The death of Michael Jackson is tragic. New reports of his emaciated, narcotized body are heart wrenching. A very talented, although tormented, soul has been striped of his dignity and all that he fought to hide is revealed. Even so, the world is celebrating the King of Pop as if he were indeed nobility.
I took the liberty of participating in one of the many "polls" on a website yesterday. The pollster asked which album was your favorite Michael Jackson album and it listed a few. The last option was "I'm not a fan of Michael Jackson". I found that statement interesting. Although I respected the man as an artist, Michael's music has never been in my library of songs. So I opted for the last statement and clicked to see the results. I was surprised to see 74% of the pollers had said the same thing. It seems there may not be as many fans out there as the media would have us to believe. At least not in the United States.
So now Michael is dead but the media adoration is not. He is a international hero once again. And we are honoring a young man that chose a life of drug abuse and atypical behavior. A role model for our youth? I would hope not. But it never ceases to amaze me how our media instructs us to behold those that should be criticized. We have seen it many times before. Paris Hilton's rise to fame after her porn video is another prime example. Movie goers are delighting in the new Transformers movie and early predictions are that it will hit the $400 million mark soon. But, if you had listen to the critics you would have never wasted your money. Could the bad reviews be because of a swipe at President Obama in the movie?
My father said to me as a young girl, "Believe nothing you hear and half you see". And that is where we are with the media and their chosen ones. We must teach our children to not only be aware of events in our country and the world, but to use discernment and discretion with every story. A tall order when so many of our adults are duped and haven't a clue.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
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 directorblue.bogspot.com.
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 Cars.com'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 www.thomasmore.org.
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 www.thomasmore.org.
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.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
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 Politico.com 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.....
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?
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:
I urge anyone who can to offer a contribution to this excellent organization.
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!
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, CNN.com 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.
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):
CNN.com, 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 b.s.ing 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.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
Dick Morris Sets the Right Direction
RESISTING O'S WORLD - STICK TO YOUR GUNS, REPUBLICANS
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
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 DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
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 DickMorris.com 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.
Marco Rubio is definitely one to watch.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)