Thursday, May 28, 2009

Chrysler Dealerships Owned by Republicans Shut Down?

Could it be true? If it is, then this passes the unthinkable to the unbelievable! Could the Obama administration force the closing of Chrysler dealerships based on their political affiliations? Apparently there are many of the closed dealerships that were owned by Republicans that contributed heavily to the GOP. And they were viable, profitable dealerships. Please read the following article posted on

Monday, May 25, 2009
RED ALERT: Did anti-Obama campaign contributions dictate which Chrysler dealers were shuttered?

5/27/2009 Update 19:26 ET: Click here for the latest Dealergate post, which shows statistical evidence that Chrysler dealers were shuttered on partisan grounds.

Critical Updates Below: Red State, American Thinker, Joey Smith and Reliapundit provide anecdotal and quantitative evidence that would appear to confirm a decided bias against dealers who donated to GOP causes or to anti-Obama Democrats.

Quote from an attorney who Deposed Chrysler's president last week: "It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers... It really wasn't Chrysler's decision. They are under enormous pressure from the President's automotive task force."

Late night updates from Joey Smith and Thomas Lamb: Large Democrat Donor groups not only remain open in all locations, but have their competition eliminated... and/or can purchase for pennies on the dollar.

Stay tuned. More data crunching is underway.

A tipster alerted me to an interesting assertion. A cursory review by that person showed that many of the Chrysler dealers on the closing list were heavy Republican donors.

To quickly review the situation, I took all dealer owners whose names appeared more than once in the list. And, of those who contributed to political campaigns, every single one had donated almost exclusively to GOP candidates. While this isn't an exhaustive review, it does have some ominous implications if it can be verified.

However, I also found additional research online at Scribd (author unknown), which also appears to point to a highly partisan decision-making process.

Consider the partial list of Chrysler dealership owners, listed below. You'll notice that all were opponents of Barack Obama, most through sponsorship of GOP candidates and organizations, but a handful through Barack's Democrat rivals (Hillary Clinton and John Edwards in 2008, for example).

• Vernon G. Buchanan: $147,450 to GOP candidates and organizations
• Wallace D. Alley and Family: $4,500 to GOP.
• Robert Archer: $4,600 to GOP and conservative causes.
• Homer S. Higginbotham and Family: $2950 to GOP.
• James Auffenberg and Family: $28,000 to GOP; $6,000 to one Democrat candidate.
• Michael Maroone and Family: $60,000 to GOP; $8,500 to two Democrat candidates.
• Jerome Fader: $6,500 to Democrats; $2,500 to Independent Joe Lieberman.
• Stephen Fay and Family: $13,500 to GOP.
• William Numrich: $20,000 to GOP.
• Robert Carver: $10,000 to Democrats including $1,950 to Hillary Clinton, nothing to Barack Obama.

• Robert and Linda Rohrman: $24,000 to GOP.
• Frank Boucher, Jr. and Family: $18,000 to GOP, $1,000 to one Democrat candidate.
• Scott Bossier: $4,300 to GOP.
• Todd Reardon: $17,000 to GOP; $2,000 to one Democrat candidate.
• Russ Darrow and Family: $78,000 to GOP.
• Bradford Deery and Family: $24,700 to GOP.
• Charles Gabus and Family: $30,000 to GOP.
• Brian Smith: $15,500 to GOP.
• Michael Schlossman: $14,000 to GOP; $14,000 to three Democrats ($12,500 to Sen. Russ Feingold).
• Don Hill: $11,000 to GOP; $12,800 to conservative incumbent Rep. Heath Shuler.

• Don Miller: $2,000 to GOP; $1,000 to Feingold.
• Eddie Cordes: $2,150 to GOP.
• Robert Edwards: $1,100 to GOP.
• James Crowley: $19,100 to GOP.
• Stanley Graff: $2,200 to John Edwards (2008 Presidential Run); $500 to GOP.
• John Stewart: $10,500 to GOP.
• John Fitzgerald and Family: $4,600 to John McCain (2008); $2,000 to Hillary Clinton (2008); nothing to Barack Obama.
• William Churchill and Family: $3,500 to GOP.
• Thomas Ganley: $9.450 to GOP.
• Gary Miller: $20,000 to GOP.

• Kevin and Gene Beltz: $18,500 to GOP.
• Arthur Grayson: $14,000 to GOP.
• Eric Grubbs and Family: $26,000 to GOP.
• Michael Leep and Family: $19,500 to GOP; $4,800 to three Democrats including Sen. Evan Bayh.
• Harry Green, Jr.: $10,000 to GOP.
• Ronald Hoover: $5,250 to GOP.
• Ray Huffines and Family: $18,500 to GOP.
• John O. Stevenson: $1,500 to GOP.
• James Marsh: $8,200 to GOP.
• Max Pearson and Family: $112,000 to GOP.

I have thus far found only a single Obama donor (and a minor one at that: $200 from Jeffrey Hunter of Waco, Texas) on the closing list.

Chrysler claimed that its formula for determining whether a dealership should close or not included "sales volume, customer service scores, local market share and average household income in the immediate area."

In fact, there may have been other criteria involved: politics may have played a part. If this data can be validated, it would appear to be further proof that the Obama administration is willing to step over any line to advance its agenda.

It bodes poorly for America and the rule of law.

Update: Noteworthy comments from's blogs:

As an employee of one of the affected dealerships... First, this isn't just Chrysler's decision. They were forced into bankruptcy by President Obama. When Chrysler emerges from bankruptcy the Federal Government will be a junior partner in the new Chrysler. This is SOCIALISM! Wake up people! This isn't about business it's about politics and control. My dealership is in the top 125 out of the 3500 plus dealerships nationwide...yet we are on the list. We are not small nor are we rural. We are in a large major metropolitan area. Our new vehicle inventory alone is well over $4.0 million. Is that small? Secondly, Chrysler is already "shopping" for dealers to take over the open "points" (another name for franchise) left by the closed dealerships. Again, you think this is just business. Lastly, and more importantly, every state has franchise law in affect that protect companies from this very thing - being forced out of business under the cloak of bankruptcy with out the benefit of due process. This is illegal!
This is so much more than "just business". This is about control and power by our present administration in Washington. An administration that will stop at nothing to bring complete Socialism to this once great country. Wake up people or get in line now to "drink the Kool-Aid".
I just saw on the list that my local dealership, Wilson Dodge is closing. This is very shocking to me since they are the oldest and most recognized Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep dealer in the metro. This is really sad because these are great people with excellent service...

...There was an interview on the news this evening with the owner of the dealership that is going to be closed in my area where I learned that the DCJ dealership they competed with in my area is factory owned. So, instead of closing their own, they choose to close a successful franchisee. That's #$@?ed up IMO! ...

Update II: Deseret News, 14 May 2009, "Chrysler dealership closures may hurt small-town economies":

"I've been around this forever, and there's no rhyme or reason," Fred Barber, owner of Barber Brothers Motors in Spanish Fork, said Thursday.

...Why were Barber's Chrysler dealership and nine others from Utah among the 789 dealerships nationwide singled out by Chrysler LLC, in bankruptcy-court filings, to be eliminated by June 9? Was there any rhyme or reason to why certain dealerships were selected and others not? What's next for the targeted dealerships, and what will be the ripple effects?

"This is as close to socialism as I've seen — we've got the government running the automotive industry," he added.

Jim Lunt, vice president of Lunt Motor Co. in Cedar City, said employees at his Main Street dealership are anxious, while the owners feel "abandoned."

"It's like they chopped out your legs," Lunt said. "We haven't looked at other manufacturers. We've stuck with Chrysler through thick and thin. You kind of feel like you've been thrown overboard."

Update III: APP, 18 May 2009, "Ousted Chrysler dealers prepare legal fight":

Michael Bernstein, an attorney with Arnold & Porter who represents the Chrysler National Dealer Council, said the dealers may offer a number of objections to the plan in U.S. bankruptcy court, and that the case will enter some uncharted legal territory.

...Bernstein said under bankruptcy law Chrysler would have to show how its "reasonable exercise of business judgment" led to the closing list. While the company cited a bevy of standards by which it chose dealerships, Bernstein said it was noteworthy that Chrysler didn't cite costs.

"There's no cost to Chrysler associated with dealers. Dealers are a source of revenue," Bernstein said. "A lot of people were surprised by the number of dealers Chrysler is proposing to reject..."

Update IV: For those who want to do a deeper dive, here are the lists of both sets of dealers: those who are being shuttered and those who remain open. I have not had time to investigate the latter list, but welcome any help!

AllPar: Chrysler Dealers to be cut and kept

Please email me with with any conclusions, even preliminary ones, which you can draw from this data.

Update V: Rick Moran observes, "Kind of puts George Joseph's letter we published a while back in a different light, doesn't it? Maybe it's not so mysterious a turn of events after all."

Update VI: Red State adds more anecdotal evidence.

Does Obama have a car dealer enemies list?

...There were too many things about the selection of dealerships to be closed that just didn’t add up. Some of the dealers chosen to be terminated were among the more successful outlets in the Chrysler dealership network, and many of them had been loyal Chrysler and Dodge agents who had maintained an excellent working relationship with the Detroit automaker for decades.

Some dealers who got a thumbs down from Obama’s automotive panel told compelling stories about their situations that raised doubts about the process of selecting them for closing. One example, a dealership in Alvin, Texas, had increased its new car sales by 50% in the first four months of 2009, while other MOPAR dealers’ sales were in the tank. Another in Melbourne, Florida, had, at Chrysler’s insistence, totally renovated its facility financed by incurring millions of dollars of debt in the form of a bank mortgage. The are just two of many stories which highlight the incongruities to be found on the list of dealerships not deemed worthy to remain in operation...

...Eric Dondero recognizes some of the dealers’ names on the hit list:

“Vern Buchanan is a Republican Congressman from the Tampa Bay area. Robert Archer is the son of former Republican Congressman Bill Archer. John Culberson, a libertarian-leaning Conservative, is now the Congressman for that West Houston District. He was heavily supported in his election efforts by the Archers Family.”

“Additionally, James Crowley, owner of a Chrysler Dealership in Escondido, California is on the list to be closed. Crowley is a big backer of libertarian-leaning Republican Cong. John Campbell of Orange County.”

The list is heavy with influential Republicans and libertarians. Another name on the list is Ray Huffines, who owns a large dealerhsip in the Metro-Dallas/Ft. Worth area. The Huffines family have been major contributors to Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) over the years...

Update VII: Joey Smith, who I must credit with a huge amount of work with the OpenSecrets campaign contribution database, writes:

...I have not analyzed the data from the dealerships that will remain open, but I have looked at all the dealers in the Little Rock, Las Vegas, and Joplin, Missouri areas. It appears that the dealers that are closing in these areas have not donated money to Democrats while the ones that remain open have donated to Democrats in the past.

Update VIII: Reliapundit points us to a Reuters article that would seem to confirm the political nature of the closings.

A lawyer for Chrysler dealers facing closure as part of the automaker's bankruptcy reorganization said on Tuesday he believes Chrysler executives do not support a plan to eliminate a quarter of its retail outlets.

Lawyer Leonard Bellavia, of Bellavia Gentile & Associates, who represents some of the terminated dealers, said he deposed Chrysler President Jim Press on Tuesday and came away with the impression that Press did not support the plan.

"It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers," Bellavia said. "It really wasn't Chrysler's decision. They are under enormous pressure from the President's automotive task force."

Update IX: Joey Smith reported tonight that a Democratic donor group in the Midwest and South will not have to close any of their Chrysler dealerships... and their competition was gutted.

The company is called RLJ-McLarty-Landers, and it operates six Chrysler dealerships throughout the South. All six dealerships are safe from closing. The dealer locations are: Bentonville, AR (northwest Arkansas); Lee's Summit, MO (south of Kansas City, MO); Branson, MO; Olathe, KS (near Kansas City); Bossier City, LA (near Shreveport); Huntsville, AL...

The interesting part is who the three main owners of the company are. The owners are Steve Landers (long-time car dealer, 4th-generation dealer), Thomas "Mack" McLarty (former Chief of Staff for President Clinton), and Robert Johnson (founder of Black Entertainment Television and co-owner of the NBA's Charlotte Bobcats). Landers has given money to Republicans in the past, but McLarty campaigned for Obama in 2008, and Johnson has given countless amounts of money to Democrats over the years...

...So far, RLJ-McCarty-Landers will have 8 competing dealerships total[ly] eliminated from 3 of their markets: Lee's Summit, MO; Branson, MO; and Bossier City, LA. I'm willing to bet that the other 3 markets that they serve are similar in nature.

Thomas Lamb writes:

Look into the 32 minority dealerships that were closed and what Maxine Waters had to say.

In one case, you will find the biggest minority dealer in the U.S. being bought up by Democrat donor Gillet out of Vail Colorado.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Jeb Bush, Jr. Supports Marco Rubio for U.S. Senate

I am thrilled to have just received an email from Jeb Bush, Jr. (Son of the former Governor, Jeb Bush, Sr.) stating his support for Marco Rubio in his bid to replace the retiring Senator Mel Martinez. Here is the email I received:

Today I would like to let you know that I will be enthusiastically supporting my friend Marco Rubio for his bid for the United States Senate.

Florida and our country are at a crossroads. Not only in our economic life, but in who we are as Republicans.

My choice was a simple one: Marco Rubio represents the best in what our Party should strive to be and who it must engage – he is young, conservative, and believes in the principles of our Founding Fathers, that individual freedom and liberty are what makes our country great and always will.

Marco Rubio is a candidate who can help to bring our Party back on track by reaching out to our youth, entrepreneurs, Hispanics and those who believe that if you work hard enough, anything you dream can be achieved. With Marco, we have a great opportunity to elect a true conservative and a greater obligation to elect a man of principle.

I hope that you will join with me in this exciting journey to elect my friend Marco Rubio to the United States Senate in 2010. If you can make a donation today to keep this effort going it will go a long way to bring back common sense and a return to conservative principles in Washington.

I thank you for your time and consideration.

With warm regards,

Jeb Bush, Jr.

Thomas Moore Law Center AIG Lawsuit Gets Not From Federal District Court

Trouble Brewing for AIG and Federal Government: Constitutional Challenge of AIG Bailout Allowed to Proceed

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

ANN ARBOR, MI – Proclaiming that times of crisis do not justify departure from the Constitution, Federal District Court Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff allowed the lawsuit against Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the Federal Reserve Board challenging the AIG bailout to proceed. The lawsuit was filed last December by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and attorney David Yerushalmi, an expert in security transactions and Shariah-compliant financing.

In his well-written and detailed analysis issued yesterday, Judge Zatkoff denied the request by the Obama administration’s Department of Justice to dismiss the lawsuit. The request was filed on behalf of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the Federal Reserve Board – the named defendants in the case. In his ruling, the judge held that the lawsuit sufficiently alleged a federal constitutional challenge to the use of taxpayer money to fund AIG’s Islamic religious activities.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “It is outrageous that AIG has been using taxpayer money to promote Islam and Shariah law, which potentially provides support for terrorist activities aimed at killing Americans. Shariah law is the same law championed by Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban. It is the same law that prompted the 9/11 terrorist attacks on our soil that killed thousands of innocent Americans. We won this skirmish. But the war to stop the federal government from funding Islam and Shariah-compliant financing is far from over.”

In its request to dismiss the lawsuit, the DOJ argued that the plaintiff in the case, Kevin Murray, who is a former Marine and a federal taxpayer, lacked standing to bring the action. And even if he did have standing, DOJ argued that the use of the bailout money to fund AIG’s operations did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The court disagreed, noting, in relevant part, the following:

In this case, the fact that AIG is largely a secular entity is not dispositive: The question in an as-applied challenge is not whether the entity is of a religious character, but how it spends its grant. The circumstances of this case are historic, and the pressure upon the government to navigate this financial crisis is unfathomable. Times of crisis, however, do not justify departure from the Constitution. In this case, the United States government has a majority interest in AIG. AIG utilizes consolidated financing whereby all funds flow through a single port to support all of its activities, including Sharia-compliant financing. Pursuant to the EESA, the government has injected AIG with tens of billions of dollars, without restricting or tracking how this considerable sum of money is spent. At least two of AIG’s subsidiary companies practice Sharia-compliant financing, one of which was unveiled after the influx of government cash. After using the $40 billion from the government to pay down the $85 billion credit facility, the credit facility retained $60 billion in available credit, suggesting that AIG did not use all $40 billion consistent with its press release. Finally, after the government acquired a majority interest in AIG and contributed substantial funds to AIG for operational purposes, the government co-sponsored a forum entitled “Islamic Finance 101.” These facts, taken together, raise a question of whether the government’s involvement with AIG has created the effect of promoting religion and sufficiently raise Plaintiff’s claim beyond the speculative level, warranting dismissal inappropriate at this stage in the proceedings.

Click here to read Judge Zatkoff’s entire ruling.

The lawsuit, which was filed in December of last year in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, is a constitutional challenge to that portion of the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008” (EESA) that appropriated $40 billion in taxpayer money to fund and financially support the federal government’s majority ownership interest in AIG, which engages in Shariah-based Islamic religious activities that are anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish.

According to the lawsuit, “The use of these taxpayer funds to approve, promote, endorse, support, and fund these Shariah-based Islamic religious activities violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Murray, a former Marine who served honorably in harm’s way in Iraq to defend our country against Islamic terrorists. Murray objects to being forced as a taxpayer to contribute to the propagation of Islamic beliefs and practices predicated upon Shariah law, which is hostile to his Christian religion. He is being represented by Thomas More Law Center Trial Counsel Robert Muise and by David Yerushalmi, an associated attorney who is an expert in Shariah law and Shariah-compliant financing, as well as general counsel to the Center for Security Policy.

According to the lawsuit, through the use of taxpayer funds, the federal government acquired a majority ownership interest (nearly 80%) in AIG, and as part of the bailout, Congress appropriated and expended an additional $40 billion of taxpayer money to fund and financially support AIG and its financial activities. AIG, which is now a government owned company, engages in Shariah-compliant financing which subjects certain financial activities, including investments, to the dictates of Islamic law and the Islamic religion. This specifically includes any profits or interest obtained through such financial activities. AIG itself describes “Sharia” as “Islamic law based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet .”

With the aid of taxpayer funds provided by Congress, AIG employs a “Shariah Supervisory Committee, ” which is comprised of the following members: Sheikh Nizam Yaquby from Bahrain, Dr. Mohammed Ali Elgari from Saudi Arabia, and Dr. Muhammed Imran Ashraf Usmani from Pakistan. Dr. Usmani is the son, student, and dedicated disciple of Mufti Taqi Usmani, who is the leading Shariah authority for Shariah-compliant finance in the world and the author of a book translated into English in 1999 that includes an entire chapter dedicated to explaining why a Western Muslim must engage in violent jihad against his own country or government. According to AIG, the role of its Shariah authority “is to review our operations, supervise its development of Islamic products, and determine Shariah compliance of these products and our investments.”

An important element of Shariah-compliant financing is a form of obligatory charitable contribution called zakat, which is a religious tax for assisting those that “struggle for Allah.” The amount of this tax is between 2.5% and 20%, depending upon the source of the wealth. The zakat religious tax is used to financially support Islamic “charities, ” some of which have ties to terrorist organizations that are hostile to the United States and all other “infidels, ” which includes Christians and Jews.

The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, an example of an Islamic “charity” that qualifies for receipt of the zakat, was recently convicted by a federal jury for providing millions of dollars to Islamic terrorist organizations. As a direct consequence of the taxpayer funds appropriated and expended to purchase and financially support AIG, the federal government is now the owner of a corporation engaged in the business of collecting religious taxes to fund interests adverse to the United States, Christians, Jews, and all other “infidels” under Islamic law.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Marco Rubio's Farewell Address

We have a shinning star in Florida. I encourage everyone to watch this video and see what a statesman is as opposed to just a politician. Please share with friends and family.

Monday, May 18, 2009

I only thought I had found them.....

I keep looking for them. I know they are out there. I hope they are increasing with each new day and each new attack on our liberties. Whom do I seek? The disgruntled Obama supporters that have seen the light. Those that voted for "The One" only to find out he is just, "That one". I am not so naive as to think they will be heralded on MSNBC or on CNN, but a few faint cries here and there would be nice. And then Josh Gerstein's piece on caught my eye. "Some on left souring on Obama" the caption said. My ah hah moment had arrived. There they are. Someone has found them.

Mr. Gerstein writes a nice article on our ultra-libs great disappointment of Obama's precious few, less than radical decisions. Gerstein points to "growing dissatisfaction among members of his liberal base, who feel spurned by a series of his early decisions on issues ranging from guns to torture to immigration to gay rights." And now to add to the intense frustration of the left, Obama has reversed his decision and will not release detainees photos and try suspects using military commissions.

Okay, I'm glad my liberal counterparts are angry, but I am disappointed that it is not for reasons befitting reasonable, patriotic Americans. I had hoped for an outcry of, "You can't do that to our American companies! You can't just take away money contractually owed to investors and give it to a group of people that voted for you." Or how about, "What do you mean you want to take away measures that would allow doctors to deny abortions because of their personal beliefs." And maybe throw this in for good measure, "Hate crimes? You mean you want to punish an individual on a criminal act because the government thinks he or she is motivated by hate? You really want to place punishment on Americans based on what he or she thinks? Are you kidding me?"

But alas, I have heard none of that from the Democratic base. All seems to be swell in the land of Oz. The Yellow Brick Road is full of merry little munchkins none too eager to see the man behind the curtain. Oh if I could only click my heels.....

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Talking Through My Hat, Episode 1

Very interesting Mr. Simon. I hope that you will be blessed enough in your life to see the majesty of God now that you have seen what the absence of Him can create.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

Well, Thank You Brave Young Ladies!

Girls Had Enough of Being Called 'Hos' In Rap Music, Organize High School Ban
By Warner Todd Huston on May 15, 2009
-By Warner Todd Huston - New Media Alliance

Three energetic young girls from Arcadia High School have been successful in having 20 offensive Rap songs banned from their high school prom dance. The trio got 1,000 other students to sign a petition excoriating Rap tunes that employ against women derogatory terms such as “bitches” and “Hos.”

With their campaign the girls of the Arcadia High Women’s Health and Issues Club convinced school administrators to drop the songs from the prom music playlist.

Club members were not advocating for replacement songs nor for any particular genera of music, just to eliminate songs that featured abusive language toward women, presented women as objects, or treated women as “animals.”

Naturally, these girls are catching all manner of guff from other students. This junk Rap music is very popular with kids despite the misogynistic lyrics, the low level of intelligence celebrated in them, the bad language, and the low-class, thug lifestyles often pervading them.

Replies from fellow students also reveals that logic and a knowledge about the issue of what is “free speech” are subjects of which these kids are unfamiliar. Kids are railing that the girls are “against free speech,” and that they are “evangelizing everybody around them to follow their narrow minded credo.” Naturally, these kids opposing getting rid of the junk music haven’t a clue what they are talking about.

No, this effort should be celebrated. Rap music is the one of the most baneful influences on our youth today and it is about time that people returned to a more respectful way of talking about women in popular culture. All too often girls are over sexualized and their gender little respected.

But here is the thing about efforts like this Rap music ban. It is not a quashing of “free speech.” It is not “censorship.” Only a government can censor speech. If these girls get enough people to stand against this Rap music junk, they have created a community standard that is supported by a majority and that community has every right to get rid of something it doesn’t like. This is one of the most common examples of societal evolution through the democratic process.

Further, these girls neither advocated for, nor tried to force other kids to be barred from listening to this junk Rap in their private lives. These kids can listen to their junk Rap any time they like in their private lives.

The club merely advocated for a set of standards, garnered support from the student body, and convinced the school to join the effort. This is how society and democracy works.

So, kuddos to the girl’s club at Arcadia High School. There is no harm at all in trying to foster awareness of the true meaning of the lyrics in these songs. If more people turned away from this junk music maybe this sorry excuse for a musical genera will fade away for lack of an audience?

ADF Files Lawsuit Against Radical Church Invaders

Alliance Defense Fund has announced the filing of a suit in federal court on Wednesday, May 13th. The suit is filed against Bash Back, a radical anarchist group advocating riots and criminal activity to further their homosexual agenda. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Mount Hope Church in Delta Township, Michigan.

ADF website reports:

“The use of violent threats and criminal behavior to make a political point should never be acceptable in America,” said ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb. “Bash Back! revealed how dangerous the homosexual agenda is to our First Liberty, religious freedom. ADF filed this suit to stop Bash Back! and other activist groups from invading churches, disrupting worship, silencing pastors, and terrifying adults and children who attend religious services.”

The Bash Back! Web site, which features a banner photo of members dressed in terrorist-like garb and wielding various objects as weapons, states on one page of the site that the group’s activities include “Riots, Sex Work, Crime, Insurrection, you know the fun stuff we do.” The Lansing chapter of the group targeted Mount Hope Church because of the church’s well-known Christian views on marriage and homosexual behavior. Through another page of its Web site, the group covertly recruited participants for its plans on Nov. 9, seeking some who would be willing to maintain “a more ‘militant’-looking presence out side [sic] of the building.”

“I can tell you that we are targeting a well-known anti-queer, anti-choice radical right wing establishment,” the page said. “However, we cant [sic] give you really any detailed information due to the cop who’s [sic] ridiculous job it is to do surveillance over this blog.... ‘ONLY ONE DIRECTION! TRANS AND QUEER INSURRECTION!’ - Bash Back! Lansing”

On Nov. 9, members of the group dressed in militant garb staged a protest outside the church during a worship service to distract security personnel, blocking access to the building and parking lot at various times. Other members of the group dressed in plain clothes then deceptively entered the building. At a coordinated time, they sprang up to disrupt the service, terrifying many attendees. The group shouted religious slurs, unfurled a sign, and threw fliers around the sanctuary while two women began kissing near the podium. The group pulled fire alarms as they ran out of the building. After the incident, the group bragged about its activities on its Web site and, on a separate page, explained its choice of Mount Hope: “This church is nothing short of a disease in the community, and in the minds of those who attend.”

Federal law imposes penalties upon anyone who “by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship.”

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

I urge anyone who can to offer a contribution to this excellent organization.

Michael Steele to Debate GNC Chairman, Tim Kaine

NBC's "Meet the Press" will have two special guest tomorrow. RNC Chairman, Michael Steele, and DNC Chairman and VA Governor, Tim Kaine. The two party leaders will go "head to head" in a debate that will, according to Gov. Kaine, "show folks the difference between what our two parties have to offer the American people, and why President Obama and Democrats in Congress have the leadership we need to get our country back on track." With all due respect to Governor Kaine, I believe we see very clearly what the Democratic Party has to offer the American people and I for one am not impressed!

So if you are so inclined, check your local listings for this historic, (yes I'm joking) event! Governor Kaine is even offering a link so that you can email him and let him know what you think. I encourage all my conservative friends to do just that!

More Information On What Pelosi Knew and When

According to a post on Legal Insurrection blog, posted a report on May 22, 2002 in which Nancy Pelosi made statements regarding the interrogation of Zubaydah.

Saturday, May 16, 2009
Pelosi May 2002 Statement Casts Further Doubt On Her Claims
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has denied being briefed in September 2002 about the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah. Pelosi claims she was told that the technique had not been used (when in fact it had been used a month earlier). Pelosi uses this September 2002 briefing, and the alleged concealment of waterboarding, to support her claim that the CIA misled Congress.

Pelosi says she first learned of the waterboarding in February 2003, when her aide was briefed on the issue, and relayed the information to her. CIA Director Leon Panetta states that CIA records show that Pelosi was in fact briefed on the techniques used on Zubaydah at the September 2002 briefing.

We do not know at this time what other records exist showing what was said at the September 2002 briefing, but this quotation from Pelosi in May 2002 lends credibility to the CIA's account. Pelosi clearly was being kept apprised of the specific details Zubaybah's interrogation and the difficulty of getting Zubaydah to give up all he knew.

In May 2002, the government announced a terror alert based in part on information Zubaydah had revealed about attacks on the Brooklyn Bridge and other landmarks, although Zubaydah was being evasive as to whether there was an active plan. Pelosi was quoted as being aware of the details of the interrogation (italics in quotation mine):, May 22, 2002: Last Monday night, the New York Joint Terrorism Task Force--a round-the-clock operation at the New York field office of the FBI--got a call from FBI headquarters. Abu Zubaydah, the highest al-Qaeda official to be captured by the U.S., had told interrogators that he had heard other Osama bin Laden loyalists discussing attacks on the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty and other U.S. landmarks. But, a federal law-enforcement official told TIME, Abu Zubaydah had said the conversations took place a while back and claimed he knew of no particular plan. Since his capture in March, Abu Zubaydah has shared some valuable information, says a senior U.S. intelligence source. "He's not us on everything." Then again, says Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, "he is also very skilled at avoiding interrogation. He is an agent of disinformation."
So as of May 2002, Pelosi knew the details of the interrogation of Zubaydah, and the problems the CIA was encountering due to Zubaydah's evasiveness. It does not take any leap of imagination to believe that Pelosi, then the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, would have been kept informed of the progress of the interrogation, including the use of waterboarding months later.

It would take an incredible leap of imagination to believe that the CIA would tell Pelosi about all the problems with the interrogation of Zubaydah, but not tell her what was being done to solve those problems. Particularly when the waterboarding revealed that the plot against the Brooklyn Bridge, about which Pelosi publicly spoke, was revealed to be real based on information Zubaydah provided after being waterboarded.

A leap of imagination is exactly what Pelosi is asking us to do with her ever-changing explanations.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Obama Seeks Control of Executive Pay in Non-Bailout Companies

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Obama administration is seeking ways to control executive pay at financial service companies that did not receive federal bail out money. Full article HERE.

Monday, May 11, 2009

Dick Morris Sets the Right Direction



Published in the New York Post on May 9, 2009

Gen. Colin Powell is wrong to say that the Republican Party must move to the center: Now is not the time to try for triangulation.

This is a time for the party to stand firm on its principles until this nation again comes around to the GOP's way of thinking. This process will be driven by the consequences of President Obama's program.

The challenge brought by Obama is no longer just theoretical: He means to pass the ultimate leftist agenda and has the votes to do so.

As a result, our nation will be unrecognizable well before the 2010 elections. Business will march to a beat drummed in Washington. The top producers will be hounded by confiscatory taxation. A majority will pay nothing or receive government welfare. Our health-care system will be destroyed. Illegal immigrants will be well on their way to citizenship.

Obama's brave new world will be the subject of the 2010 elections. We believe that his Congress will be swept from power as a result.

We think that inflation will join a lingering recession -- giving us recess-flation -- and that high unemployment will continue. Voters will recognize the damage to their health care as bureaucrats weigh in to prevent them from getting the care they need. Our security and defense failures may well have cost us Pakistan, and the nightmare of a nuclear-armed terrorist state may have already come true (even before Iran).

All America will be watching the Obama fallout, and Republicans must be seen as a clear alternative -- a strong voice for reversal of the harm the president will have inflicted -- if they are to benefit from this catastrophe.

If the GOP is seen as a moderate force, a party just looking to split the difference, voters will cynically conclude that there is no distinction between the parties.

There is a season for triangulation and a season for confrontation. When America faces a new challenge -- such as what the financial crisis now poses -- we look to the left and right for new answers. We want the debate to rage. Those who seek to paper over are ignored. Such was the fate of the first President Bush in 1992 and of Sen. John McCain in 2008.

But once the debate has raged and the alternatives have been fleshed out, voters want a consensus, a Hegelian synthesis, on how to move in a new direction. They want to extract the best from each alternative and combine them. This is triangulation (a term coined by Dick).

To ignore the demand for synthesis and insist on continuing the debate is to suffer the fate of Sen. Bob Dole in 1996 and Sen. John Kerry in 2004.

This process -- polarization, debate, synthesis and action -- is how America has always moved ahead. We are not Japan; we use the debate to see the options. And we are not Italy or France; we come to conclusions and act upon them, eventually leaving the debate far behind.

Now another great debate has been born. The thesis is democratic socialism. The antithesis is free-market capitalism.

The Obama Democrats have posed the challenge. It's up to the Republicans to fight along these lines. Compromise is not an option, yet.

At some point, the synthesis will set in. But now is the time for clear alternatives and sharp disagreement. Only later can we hope to extract America from the leftist clutches into which it has fallen.

Go to to read all of Dick's columns!

A Glimmer of Hope in Florida?

Larry Thornberry speculates in his article appearing in The American Spectator that a young, energetic Marco Rubio will be announcing his run for the U.S. Senate this week. Rubio will seek to fill the vacancy left by Mel Martinez at the end of his term next year. Mark Rubio has spent eight years in Florida's House of Representatives and was speaker the last two years. Rubio appears to be a sincere conservative believing in limited government, private sector superiority and a strong foreign policy. Rubio will most certainly be running against Charlie Crist, our resident Specter look-a-like.

Crist, who has held one office or another in Florida politics since 1992 and who won the governorship in 2006, is more often referred to as a moderate or a populist than as a conservative. His favorable ratings in polls remain in the sixties and seventies, even though he's promised much and delivered little on two issues -- property tax relief and high property insurance rates -- that Floridians anguish over. Lots of Democrats and independents like him because he sounds a lot like them.
Crist is popular among rank and file Republicans, but he's cheesed off the conservative wing of the Republican Party by taking extreme environmental positions, including supporting a carbon cap and trade system and attempting to get the Florida Legislature to force Florida utilities to use an unrealistically high percentage of "renewable fuels" to generate electricity. He also spent a good deal of time whooping up President Obama's "stimulus" package (actually appearing on the same stage with Obama in Ft. Myers in February to coo about it) and recently appointed a liberal jurist to the Florida Supreme Court.

Marco Rubio is definitely one to watch.

Guantanamo Bay Terrorists: Coming to a Neighborhood Near You?

How's this for a slice of reality?

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Full Disclosure of Cap-and-Trade Act Sought

The Republican Study Committee is reporting:

Rep. Chaffetz seeks original cosponsors for Cap-and-Trade Tax Disclosure Act

Washington, Apr 29 - Rep. Jason Chaffetz is seeking original cosponsors for the Cap-and-Trade Tax Disclosure Act which will require utility companies to disclose and separately itemize the impact of cap-and-trade taxes on each customer’s utility bill. Sound tax policy requires that taxes should be visible to taxpayers and not buried in the cost of items we purchase. With this legislation, every utility customer – residential and business -- will be able to identify the cost of cap-and-trade emissions that the utility is passing on to the customer. As regulated entities, utilities pass taxes on to customers, unlike unregulated companies that can also pass taxes on to shareholders and employees. The cap-and-trade tax is potentially the largest tax increase ever imposed. According to the Administration’s own budget document, the cost will be at least $646 billion over an eight-year period. No matter where you stand on the issue of cap and trade, both sides can agree that full disclosure and transparency are good public policy.

Please call your Representative and request support this effort. Find your Representative HERE.

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Obama Sends Secret Envoy to Saudi Arabia

Report from the DEBKAfile:

Obama's SOS to Gulf emirs: Invest in US and global economies
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
May 8, 2009, 1:40 AM (GMT+02:00)

"A secret American delegation was sent by US President Barack Obama this week to solicit Saudi Arabian and other Gulf rulers for hundreds of billions of petro-dollars for investment in US and global economic stimulus plans, DEBKAfile's exclusive Gulf sources report. They came away empty-handed.
The chilly welcome received by the delegation, which met finance ministers and the heads of banks in Riyadh and the five emirates, was generated by wide disapproval of the US president's policy of engagement with Iran. Two other US missions had just been and gone, headed by defense secretary Robert Gates and special adviser to the US secretary of state for South Asia and Gulf affairs, Dennis Ross. Both failed to allay Gulf anger and trepidation over this policy.
Our Gulf sources report that the third delegation, which unlike the first two was unannounced, argued that since US economic recovery was not expected to turn the corner before 2011, Gulf investors still had a unique opportunity to partner the US in helping the world economy out of its doldrums. The general message was that if they Gulf rulers fail to invest in US and international markets at this point, they would miss out on the rewards of the recovery.
Not all the data presented to the Gulf officials matched the figures published in Washington and other western countries. They were informed on the quiet that Federal Reserve Governor Ben Benanke had been "premature" in his optimistic forecast of "slightly positive" growth in the second half of this year, particularly in the fields of banking and construction, and a recovery that will "strengthen" next year - even though US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Wednesday, May 6, it was "a good, independent, credible forecast."
The Gulf states were urged to help the global economic back on its feet because, according to US data, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) would by the year 2018 rank as the world's fifth-largest economy after the US, China, Japan and the EU. “As major players in the world economy, you cannot stand on the sidelines,” they were told.
President Obama's discreet approach figured in general terms at the GCC meeting of heads of state and finance ministers meeting in Riyadh Wednesday, May 6, which was convened to establish a regional central bank. But no decisions were taken.
According to our sources, the negative vibes between the Gulf and Washington over the Obama administration's policy of favoring Tehran have made these Arab rulers doubly wary of responding to the US president's appeal for a Gulf stake in US and global economic recovery."

Friday, May 8, 2009

Introducing: The Tenth Amendment Center

The Tenth Amendment Center is a website that focuses on research and news on Tenth Amendment issues. Visit this website to see which states have passed legislation protecting them under the Tenth Amendment. You can also sign petitions for your state, if available.

The Tenth Amendment Center works to preserve and protect Tenth Amendment freedoms through information and education. The center serves as a forum for the study and exploration of state and individual sovereignty issues, focusing primarily on the decentralization of federal government power.

“The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.” — United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733 (1931).

H.R.645 National Emergency Centers Establishment Act

This bill deserves a double take. I watched Alex Jones video "The Obama Deception" and that is the first time I had knowledge of any plan to build detention centers in this country. Now as a side note, I am not at the point of taking everything in the Jones' video at face value, nor am I dismissing it as all conspiracy. I am doing my own research as I would hope that anybody would. One thing is for certain, there is a plan to build the detention centers he claims. It has been introduced in the House on January 22nd of this year. You can read the full text of the bill HERE.

Here is a partial cut/paste:

HR 645 IH
1st Session
H. R. 645
1To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations.
January 22, 2009

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

This Act may be cited as the ‘National Emergency Centers Establishment Act’.

(a) In General- In accordance with the requirements of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations.
(b) Purpose of National Emergency Centers- The purpose of a national emergency center shall be to use existing infrastructure--
(1) to provide temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster;
(2) to provide centralized locations for the purposes of training and ensuring the coordination of Federal, State, and local first responders;
(3) to provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations; and
1(4) to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Place particular attention to item (4). Secretary Napolitano has the authority under this bill to use these facilities as she sees fit. If you consider her views of conservatives as domestic extremist, it should give you reasons to be concerned. Already WND is reporting that an individual in Louisiana has been stopped and detained by a police officer because they had a "Don't Tread On Me" bumper sticker. Read the article HERE.

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Speak LOUDLY for $10.95

Help stop S.909, The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, also known as The Pedophile Protection Act.

Click HERE to send your letter!


"There is a bill on the fast track in the U.S. Senate (S. 909) that would not only criminalize free speech but provide elevated protection to pedophiles.

The bill is euphemistically called "The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act."

It should rightfully be called "The Pedophile Protection Act."

It was exposed as such when an amendment to exclude pedophiles from special legal protections, offered by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, was rejected by the Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee.

Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Florida, admitted from the House Floor that this bill put 547 forms of sexual deviancies listed by the American Psychiatric Association, which he referred to as "all of these 'philias' and fetishes and 'isms'" on the same level of elevated protection as "race … religion … gender … or disability."

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, a former appellate judge on the House committee, clarified further: "…We just rejected an amendment to including pedophilia from being a part of this protected class. Do you realize what that means?

"If a mother hears that their child has been raped and she slaps the assailant with her purse, she is now gone after as a hate criminal because this is a protected class. There are other protected classes in here. I mean simple exhibitionism. I have female friends who have told me over the years that some guy flashed them, and their immediate reaction was to hit them with their purse. Well now, he's committed a misdemeanor, [and] she has committed a federal hate crime because the exhibitionism is protected under sexual orientation."

If there was ever a time for the Senate to stand and fight with a filibuster, that time is now. Especially since the Democrat majority does not yet have the contested seat filled with Al Franken, which would provide the votes to block a filibuster. Janet Porter of Faith2Action is calling for members of the Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike, to stop S. 909.

This bill in on the fast track to approval. But you can stop it.

What can you do? Are you ready to join an unprecedented action?

Right now, through a special arrangement with WND, you can send an overnight letter protesting this bill to every member of the U.S. Senate for just $10.95!

For only $10.95, WND will ensure that you can send a FedEx letter demanding a filibuster.

At the very least, these men and women will be without excuse as to the true nature of this dangerous piece of legislation."

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Chicago Style Thuggery!

New Allegations Of White House Threats Over Chrysler
John Carney|May. 5, 2009, 12:33 PM|134

Tags: Economy, Chrysler, White House, Barack Obama, Politics, Hedge Funds, Bankruptcy, Bailout, U.S. Government, Treasury
Creditors to Chrysler describe negotiations with the company and the Obama administration as "a farce," saying the administration was bent on forcing their hands using hardball tactics and threats.

Conversations with administration officials left them expecting that they would be politically targeted, two participants in the negotiations said.

Although the focus has so been on allegations that the White House threatened Perella Weinberg, sources familiar with the matter say that other firms felt they were threatened as well. None of the sources would agree to speak except on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of political repercussions.

The sources, who represent creditors to Chrysler, say they were taken aback by the hardball tactics that the Obama administration employed to cajole them into acquiescing to plans to restructure Chrysler. One person described the administration as the most shocking "end justifies the means" group they have ever encountered. Another characterized Obama was "the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet- and I knew Kissinger." Both were voters for Obama in the last election.

One participant in negotiations said that the administration's tactic was to present what one described as a "madman theory of the presidency" in which the President is someone to be feared because he was willing to do anything to get his way. The person said this threat was taken very seriously by his firm.

The White House has denied the allegation that it threatened Perella Weinberg.

Last week Obama singled out the firms that continue to oppose his plan for Chrysler, saying he would not stand with them. Perella Weinberg says it was convinced to support the plan by this stark drawing of a line between firms that have the president's backing and those that did not. They didn't want to be on the wrong side of Obama. Privately, administration officials have expressed confidence that other firms will switch sides for this reason.

These allegations add to the picture of an administration willing to use intimidation to win over support for its Chrysler plans--and then categorically deny it.

Business Insider Link

Monday, May 4, 2009

No Term Limits For Obama?

Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) introduced H.J.Res.5 on January 6th of this year calling for an amendment to the Constitution that would repeal the twenty-second article of amendment resulting in the removing of the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

On February 9, 2009 H.J.Res.5 was referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, a sub-committee of the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Contact number for the committee is 202-225-3951.

More detail Open Congress or GovTrack

Sunday, May 3, 2009

In Opposition to H.R.1913 Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009

H.R. has passed the House and has been sent to the Committee on the Judiciary for review. The website for the Committee on the Judiciary is here.

United States Senate
Committee on the Judiciary
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Majority Office

Minority Office

Following is a letter I composed on the site They have a feature where members can write a letter in favor or in opposition to a bill. The member has an opportunity to vote on the best letter and at the end of a specified time period the best letter will be sent with the number of those that support or oppose. Here is the link where you can view my letter, rate it, add your vote to it or write a letter of your own.

Feel free to use my letter to email or write to Congress. You can also use this as talking points when you call your Senator.

I am exceedingly concerned about the passing of H.R. 1913! I believe language in this bill is so vague that it could be interpreted to impact free speech.

Additional concerns I have with this bill are:

(a) Unequal protection of laws under the 14th Amendment
(b) Punishes thought rather than mere intent to commit crime
(c) Wider immediate application than claimed
(d) Constitutes a Federal power grab
(e) Trends toward nationalization of state and local law and the internationalization of federal law and a corresponding rise in anti-Semitic and anti-Christian activity
(f) Incremental move toward making speech a federal crime.

I urge Congress to vote NO on the passage of this bill!

Lynn B. Pruitt

Saturday, May 2, 2009

Chrysler Lender Attorney "White House Directly Threatened My Client"-Audio

Obama Administration Making Threats?

Don't Turn America Into Another France

Attack on Free Speech in the Name of Diversity

The FCC announced a new advisory committee, "Commission's Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age". According to the FCC website, the mission of the diversity committee is to, "make recommendations to the FCC regarding policies and practices that will further enhance the ability of minorities and women to participate in telecommunications and related industries."

The members of this committee consists of representatives of more than a dozen liberal groups and not one conservative member.

Obama strategized in 2007 with the help of John Podesta that in order to clamp down on conservative talk radio there needed to be more female and minority owners which according to their own report were statistically more likely to be more liberal. This is why they are aiming for diversity of ownership.

You can sign a petition here:

I would like to suggest that we call or email the FCC in outrage at their plans!

File an online complaint here.  Or email them at

Other FCC contact here:
1-888-225-5322 (1-888-CALL FCC) Voice: toll-free
1-888-835-5322 (1-888-TELL FCC) TTY: toll-free
1-866-418-0232 FAX: toll-free
(202) 418-1440 Elections & political candidate matters

Here is my email to the FCC.  Feel free to copy and send as well.

Dear Sirs or Madams,

I am deeply concerned about our government's attempt to control free speech through manipulation of ownership of media outlets in the name of "diversity".  I understand that a diversity committee has been formed to, "make recommendations to the FCC regarding policies and practices that will further enhance the ability of minorities and women to participate in telecommunications and related industries."

I also understand that this committee is comprised solely of members of liberal, left wing organizations and not one single conservative member has been asked to join.  This says nothing on your attempt to garner diversity but instead clarifies your attempt to control free speech by shutting down conservative voices.  I write you today to express my outrage and concern and demand that you dismantle this committee and cease all efforts to control free speech in this country.

Lynn B. Pruitt

Friday, May 1, 2009

Finally - A Voice Of Reason in the Republican Party

  • Need a Real Sponsor here

How Republicans Can Build a Big-Tent Party

It's the Democrats who won't tolerate a diversity of views.

Sen. Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic Party this week is no reason for Republicans to cheer. But his reason for leaving -- he faced an unwinnable primary election next year -- is no cause for soul searching. There is a question Republicans do need to ask: What is it that binds our party together?

In the wake of two successive electoral defeats and the likelihood of a 60-vote Democrat majority in the Senate, what does it even mean to be a Republican today? Moderate Republicans are right to remind conservatives that they cannot build a center-right coalition without the center part. And conservatives are right to remind moderates that Republicans only succeed when we rally around clear principles.

The real mistake is that Republicans became more concerned with staying in D.C. than reforming it.

Despite notable successes at both ends of Pennsylvania Ave., it seems to me that Republicans in Congress and in the Bush administration forgot a simple truth. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, if you aim for principled reform, you win elections in the bargain; if you just aim for elections, you get neither.

No Child Left Behind didn't win us "soccer moms," but it did cost us our credibility on locally controlled education. Medicare prescription drugs didn't win us a "permanent majority," but it cost us our credibility on entitlement reform. Every year, another Republican quality was tainted: managerial competence, fiscal discipline and personal ethics.

To win back the trust of the American people, we must be a "big tent" party. But big tents need strong poles, and the strongest pole of our party -- the organizing principle and the crucial alternative to the Democrats -- must be freedom. The federal government is too big, takes too much of our money, and makes too many of our decisions. If Republicans can't agree on that, elections are the least of our problems.

If the American people want a European-style social democracy, the Democratic Party will give it to them. We can't win a bidding war with Democrats.

Freedom will mean different things to different Republicans, but it can tether a diverse coalition to inalienable principles. Republicans can welcome a vigorous debate about legalized abortion or same-sex marriage; but we should be able to agree that social policies should be set through a democratic process, not by unelected judges. Our party benefits from national-security debates; but Republicans can start from the premise that the U.S. is an exceptional nation and force for good in history. We can argue about how to rein in the federal Leviathan; but we should agree that centralized government infringes on individual liberty and that problems are best solved by the people or the government closest to them.

Moderate and liberal Republicans who think a South Carolina conservative like me has too much influence are right! I don't want to make decisions for them. That's why I'm working to reduce Washington's grip on our lives and devolve power to the states, communities and individuals, so that Northeastern Republicans, Western Republicans, Southern Republicans, and Midwestern Republicans can define their own brands of Republicanism. It's the Democrats who want to impose a rigid, uniform agenda on all Americans. Freedom Republicanism is about choice -- in education, health care, energy and more. It's OK if those choices look different in South Carolina, Maine and California.

A Republican recommitment to freedom and limited government will foster an agenda that will strengthen and invigorate our party. Freedom has worked for our party and our country before. It will again, if we let it.

Mr. DeMint is a Republican senator from South Carolina.

Tea Party Patriots Speak Up

Written by Mark Meckler   
Friday, 01 May 2009 16:32

 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                            CONTACTS:    Mark Meckler, 530-210-6080                                                                                                Amy Kremer, 675-495-8271
                                                                                          Rob Neppell, 949-422-4573
                                                                                          Jenny Beth Martin, 404-326-0936
                                                                                          Tea Party Patriots


President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Others Owe 1.2 Million Tea Partiers an Apology -

The American People Deserve Better From Their Elected Representatives and Are Beginning to Demand It

Among the political class it has apparently become acceptable, and even fashionable, for American politicians from the President on down to mock the citizens they represent.  In a development that can only further denigrate the discourse necessary to any effective democracy, politicians and the "serious" news media are now mocking citizens regularly and with impunity.  Supported by mainstream journalists on MSNBC and CNN who themselves use sexual slurs on national television to mock and attack the same citizens, the politicians openly demonstrate their feelings of superiority in regard to those they were elected to represent.  They now candidly express their disdain for a significant portion of the American population without threat of reprisal by the mainstream media.  
On the morning of the April 15th Tea Parties, the American public was informed on national news by one of the President's economic advisers, Jared Bernstein, that the President was "unaware" of the tea parties taking place in over 850 cities across the nation.  On April 29th, the President informed a town hall meeting in St. Louis that he has now become aware of the tea parties, but only from "certain news channels on which I'm not very popular."  He referred to the one million plus Patriots who came out in legitimate and constitutionally protected demonstrations of free speech on April 15th as "folks waving tea bags around..."  While he collects royalties (last year about $2.6 million) from his books, The Audacity of Hope and Dreams From My Father, the President has the audacity to imply that we the people have nothing legitimate to say about high taxes, wasteful spending and corporate bailouts.  The President also seems to believe that it is appropriate to mock millions of Americans who are expressing their opinions publicly in a peaceful manner.  "Perhaps he feels that by mocking the tea parties and the patriots who attend them, that he can marginalize them.  But we know that real patriots cannot be marginalized, and that they will continue to make their voices heard in ever greater numbers," says Mark Meckler, Sacramento Tea Party Coordinator and Tea Party Patriots National Leadership Council Member.
This sort of condescending approach to the grassroots is a hallmark of politicians all across this land.  We, the grassroots are mocked by the President as "folks waving tea bags around."  Discussion of our legitimate complaints and concerns is avoided through the use of derogatory and condescending rhetoric.  We've heard similar rhetoric from the Speaker Nancy Pelosi who says the tea parties are an "Astroturf initiative," and "contrived events backed by those who like tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans."   Rep. Jan Schakowsky (IL), called people who attended the Tea Parties "despicable" and "shameful," said they represent "corporate interests" and said the events were created only by "Republican lobbyists and politicians."  At every level, the majority of politicians refuse to discuss the issues head on, and refuse to acknowledge the fact that a huge, non-partisan, grassroots movement has coalesced around limited government, fiscal responsibility and lower taxes.  As politicians, they are simply interested in taking and spending more and more of our money, and in leaving our children with the burdens of their excess.  And they mock, deride and oppose anyone who objects to what they are doing.
At this time, the President, and all other politicians who demeaned the tea party protesters, Speaker Pelosi (CA), and Rep. Schakowsky (IL) included, owe 1.2 million patriots an apology.  If our politicians are truly interested in dialogue with the people they claim to represent, such a dialogue must begin with respect for the citizens of this country.  That show of respect will begin when the politicians acknowledge that mocking and demeaning well-intentioned, peaceful patriots who love their country is the height of arrogance, and a terrible mistake.  The American people deserve better from their elected representatives, and are beginning to demand it.

Andrew McCarthy Rejection Letter to Eric Holder

Appearing on the website

Andrew C. McCarthy

May 1, 2009

By email (to the Counterterrorism Division) and by regular mail:

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C.  20530-0001

Dear Attorney General Holder:

This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases.  An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading.

The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.”  I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith.  Nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States).  Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues.  I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people.  Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.

Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct.  Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.

Beyond that, as elucidated in my writing (including my proposal for a new national security court, which I understand the Task Force has perused), I believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at Guantanamo Bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities.  This national defense measure is deeply rooted in the venerable laws of war and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2004 Hamdi case.  Yet, as recently as Wednesday, you asserted that, in your considered judgment, such notions violate America’s “commitment to the rule of law.”  Indeed, you elaborated, “Nothing symbolizes our [adminstration’s] new course more than our decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay….  President Obama believes, and I strongly agree, that Guantanamo has come to represent a time and an approach that we want to put behind us: a disregard for our centuries-long respect for the rule of law[.]”  (Emphasis added.)

Given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government, and your specific position that the wartime detention I would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend the Task Force meeting.  After all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself.
For what it may be worth, I will say this much.  For eight years, we have had a robust debate in the United States about how to handle alien terrorists captured during a defensive war authorized by Congress after nearly 3000 of our fellow Americans were annihilated.  Essentially, there have been two camps.  One calls for prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system, the strategy used throughout the 1990s.  The other calls for a military justice approach of combatant detention and war-crimes prosecutions by military commission.  Because each theory has its downsides, many commentators, myself included, have proposed a third way: a hybrid system, designed for the realities of modern international terrorism—a new system that would address the needs to protect our classified defense secrets and to assure Americans, as well as our allies, that we are detaining the right people.

There are differences in these various proposals.  But their proponents, and adherents to both the military and civilian justice approaches, have all agreed on at least one thing:  Foreign terrorists trained to execute mass-murder attacks cannot simply be released while the war ensues and Americans are still being targeted.  We have already released too many jihadists who, as night follows day, have resumed plotting to kill Americans.  Indeed, according to recent reports, a released Guantanamo detainee is now leading Taliban combat operations in Afghanistan, where President Obama has just sent additional American forces.
The Obama campaign smeared Guantanamo Bay as a human rights blight.  Consistent with that hyperbolic rhetoric, the President began his administration by promising to close the detention camp within a year.  The President did this even though he and you (a) agree Gitmo is a top-flight prison facility, (b) acknowledge that our nation is still at war, and (c) concede that many Gitmo detainees are extremely dangerous terrorists who cannot be tried under civilian court rules.  Patently, the commitment to close Guantanamo Bay within a year was made without a plan for what to do with these detainees who cannot be tried.  Consequently, the Detention Policy Task Force is not an effort to arrive at the best policy.  It is an effort to justify a bad policy that has already been adopted: to wit, the Obama administration policy to release trained terrorists outright if that’s what it takes to close Gitmo by January.

Obviously, I am powerless to stop the administration from releasing top al Qaeda operatives who planned mass-murder attacks against American cities—like Binyam Mohammed (the accomplice of “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla) whom the administration recently transferred to Britain, where he is now at liberty and living on public assistance.  I am similarly powerless to stop the administration from admitting into the United States such alien jihadists as the 17 remaining Uighur detainees.  According to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the Uighurs will apparently live freely, on American taxpayer assistance, despite the facts that they are affiliated with a terrorist organization and have received terrorist paramilitary training.  Under federal immigration law (the 2005 REAL ID Act), those facts render them excludable from the United States. The Uighurs’ impending release is thus a remarkable development given the Obama administration’s propensity to deride its predecessor’s purported insensitivity to the rule of law.

I am, in addition, powerless to stop the President, as he takes these reckless steps, from touting his Detention Policy Task Force as a demonstration of his national security seriousness.  But I can decline to participate in the charade.

Finally, let me repeat that I respect and admire the dedication of Justice Department lawyers, whom I have tirelessly defended since I retired in 2003 as a chief assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York.  It was a unique honor to serve for nearly twenty years as a federal prosecutor, under administrations of both parties.  It was as proud a day as I have ever had when the trial team I led was awarded the Attorney General’s Exceptional Service Award in 1996, after we secured the convictions of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and his underlings for waging a terrorist war against the United States.  I particularly appreciated receiving the award from Attorney General Reno—as I recounted in Willful Blindness, my book about the case, without her steadfastness against opposition from short-sighted government officials who wanted to release him, the “blind sheikh” would never have been indicted, much less convicted and so deservedly sentenced to life-imprisonment.  In any event, I’ve always believed defending our nation is a duty of citizenship, not ideology.  Thus, my conservative political views aside, I’ve made myself available to liberal and conservative groups, to Democrats and Republicans, who’ve thought tapping my experience would be beneficial.  It pains me to decline your invitation, but the attendant circumstances leave no other option.

Very truly yours,


Andrew C. McCarthy

cc:        Sylvia T. Kaser and John DePue
National Security Division, Counterterrorism Section