Usual democrat corruption

Not to say there isn't corruption in the republican party, there's just a lot less of it, and there are some principled republicans and no principled democrats, as in none.  This article highlights the connection between big business and the democrat party and its creepy operatives, like the Podesta brothers.  Someday someone will write a book about this connection and at least inform the American public how it works.  Meanwhile the corruption marches on, and gets worse.

Kagan Hearings questions

Here is a list of questions that George Wills thinks Elena Kagan should be asked in her SC confirmation hearings before the US Senate Judicial Committee.  Wonder how many will be asked?

-- It would be naughty to ask you about litigation heading for the Supreme Court concerning this: Does Congress have the right, under its enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce, to punish the inactivity of not purchasing health insurance? So, instead answer this harmless hypothetical: If Congress decides that interstate commerce is substantially affected by the costs of obesity, may Congress require obese people to purchase participation in programs such as Weight Watchers? If not, why not?

-- The government having decided that Chrysler's survival is an urgent national necessity, could it decide that Cash for Clunkers is too indirect a subsidy and instead mandate that people buy Chrysler products?

-- If Congress concludes that ignorance has a substantial impact on interstate commerce, can it constitutionally require students to do three hours of homework nightly? If not, why not?

-- Can you name a human endeavor that Congress cannot regulate on the pretense that the endeavor affects interstate commerce? If courts reflexively defer to that congressional pretense, in what sense do we have limited government?

-- In Federalist 45, James Madison said: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite." What did the Father of the Constitution not understand about the Constitution? Are you a Madisonian? Does the doctrine of enumerated powers imposeany limits on the federal government? Can you cite some things that, because of that doctrine, the federal government has no constitutional power to do?

-- Is it constitutional for Arizona to devote state resources to enforcing federal immigration laws?

-- Is there anything novel about the Arizona law empowering police officers to act on a "reasonable suspicion" that someone encountered in the performance of the officers' duties might be in the country illegally?

-- The Fifth Amendment mandates "just compensation" when government uses its eminent domain power to take private property for "public use." In its 2005 Kelo decision, the court said government can seize property for the "public use" of transferring it to wealthier private interests who will pay more taxes to the government. Do you agree?

-- Should proper respect for precedent prevent the court from reversing Kelo? If so, was the court wrong to undo Plessy v. Ferguson's 1896 ruling that segregating the races with "separate but equal" facilities is constitutional?

-- In 1963, President John Kennedy said Congress should "make a commitment ... to the proposition that race has no place in American life or law." Was he right?

-- In 1964, Sen. Hubert Humphrey, a principal sponsor of that year's Civil Rights Act, denounced the "nightmarish propaganda" that the law would permit preferential treatment of an individual or group because of race or racial "imbalance" in employment. What happened?

-- William Voegeli, contributing editor of the Claremont Review of Books, writes: "The astonishingly quick and complete transformation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, from a law requiring all citizens be treated equally to a policy requiring that they be treated unequally, is one of the most audacious bait-and-switch operations in American political history." Discuss.

-- In a 2003 case affirming the constitutionality of racial preferences in law school admissions, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said: "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today." If you are a sitting justice in 2028, do you expect to conclude that such preferences can no longer survive constitutional scrutiny because they no longer serve a compelling public interest?

-- The president is morose about the court's Citizens United decision holding that the First Amendment, which says Congress shall make "no law" abridging freedom of speech, means no laws abridging a corporation's freedom to speak, including nonprofit advocacy corporations such as the National Rifle Association and the Sierra Club. The court called it "censorship" for government "to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear." Do you agree?

-- You have noted that the court often considers legislative motives when deciding First Amendment cases. Should the court consider legislators' motives if, in response to Citizens United, they impose new burdens on corporate speech?

-- When incumbent legislators write laws restricting the quantity, content and timing of speech about legislative campaigns, are not their motives presumptively suspect?

Just wondering.

Corruption and hypocrisy in Obama's administration

We already know the Obama administration is thoroughly corrupt and hypocritical, however, this case proves it conclusively.  There was a spate of news about this intimidation case (durning the last presidential election) in the news after charges were filed against the Black Panther Party.  However, the story quickly faded from the news, no follow up occurred in the case.  The next chapter in this story is being written and here are the details.  This is a most interesting insight into the Obama DOJ, its politicization and racism, pure and simple.  The resignations of these two DOJ careerists should shake up the department and the administration.  Any bets that will happen?  Here's a bet:  this story won't even rise to a mention in the so-called mainstream media.  It is further proof of how far gone this media is in our country.  It has been hijacked by racists and the far left wing of the democrat party.  Meanwhile thank god for alternative media which hardy exihisted before the internet. Anyone  (and many aren't) interested in truly understanding how bad things are in our government today should come to grips with the implications of this story.

Sign of the times?

Anthony Weiner is an out an out socialist who has represented the boroughs of Queens and part of Brooklyn for six terms in the US House of Representatives.  Most of the legal immigrants to the US first locate in Queens and at least part of Brooklyn. These immigrants take the lowest paying jobs, learn the language, move on up the economic ladder and tend to move out of Queens and Brooklyn with success.  In the beginning they are likely feeling vulnerable and are   somewhat dependent on one or more of the various government programs for the needy.  Therefore they are susceptible to the appeal of socialists like Weiner.  What's interesting here, is the story of the "I've had enough" crowd deciding to challenge a formerly very safe democrat district incumbent.  The retired businessman running against Weiner decided to challenge after watching him refuse to answer legitimate questions on Fox New about the socialist nature of the healthcare reform program then being rammed through Congress by the Obama administrations.  This will be one interesting campaign to watch to see just how wide-spread the disgust with the runaway administration really is. The article is here.

"Palestine", Israel and the Obama Administration

That Obama is arguably a least a closet Muslim, one has only to observe his campaign rhetoric and speeches and policies toward the Middle East since becoming President.  The history of the conflict between the Israeli and the so-called "Palestinians" is provided in this two part series appearing in NRO, written by David Horowitz and Jacob Laskin.  Part one is here, and part two is here.  The disinformation and misinformation regarding "Palestine" and the state of Israel is truly shocking.  For an American administration to side with the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah, the PLO and all the other Muslim Middle Eastern states against the legitimate, democratic state of Israel is also truly shocking.  If, in fact, Obama is not a Muslim, he is surely a Muslim sympathizer.  In either case he is not in the tradition of American foreign policy that promotes and defends democratic states and shuns and condemns theocratic, undemocratic states that abuse the civil rights of their citizens.  This is a disgusting change in policy by the government of the US and one more reason this administration has got to go before it does even more damage.

ADDED:  This post below from the always insightful Powerline blog, actually comes very close to suggesting if not proving that Obama is a Muslim.  You have to ask yourself why his administration goes so far out of its way to rationalize the actions of Islamists/terrorists, and actually changes the generally accepted and understood definition, for example,  of a word such as "Jihad" from a no holds war against infidels to a war within the individual for soul cleansing, or such?  This is all kind of spooky, to say the least.  And BTW, to those who argue Obama's membership in the Reverend Wright's church and his marriage vows there, etc, remember that it has been pointed out that Obama had no known church or religious affiliation until he moved to Chicago and started laying the plans for a political career.  In short, he needed a political base and a black church in heavily black populated Chicago south side provided the perfect access to that base.  The evidence is not conclusive, but it is mouning, that Obama's connection to Islam is more than casual.

RASHAD HUSSAIN EXPLAINS OBAMA

   Share Post   Print

June 25, 2010 Posted by Scott at 6:56 AM

We have written a lot about Rashad Hussain, America's special envoy to the Organization for the Islamic Conference (OIC), the Saudi-based body formed in 1969 to "protect" Jerusalem from the Israelis. Hussain is a piece of work. See the posts collected here.

Notwithstanding his flaws, Hussain has made a great contribution to understanding Barack Obama. This week in a speech a the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, Hussain announced a new title for Obama. According to Hussain, Obama is America's "Educator-in-Chief on Islam." He may be in over his head as the president of the United States, but he's not bad at promoting Islam. Obama embodies the the melding of the left with Islamist forces at home and abroad. Stephen Schwartz reports:

The occasion was another "post-Cairo" conference, following on the event that welcomed Islamist ideologue Tariq Ramadan to Washington in April. Hussain also declared that Obama is "Educator-in-Chief" on the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, which has produced diplomatic and political events around the capital for some years. Hussain affirmed with satisfaction that presidential iftar dinners, where the fast is broken after sundown, and which had formerly been limited to diplomats from Muslim countries, now welcomed American Muslims from throughout society.

In his remarks, Hussain also congratulated Obama for sending Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser, to last year's annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America, a notorious front for Saudi-financed Muslim radicalism. Worse, Hussain has now divulged that the U.S. will support the OIC in the latter's United Nations effort to criminalize "defamation of religion" - widely perceived as a measure to suppress criticism of Muslim practices that violate human rights. "The OIC and the Obama administration will work together in the UN on the issue of defamation of religion, especially in Europe," said Hussain. He had previously said, at the above-mentioned April "post-Cairo" conference, that the U.S. would work with the OIC to defend the Muslim head-scarf against prohibitions on its display in schools and governmental offices - a measure common to secular France and now Islamist-ruled, but still legally-secular Turkey, as well as Muslim-majority Tunisia and Kosovo.

Obama, Hussain declaimed, has created an "overarching framework" for relations between Muslims and non-Muslims that is lacking in Europe. The problem, according to the president's man at the OIC, is that a once-favorable relationship between the West and the Muslim countries has turned negative in the past decade - presumably, since 9/11. Put plainly, Obama's desire to educate Americans about Islam is founded on nostalgia for a warm and reliable friendship that rarely existed.

Here Schwartz pauses to note Hussain's explanation of the Orwellian linguistic contortions that have become a prominent feature of the Obama administration's treatment of Islam ("a variety of factors") and terrorism ("man-made disasters") and jihad (a "holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam"):

As noted by Hussain, Obama has called for references to "Islamic terrorism" and "jihadism" to be expunged from the official vocabulary employed by his administration, and has pronounced last year's Fort Hood massacre to be unrelated to Islam. As the president has assured the world, terrorism is anti-Islamic and the term "jihad" has been misused. Thus Obama presumes not only to act as "educator" on Islam to non-Muslim Americans, but to define the religion for its own adherents.

Hussain addressed his comments to an event assessing the impact of Obama's Cairo speech. But Hussain employed a phrase that must have been chilling to those who heard in it an echo, saying "Islam is a solution" to the current global challenges emerging from Muslim ranks. A "post-Cairo" phrase indeed: "Islam is the solution" is the slogan of the radical Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

Schwartz concludes with the question: "Are we learning yet?" I think we've learned enough for today. I just don't know what we can do about it.

Obama administration's lie re auto bailout

It is obvious from Hennesey's first hand report here that Obama's administration refused to work with the outgoing Bush administration on  the auto loans in order to take credit for their success if successful, and/or blame Bush if they were not.  Maybe every incoming administration would do this, maybe not.  I believe the crises at hand during the transition was so great that all hands should have been working together.  The dems would not work with Bush on any issues involving the transition, which is typical of these "politics before all" operatives.  This country is never in the best of hands in any democrat administration ever, never.

RE ISRAEL/PALESTINIAN STRUGGLE

Shelby Steele hits the nail on the head here.  IMHO, many if not most of the followers of the Muslim faith have no sense of economic competition and therefore have no answer to the relentless march of innovation and the like that drives material progress in the West.  Becoming more and more frustrated as they fall further and further behind, Muslims play the victim card so often used by the race mongers Sharpton, Jackson, et al, in this country.  What's needed is a good dose of the Protestant work ethic infused into the Muslim religion.