal of techniques after 2005.
According to the two Senate reports, CIA lawyers first presented the plan to waterboard Zubaydah to White House lawyers in April 2002, a few weeks after he was taken into custody in 2002 in a Pakistani safe house.
Tenet wrote in his memoir that CIA officers themselves originated the idea.
In May 2002, Rice, along with then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and White House counsel Alberto Gonzales met at the White House with the CIA to discuss the use of waterboarding.
The Armed Services Committee report says that six months earlier, in December 2001, the Pentagon's legal office already had made inquiries about the use of mock interrogation and detention tactics to a U.S. military training unit that schools armed forces personnel in how to endure harsh treatment. A former intelligence official said Wednesday the CIA officers also based their proposed harsh interrogations on the mock interrogation methods used by the unit.
He declined to be identified because the CIA had not authorized the disclosure of the information.
In July 2002, responding to a follow-up from the Pentagon general counsel's office, officials at the training unit, the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, detailed their methods for the Pentagon. The list included waterboarding.
But the training unit warned that harsh physical techniques could backfire by making prisoners more resistant. They also cautioned about the reliability of information gleaned from the severe methods and warned that the public and political backlash could be "intolerable."
"A subject in extreme pain may provide an answer, any answer or many answers in order to get the pain to stop," the training officials said in their memo.
Less than a week later, the Justice Department issued two legal opinions that sanctioned the CIA's harsh interrogation program. The memos appeared to draw deeply on the survival school data provided to the Pentagon to show that the CIA's methods would not cross the line into torture.
The opinion concluded that the harsh interrogation methods would be acceptable for use on terror detainees because the same techniques did not cause severe physical or mental pain to U.S. military students who were tested in the government's carefully controlled training program.
Several people from the survival program objected to the use of their mock interrogations in battlefield settings. In an October 2002 e-mail, a senior Army psychologist told personnel at Guantanamo Bay that the methods were inherently dangerous and students were sometimes injured, even in a controlled setting.
"The risk with real detainees is increased exponentially," he said.
Nevertheless, for the next two years, the CIA and military officials received interrogation training and direct interrogation support from JPRA trainers.
Last week, the Obama administration's top intelligence official, Dennis Blair, privately told intelligence employees that "high value information" was obtained through the harsh interrogation techniques. However, on Tuesday, in a written statement, Blair said, "The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means."
Story courtesy of www.foxnews.com
Cruel Summer?
I have a solution for this, FIRE THE UNION!
DETROIT — Thousands of GM workers could learn as early as Thursday that they will be idle for up to nine weeks this summer as the automaker's plants stop making all but its most popular cars and trucks.
The move is a result of slumping sales and growing inventories of unsold vehicles, but some analysts and dealers fear the plant closings could further scare car buyers already made nervous by talk of a GM bankruptcy.
General Motors Corp. is planning to temporarily close most of its U.S. factories for up to nine weeks, three people briefed on the plan said Wednesday. The exact dates of the closures are not known, but the people said they will occur around the normal two-week shutdown in July when changes are made from one model year to the next. None of the people wanted to be identified because workers have not yet been told of the shutdowns.
GM spokesman Chris Lee would not comment other than to say the company notifies employees before making any production cuts public. But UAW officials will likely raise questions about the move during meetings they have scheduled at several factories Thursday and Friday with plant managers and GM human resource officials to discuss production changes.
Thousands of workers could be laid off but would still get most of their pay because their United Auto Workers union contract requires the company to make up much of the difference between state unemployment benefits and their wages.
One of the people briefed on the plan said details are still being worked out. Some of the closings could be staggered between mid-May and the end of July, but the exact number of plants to be idled has not yet been determined. Another person said a few plants that make more popular models could remain open for part of the shutdown period, but at reduced assembly line speeds.
But the shutdown could be catastrophic to many auto parts suppliers that already are near bankruptcy due to previous production cuts. During the shutdown, suppliers couldn't ship parts to GM and would lose critical revenue.
"It's one of those things we've been dreading for a long time," said Jim Gillette, director of financial services at auto-industry consultant CSM Worldwide in Grand Rapids. "It's as bad as its ever been."
He said that many suppliers are making employee cuts or forcing workers to take furloughs to reduce operating expenditures.
GM is living on $13.4 billion in government loans and faces a June 1 deadline to cut its debt, reduce labor costs and take other restructuring steps. If it doesn't meet the deadline, the company's CEO has said it will enter Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
The Treasury Department declined to comment on any effect the plant shutdowns might have on GM's restructuring plans.
Separately Wednesday, GM announced that it may miss a $1 billion bond payment also due June 1 if its debt-for-equity exchange is still in progress by then. GM also could go into bankruptcy protection, which could make the company miss the payment as well.
The company plans to make the exchange offer soon to bondholders, perhaps as early as next week. GM has $28 billion in unsecured bond debt and is under government pressure to reduce that to solidify its balance sheet.
GM's sales were down 49 percent in the first quarter compared with the same period last year, and GM had a 123-day supply of cars and trucks at the end of March, according to Ward's AutoInfoBank. That's down from 162 days worth in January.
But as of March 31, the automaker had a more than six-month supply of several models including the Pontiac G5 compact and Chevrolet Silverado hybrid pickup truck. The lengthy shutdown likely means that GM doesn't see its sales rebounding anytime soon, said Tom Libby, an independent Detroit-area auto industry analyst.
"They must be forecasting a sales level that is low enough between now and the summer that they see their inventories building," he said late Wednesday. "It's sort of an ominous comment on what they see for the industry."
Libby also suggested that the company's sales may be declining because customers are concerned about the automaker possibly filing for bankruptcy protection.
GM CEO Fritz Henderson has said the company would prefer to restructure outside of court, but it is preparing for a prearranged bankruptcy as well as one in which good assets would be separated from underperforming ones.
"Just using the word bankruptcy, their (market) share is down a lot just because of this talk," Libby said. "They may be counting on a further decline."
The plant closures add to the onslaught of bad news coming out of GM, said John Clark, president of Avenue Chevrolet, a dealership in Batavia, Ill., near Chicago.
"Henderson making statements about bankruptcy sure doesn't help his cause, and all of the sudden we have this," he said. "I've been getting calls from customers about warranties. I can't see this as a positive move."
The government has said it would guarantee GM and Chrysler warranties as the companies restructure.
Libby did say GM should be applauded for not building too many vehicles and then having to spend big on rebates and other incentives to move them, something the Detroit Three have been guilty of in the past.
Other GM dealers said a shutdown of up to nine weeks is jarring, but not unexpected given the sales slump.
"Nine weeks seems like an awful long time, but the way business is, not an awful lot of cars are being sold anyway," said George Tasker, fleet manager at Martin Chevrolet in Torrance, Calif.
Tasker said the move wouldn't affect business, as dealers would "get together and trade more easily" to find the exact car a customer wanted.
Nearly all automakers with U.S. factories have closed plants or cut production to deal with the auto sales slump. Earlier this year, GM temporarily closed 20 factories across North America due to weak sales, some for the entire month of January. Chrysler LLC, also subsisting on government loans, closed all 30 of its manufacturing plants for a month in January to counter the auto sales downturn.
Ford Motor Co. also shut down 10 North American assembly plants for an extra week in January, and both Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co. have cut production.
Courtesy of www.foxnews.com
DETROIT — Thousands of GM workers could learn as early as Thursday that they will be idle for up to nine weeks this summer as the automaker's plants stop making all but its most popular cars and trucks.
The move is a result of slumping sales and growing inventories of unsold vehicles, but some analysts and dealers fear the plant closings could further scare car buyers already made nervous by talk of a GM bankruptcy.
General Motors Corp. is planning to temporarily close most of its U.S. factories for up to nine weeks, three people briefed on the plan said Wednesday. The exact dates of the closures are not known, but the people said they will occur around the normal two-week shutdown in July when changes are made from one model year to the next. None of the people wanted to be identified because workers have not yet been told of the shutdowns.
GM spokesman Chris Lee would not comment other than to say the company notifies employees before making any production cuts public. But UAW officials will likely raise questions about the move during meetings they have scheduled at several factories Thursday and Friday with plant managers and GM human resource officials to discuss production changes.
Thousands of workers could be laid off but would still get most of their pay because their United Auto Workers union contract requires the company to make up much of the difference between state unemployment benefits and their wages.
One of the people briefed on the plan said details are still being worked out. Some of the closings could be staggered between mid-May and the end of July, but the exact number of plants to be idled has not yet been determined. Another person said a few plants that make more popular models could remain open for part of the shutdown period, but at reduced assembly line speeds.
But the shutdown could be catastrophic to many auto parts suppliers that already are near bankruptcy due to previous production cuts. During the shutdown, suppliers couldn't ship parts to GM and would lose critical revenue.
"It's one of those things we've been dreading for a long time," said Jim Gillette, director of financial services at auto-industry consultant CSM Worldwide in Grand Rapids. "It's as bad as its ever been."
He said that many suppliers are making employee cuts or forcing workers to take furloughs to reduce operating expenditures.
GM is living on $13.4 billion in government loans and faces a June 1 deadline to cut its debt, reduce labor costs and take other restructuring steps. If it doesn't meet the deadline, the company's CEO has said it will enter Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
The Treasury Department declined to comment on any effect the plant shutdowns might have on GM's restructuring plans.
Separately Wednesday, GM announced that it may miss a $1 billion bond payment also due June 1 if its debt-for-equity exchange is still in progress by then. GM also could go into bankruptcy protection, which could make the company miss the payment as well.
The company plans to make the exchange offer soon to bondholders, perhaps as early as next week. GM has $28 billion in unsecured bond debt and is under government pressure to reduce that to solidify its balance sheet.
GM's sales were down 49 percent in the first quarter compared with the same period last year, and GM had a 123-day supply of cars and trucks at the end of March, according to Ward's AutoInfoBank. That's down from 162 days worth in January.
But as of March 31, the automaker had a more than six-month supply of several models including the Pontiac G5 compact and Chevrolet Silverado hybrid pickup truck. The lengthy shutdown likely means that GM doesn't see its sales rebounding anytime soon, said Tom Libby, an independent Detroit-area auto industry analyst.
"They must be forecasting a sales level that is low enough between now and the summer that they see their inventories building," he said late Wednesday. "It's sort of an ominous comment on what they see for the industry."
Libby also suggested that the company's sales may be declining because customers are concerned about the automaker possibly filing for bankruptcy protection.
GM CEO Fritz Henderson has said the company would prefer to restructure outside of court, but it is preparing for a prearranged bankruptcy as well as one in which good assets would be separated from underperforming ones.
"Just using the word bankruptcy, their (market) share is down a lot just because of this talk," Libby said. "They may be counting on a further decline."
The plant closures add to the onslaught of bad news coming out of GM, said John Clark, president of Avenue Chevrolet, a dealership in Batavia, Ill., near Chicago.
"Henderson making statements about bankruptcy sure doesn't help his cause, and all of the sudden we have this," he said. "I've been getting calls from customers about warranties. I can't see this as a positive move."
The government has said it would guarantee GM and Chrysler warranties as the companies restructure.
Libby did say GM should be applauded for not building too many vehicles and then having to spend big on rebates and other incentives to move them, something the Detroit Three have been guilty of in the past.
Other GM dealers said a shutdown of up to nine weeks is jarring, but not unexpected given the sales slump.
"Nine weeks seems like an awful long time, but the way business is, not an awful lot of cars are being sold anyway," said George Tasker, fleet manager at Martin Chevrolet in Torrance, Calif.
Tasker said the move wouldn't affect business, as dealers would "get together and trade more easily" to find the exact car a customer wanted.
Nearly all automakers with U.S. factories have closed plants or cut production to deal with the auto sales slump. Earlier this year, GM temporarily closed 20 factories across North America due to weak sales, some for the entire month of January. Chrysler LLC, also subsisting on government loans, closed all 30 of its manufacturing plants for a month in January to counter the auto sales downturn.
Ford Motor Co. also shut down 10 North American assembly plants for an extra week in January, and both Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co. have cut production.
Courtesy of www.foxnews.com
Constitution Reading Of The Day 4-23-2009
Article 3 Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Lettter To Senators Carper and Kaufman
I wrote this letter yesterday and sent it to both Senator Carper and Kaufman. I am not expecting a positive response but it is important they know their constituents are unhappy with the unethical business that often takes place in both houses of congress.
Senator Carper,
While you and I may not always see eye to eye on political issues I think I can stand tall and say you are a principled person and would not tolerate unethical activities by a fellow senator. That said I am looking to see you stand up to Sen. Feinstein and demand she resign immediately.
On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money (yes that is my money) to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.
Her intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual. Sen. Feinstein is not a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.
On Oct. 30 Sen. Feinstein offered to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.
These are serious allegations and must be dealt with quickly and decisively. It is unacceptable for a sitting Senator or intervene in matters that will benefit her personally.
Senator Carper as your constituent I demand you begin debate that will force Senator Feinstein to resign from the Senate immediately
Senator Carper,
While you and I may not always see eye to eye on political issues I think I can stand tall and say you are a principled person and would not tolerate unethical activities by a fellow senator. That said I am looking to see you stand up to Sen. Feinstein and demand she resign immediately.
On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money (yes that is my money) to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.
Her intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual. Sen. Feinstein is not a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.
On Oct. 30 Sen. Feinstein offered to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.
These are serious allegations and must be dealt with quickly and decisively. It is unacceptable for a sitting Senator or intervene in matters that will benefit her personally.
Senator Carper as your constituent I demand you begin debate that will force Senator Feinstein to resign from the Senate immediately
Obama The Fool?
HAVANA — Fidel Castro said Tuesday that President Barack Obama "misinterpreted" his brother Raul's sentiments toward the United States and bristled at any suggestion Cuba should free political prisoners or reduce official fees on money sent to the island from the U.S.
Raul Castro touched off a whirlwind of speculation that the U.S. and Cuba could be headed toward a thaw in nearly a half-century of chilly relations last week, when he said Cuban leaders would be willing to sit down with their U.S. counterparts and discuss "everything," including human rights, freedom of the press and expression, and political prisoners on the island.
Obama responded at the Summit of the Americas by saying Washington seeks a new beginning with Cuba, but he also said Sunday that Cuba should release some political prisoners and reduce official taxes on remittances from the U.S. as a sign of good will.
That appeared to enrage Fidel Castro, 82, who wrote in an essay posted on a government Web site that Obama "without a doubt misinterpreted Raul's declarations."
The former president appeared to be throwing a dose of cold water on growing expectations for improved bilateral relations — suggesting Obama had no right to dare suggest that Cuba make even small concessions. He also seemed to suggest too much was being made of Raul's comments about discussing "everything" with U.S. authorities.
"Affirming that the president of Cuba is ready to discuss any topic with the president of the United States expresses that he's not afraid to broach any subject," Fidel Castro wrote of his 77-year-old brother, who succeeded him as president 14 months ago.
"It's a sign of bravery and confidence in the principles of the revolution," he said, referring to the rebel uprising that toppled dictator Fulgencio Batista and brought the Castros to power on New Year's Day 1959.
"Nobody should assume that he was talking about pardoning those sentenced in March 2003 and sending all of them to the United States, if the country were willing to liberate the five Cuban anti-terrorist heroes," Castro wrote.
He was referring to 75 leading political opposition leaders who were rounded up and imprisoned six years ago. Some 54 of them remain behind bars, though Raul Castro suggested last year that Cuba would be willing to liberate some political prisoners if U.S. authorities would free five imprisoned Cuban spies.
Story continues HERE
Raul Castro touched off a whirlwind of speculation that the U.S. and Cuba could be headed toward a thaw in nearly a half-century of chilly relations last week, when he said Cuban leaders would be willing to sit down with their U.S. counterparts and discuss "everything," including human rights, freedom of the press and expression, and political prisoners on the island.
Obama responded at the Summit of the Americas by saying Washington seeks a new beginning with Cuba, but he also said Sunday that Cuba should release some political prisoners and reduce official taxes on remittances from the U.S. as a sign of good will.
That appeared to enrage Fidel Castro, 82, who wrote in an essay posted on a government Web site that Obama "without a doubt misinterpreted Raul's declarations."
The former president appeared to be throwing a dose of cold water on growing expectations for improved bilateral relations — suggesting Obama had no right to dare suggest that Cuba make even small concessions. He also seemed to suggest too much was being made of Raul's comments about discussing "everything" with U.S. authorities.
"Affirming that the president of Cuba is ready to discuss any topic with the president of the United States expresses that he's not afraid to broach any subject," Fidel Castro wrote of his 77-year-old brother, who succeeded him as president 14 months ago.
"It's a sign of bravery and confidence in the principles of the revolution," he said, referring to the rebel uprising that toppled dictator Fulgencio Batista and brought the Castros to power on New Year's Day 1959.
"Nobody should assume that he was talking about pardoning those sentenced in March 2003 and sending all of them to the United States, if the country were willing to liberate the five Cuban anti-terrorist heroes," Castro wrote.
He was referring to 75 leading political opposition leaders who were rounded up and imprisoned six years ago. Some 54 of them remain behind bars, though Raul Castro suggested last year that Cuba would be willing to liberate some political prisoners if U.S. authorities would free five imprisoned Cuban spies.
Story continues HERE
Constitution Reading Of The Day 4-22-2009
Article 3 Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Another Crooked Democrat
If this story were about a Republican he or she would be forced out of the Senate TODAY! No questions asked. Just the appearance of a conflict of interest would be enough to for every single Democrat to throw a fit.
On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms, the Washington Times reported on Tuesday.
Mrs. Feinstein's intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn't a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.
Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.
About the same time of the contract award, Mr. Blum's private investment firm reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it and related affiliates had purchased more than 10 million new shares in CBRE. The shares were purchased for the going price of $3.77; CBRE's stock closed Monday at $5.14.
Spokesmen for the FDIC, Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Blum's firm told The Times that there was no connection between the legislation and the contract signed Nov. 13, and that the couple didn't even know about CBRE's business with FDIC until after it was awarded.
Senate ethics rules state that members must avoid conflicts of interest as well as "even the appearance of a conflict of interest." Some ethics analysts question whether Mrs. Feinstein ran afoul of the latter provision, creating the appearance that she was rewarding the agency that had just hired her husband's firm.
Story HERE
On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms, the Washington Times reported on Tuesday.
Mrs. Feinstein's intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn't a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.
Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.
About the same time of the contract award, Mr. Blum's private investment firm reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it and related affiliates had purchased more than 10 million new shares in CBRE. The shares were purchased for the going price of $3.77; CBRE's stock closed Monday at $5.14.
Spokesmen for the FDIC, Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Blum's firm told The Times that there was no connection between the legislation and the contract signed Nov. 13, and that the couple didn't even know about CBRE's business with FDIC until after it was awarded.
Senate ethics rules state that members must avoid conflicts of interest as well as "even the appearance of a conflict of interest." Some ethics analysts question whether Mrs. Feinstein ran afoul of the latter provision, creating the appearance that she was rewarding the agency that had just hired her husband's firm.
Story HERE
Constitution Reading Of The Day 4-21-2009
Article 2 Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Mr. Jefferson
This video was put together by a good friend to me and a great conservative. Mike Church really gets it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)