Daily Archives: January 30, 2010

Collins: ‘This administration cannot see a foreign terrorist right in front of them’

The Hill
By Tony Romm - 01/30/10

Maine Sen. Susan Collins (R) on Saturday hammered the Justice Department for treating Flight 253 terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as a “common criminal” –  a move she described in her party’s weekly address as a “failure” of the entire justice system.

The decision to read Miranda rights to Abdulmutallab — better known as the Christmas Day bomber — is symptomatic of the White House’s general “blindness” in its handling of the larger War on Terrorism, Collins stressed.

Consequently, the senator implored President Barack Obama to treat both Abdulmutallab and other, future terror suspects as “enemy combatants,” who have fewer constitutional rights than regular criminals, she explained.“President Obama recently used the phrase that ‘we are at war’ with terrorists. But unfortunately his rhetoric does not match the actions of his administration,” said Collins, the ranking member on the Senate’s Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.“The Obama administration appears to have a blind spot when it comes to the War on Terrorism,” she added. “And, because of that blindness, this administration cannot see a foreign terrorist even when he stands right in front of them, fresh from an attempt to blow a plane out of the sky on Christmas Day.”Collins is among a growing group of GOP lawmakers who are apoplectic at the administration’s treatment of Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian terror suspect who tried to bomb Flight 253 above Detroit last year.Her concerns stem from testimony at her own committee’s hearing last week, during which one Justice Department official admitted the White House did not speak with top intelligence officials before reading Miranda rights to Abdulmutallab. That decision, Collins said at the time, meant the suspect was only interrogated for an hour before he was granted a lawyer, and thus was able to stop speaking to investigators.Collins characterized that decision as a grave mistake in her address Saturday, stressing it has so far deprived the Justice Department of key counterterrorism information.But other Republicans too have skewered the administration for its now-controversial legal call.Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) expressed his concerns to Attorney General Eric Holder in a letter Wednesday, writing, “We remain deeply troubled that this paramount requirement of national security was ignored — or worse yet, not recognized — due to the administration’s preoccupation with reading the Christmas Day bomber his Miranda rights.”Earlier this month, 22 other senators wrote a similar letter to the president, stressing Abdulmutallab’s likely trial in a civilian setting would send the message that terror suspects would always have a “panopoly of rights” in U.S. courts.But Collins’ remarks this weekend perhaps signal GOP lawmakers are readying a larger push against the White House’s approach to the Abdulmutallab case. Senate Homeland Security Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Collins suggested one route earlier this week: immediately transferring custody of Abdulmutallab to the Defense Department, which could then try him before a military commission.However, White House officials are unlikely to acquiesce to the two senators’ request. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs as recently as last weekend described the Justice Department’s move as the “right decision,” adding the White House gained “valuable intelligence” despite only interrogating Abdulmutallab for a short time.Still, Collins and others in her caucus remain staunchly unsatisfied with the Obama administration’s response. Her radio address Saturday pined the Justice Department to consider revising its approach — not just with respect to the Abdulmutallab case, but to all of the White House’s forthcoming terror trials.“This charade must stop. Foreign terrorists are enemy combatants and they must be treated as such.  The safety of the American people depends on it,” Collins said.

Source:

Illinois: Another pending disaster for Obama

Capitol Hill Blue

Illinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (AP Photo)

By CHRISTOPHER WILLS

If the Massachusetts special election was a kick in the shins for President Barack Obama, the political turmoil in Illinois, his home state, is a pain in the neck that never seems to go away.

His former Senate seat, already stained by an ethics scandal, is a major takeover target for Republicans. So is the governor’s office.

Going into Tuesday’s Illinois primary, the first of the 2010 campaign season, Democrats are in disarray, with no political heavyweights in their lineup for the Senate seat that Obama gave up for the White House.

Losing it would be a bigger personal embarrassment for the president than Republican Scott Brown’s upset victory in Massachusetts, which took away the late Edward M. Kennedy’s Senate seat.

The front-runner for the Democratic Senate nomination in Illinois, state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, describes Obama as his mentor. He is only 33 and hasn’t served a full term in office, and his only previous experience was working for a family bank now in financial trouble.

Mark Kirk, a five-term member of Congress who supports abortion rights and gun control, is by far the leading candidate for the GOP Senate nomination, but he has infuriated some conservative Tea Party activists.

Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn is in danger of losing in the primary because of his association with disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who was expelled from office.

Quinn twice ran as lieutenant governor on the same ticket as Blagojevich. He has also taken heat for proposing a tax increase to clean up the state’s financial mess and for working with Obama to move terror suspects from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to an Illinois prison. His effort to cut costs by letting some nonviolent inmates out of prison turned out to include releasing violent offenders — some of whom have been accused of serious new crimes.

Whether or not Quinn survives the primary, Republicans see a strong shot at winning back the governor’s office.

“Massachusetts was more of a referendum on Obama. In Illinois, it’s going to be a referendum on Democratic incompetence,” said Pat Brady, chairman of the Illinois Republican Party.

In Massachusetts, Brown made his opposition to Obama policies, particularly health care overhaul, a centerpiece of his campaign. Obama had little choice but appear there two days before the special election on behalf of Brown’s Democratic opponent, state Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Since then, Illinois Republicans have mentioned the Massachusetts upset at every opportunity.

“I believe Illinois is ready for a Scott Brown experience,” Adam Andrzejewski, one of six contenders for the GOP gubernatorial nomination, said in a recent debate.

But the political situation in the two states are dissimilar. To start with, the Illinois primary will choose each party’s nominees, not decide who holds office. More importantly, there is little evidence that Illinois voters see the primary races as a referendum on Obama’s policies.

“I don’t think you can send messages that way,” Daniela Silaides, a Chicago Democrat, said after casting an early vote this week. “At the end of the day, we all have to work together. I don’t think that’s the effective way to get it done.”

Blagojevich, not Obama, has been the central figure in Illinois. The former governor was arrested and tossed out of office a year ago over a long list of corruption charges, including the allegation that he tried to sell Obama’s Senate seat to the highest bidder.

Before he left office, Blagojevich appointed Roland Burris to fill Obama’s Senate seat, which led to a Senate ethics investigation and left Burris so politically crippled that he decided not to run for a full term.

Republicans use Blagojevich, who left behind the biggest budget deficit in Illinois history, as a symbol of Democratic mismanagement. Whether talking about candidates for governor or Senate, they argue that any Democrat who supported Blagojevich or his policies — or simply criticized him too mildly — should not hold office.

Republicans have reason to be optimistic. Officials from both parties say Illinois voters are frustrated by rising unemployment and are angry about gridlock in Washington and corruption in state government. Since Democrats control all major offices in Illinois, that anger seems likely to be directed at them.

“I think you’re going to see a lot of people voting against incumbents,” said Bob Schillerstrom, who recently dropped out of the Republican primary for governor.

The White House claims not to be worried. Presidential adviser David Axelrod noted recently that voters won’t decide until November, which he called “an eternity” in politics.

John Penn, the Democratic chairman in McLean County, a heavily Republican section of central Illinois, acknowledges voters are worried and angry, but he thinks they want candidates who will be practical and work together, not just sit back and point fingers at the president.

“If I was running for office,” Penn said, “I wouldn’t divorce myself from Obama, especially in Illinois.”

Source:

Americans finally starting to see through the president’s prevarications

American Thinker

Ralph Alter
As much as Barack Obama professes his admiration for our 16th POTUS, Abraham Lincoln, B.O. still seems determined to disprove one of Honest Abe’s most famous bromides:

“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
(Abraham Lincoln )

The fact that this duplicitous non-achiever was elected in the first place proves his ability to fool nearly all of the people some of the time. Despite a near total lack of credentials, a voting record vacillating between rad-lib and “present,” and a passel of communists, terrrorists, anti-Semites and criminials in his close circle of friends, Obama rather easily fooled nearly all of the people in our great land. Especially those who went to journalism school.

The increasingly tin-tongued Speechifier-in-Chief seems deterrmined to flay the dead horse that Obamacare has become, just as he continues out in front of the politically correct nit-wit national security apparatus he has constructed, believing that he merely needs to find the right way to parse his promotion of these bankrupt ideas so his intellectual inferiors can finally “get it.”

Well, we’re getting it, all right. The latest Rasmussen poll demonstrates just how much of America Obama has lost. When asked whether B.O.’s proposed freeze of discretionary federal spending would help much, fully 9% of respondents agreed that it would while 81% of those polled believed that the freeze would be little help, if any.

I’m sure Joy Behar, Keith Olbermann and Henry Waxman are still on board. After all, Lincoln did state that you can fool some of the people, all of the time. The starry eyed residents of Lib La-La Land are snug in their tin-foil hats with their Obama blankie to keep them safe and warm. It appears that all Obama has left is the true believers. After nearly a year of B.O.’s fork-tongued pontificating, he is reduced to fooling almost none of the people, all of the time.

Source:

RENAISSANCE KICKBACK

The Post & E-Mail

by Pixel Patriot

(Jan. 29, 2010) — I hope you didn’t miss this little nugget from the State of the Union speech by the Anointed One last night:

“We are working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science, education and innovation.”

Now recall what he said during his USA bashing apology world-tour speech in Cairo on June 4, 2009:

“As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment.”

OK….so if the entire world has already been enlightened by Islam’s intellectual refinement and grandiose accomplishments, then why did Obama say last night we are spending tax dollars for science, education and innovation for Muslim communities?

Maybe he wants to accidentally leak some more of our classified national security technologies (nuclear technology) over to Iran just like the blueprints of Marine One?  Oops!

His BOLD-FACED LIES come in three versions. One, they are so BOLD and his teleprompter delivery is so good that you believe him even though what he says doesn’t have the slightest connection to reality or truth. Secondly, they are so BOLD that you say there is no way on God’s green earth that can be true, so his mojo disarms you into believing it is a lie because it is so overt and outlandish that no rational person would espouse it; yet you find out later that his duplicity is so deceiving that he really did mean it because he really is trying to do it. For example, his intention to fundamentally change America was dismissed because no one would ever have the guts to try change our Republic to a socialist Marxist state, and even if they did, they would be stopped. Surprise, surprise! And third, they are so BOLD because he even tells lies as a joke. No joke.

Judge him by what he does, not by what he says.

Let me get this straight. So far, Obama has been heckled every time he has given a speech before both chambers of Congress. First we have Rep. Joe Wilson who gave a shout-out to Obama saying “You lie” and then U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito retorted “Not true.” If I’m not mistaken, even though they were sitting down, these are men with “standing.” It’s only a matter of time before the fraud and corruption that allowed Obama to usurp the office of the President of the United States will see the light of day and the prudent concept of “trust, but verify” will be applied to the vetting process for our Commander-in-Chief.

Source:

In Hawaii, The DOH Lies

The Obama File

This information has been copied whole from butterdezillion blog — there are a ton of links associated with this stuff at butterdezillion blog — “DOH” is the acronym for Hawaii’s Department of Health.

People are asking how so many terrorist red flags could be overlooked by so many.  The same way these “birther” red flags were not only overlooked but ridiculed:

1.1.  DOH Director Fukino illegally hid until Nov 2009 the DOH Administrative Rules showing that election officials could have received a copy of Obama’s original birth certificate without his permission.  The DOH has said they can’t release any records without Obama’s permission.  But HRS 338-18(a) allows state laws and DOH rules to govern the disclosure of vital records, and the current rules — Chapter 8b, 2.5(A)(1)(f) — would allow any election officer transacting the placement of Obama’s name on the ballot to receive a certified copy.

1.2.  The DOH has falsely said that HRS 338-18 prohibits disclosure of government processing records. There are 2 kinds of records — records of the vital events themselves, and records of the government’s handling of those records.
Certificates are the record of the vital events.  HRS 338-18(a) says that information about the actual birth, death, marriage, and divorce events may only be released according to the provisions set by law or Department of Health rules, thus referring everyone to the DOH Administrative Rules to see how information on actual certificates may be disclosed and to whom.  Far from barring “any disclosure” as claimed by the DOH, current Administrative Rules allow a non-certified abbreviated copy of a birth (Chapter 8b, 2.5B), marriage (Ch 8b, 2.8C), or death (Ch8b, 2.6C) certificate to be released to anyone who asks for it.  However, a public statement of where someone was born — such as Fukino’s July 27, 2009 statement about Obama — is not allowed by the rules (Ch 8b, 2.1A).

All other records are public, except that neither direct viewing nor certified copies are allowed unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest.  Non-certified copies, abstracts, and disclosure of information from the documents are not prohibited — which, according to Hawaii’s “Sunshine Law” (UIPA) means they must be disclosed upon request, except for certain exemptions, such as for information having privacy interest that outweighs the public interest in disclosure: date of birth, gender, and address .

Since a damaging disclosure of records processing was made in September (see #3), The DOH has been denying access to these records by claiming that ANY DISCLOSURE is forbidden.

1.3.  Though ridiculing “birthers” publicly, the DOH has PRIVATELY confirmed Obama’s online COLB’s as forgeries — a fact the DOH has known since the beginning.  Because processing information is subject to disclosure, the DOH was forced in Sept 2009 to reveal that Obama’s birth certificate has been amended (OIP interpretation) and that Obama or his representative has paid a fee to have his certificate amended.  Amendments must be noted on the certificate (Ch 8b, 3.1), so the DOH has known this entire time that both the Factcheck and Fight the Smears COLB’s are forgeries, since they have no amendment noted.

1.4.  Every government agency in Hawaii contacted thus far has explicitly denied that they have a responsibility to report known forgery and/or have refused to report suspected forgery to law enforcement.  This includes the Department Of Health, Office of Information Practices (OIP), lieutenant governor’s office, and every member of Hawaii’s House and Senate.  Janice Okubo of the DOH seems to have stated that law forbids her to disclose ANYTHING about a birth certificate — even that it’s a critical, very public forgery.  The Ombudsman’s Office has said they don’t investigate crimes and only report evidence they uncover themselves.  See no evil…

1.5.  The amendment made to Obama’s birth certificate renders it insufficient evidence for legal purposes.  Minor administrative errors (such as typos) don’t remove the prima facie evidentiary value of a birth certificate, but such no-fault errors don’t result in a fee (Ch 8b 3.5C, 3.11, 3.1, & HRS 338-17) and Obama was charged a fee.  Legal name changes also don’t affect the evidentiary value, but the lieutenant governor’s office has confirmed that there has been no legal name change for anyone named Obama, Dunham, Soetoro, or Sutoro.

1.6.  Kapiolani Hospital received a letter signed by Obama on White House stationery and with raised seal claiming Obama was born there, even though that could only be true if Obama’s amendment contradicted the doctor’s testimony.  If he had been born in a Hawaii hospital the hospital itself would have been responsible for the content on the birth certificate and the DOH responsible for any clerical typos.  The only way Obama would be charged for an amendment is:

a)  if he or his representative claimed to have filled out the certificate themselves and erred, or

b)  if Obama claimed the doctor’s testimony was wrong.

1.7.  The DOH has broken Hawaii law to make rule changes (see July 11 addendum at bottom) that would protect Obama.  In mid-June of 2009 the DOH stated that they will no longer issue long-form birth certificates (an action reported in real time by The Obama File).  This is in direct violation of the current rules, without following HRS 91-3 mandates for an open process for rule changes — the first of several such violations within the past year.

1.8.  Fukino stated on July 27, 2009 that Obama’s records verify his birth in Hawaii, but Hawaii law forbids her to conclude that, since all the DOH has is legal hearsay.  According to PHR Chapter 8b and HRS 338-17, only a judicial or administrative person or group can evaluate the accuracy of the claims when an amended document is presented as evidence.  Obama has had many, many opportunities to present his birth certificate as evidence in lawsuits.  He has refused — even going so far as rescinding military orders rather than risk a judge seeing his birth certificate.  There is no process by which Obama would present his records to Fukino as evidence.

1.9.  Having made the illegal statement, Fukino refused to obey UIPA which required her to release the documents on which her statement was based.

1.10.  The DOH has deleted documents required to be stored for at least 2 years.  The DOH says it no longer has the UIPA request or invoices showing Obama’s birth certificate was amended.  The DOH’s own “Rules of Practice & Procedure” (11-1-30) say that documents must be stored as long as the case can be contested — August, 2011 in this case.

1.11.  Fukino averted discipline against herself by promoting the OIP director, who was replaced by the attorney who has designed the DOH’s deceptive responses.  Six days after Leo Donofrio’s blog said he would ask OIP Director Tsukiyama for disciplinary action against Fukino and Okubo for their deception, Tsukiyama resigned from the OIP to take a promotion to a company on whose board of directors Fukino sits.  He granted Cathy Takase’s request to have control of all DOH matters and asked her to replace him.

Now OIP is leaving HRS 338-18 rulings up to the DOH.  All DOH responses contain deceptions #1 & 2, including disobeying their own rules for non-certified abbreviated copies of birth, marriage, and death certificates.  They deny that documents exist which are required by law, such as descriptions of their forms, procedures, and instructions which are mandated in HRS 91, etc..

Red flags.  This information has been given to every lawmaker in Hawaii, the OIP, DOH, Ombudsman’s office, HI lieutenant governor’ and governor’s offices, Nebraska’s US attorney (who says they won’t take reports from citizens), and Hawaii’s director of the Department of Public Safety, as well as to multiple news organizations.  The FBI thrice said they don’t investigate document fraud.  All refused to act.  Red flags.

Source:

Remind Washington who’s in charge

Washington Times

By Carly Fiorina

Conservatism, an optimism grounded in great faith in each individual, rests on the fundamental principle that people will make better choices for themselves and their families than others can make for them.

It is the belief that we can trust individuals to make better decisions about how to spend and invest their own money than any far-away government bureaucrat or professional politician can.

Conservatism is really about a return to the basics that every responsible family understands. Don’t spend what we can’t afford; make the tough priority calls about spending and keep track of where the dollars go; invest in the security and unlimited potential of our children; don’t burden them with our debts.

Conservatism is about an uncomplicated agenda focused on opportunity for every citizen and accountability for every dollar spent or action taken by government. The radical idea that animated our Founding Fathers was that “all men are created equal” and should have the opportunity for “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Over generations, we have continually improved on this idea to recognize that we mean every citizen — regardless of race, station, nation of birth, sex or religion — should also have these same opportunities.

Our Founding Fathers knew that to protect individuals’ “inalienable rights” it was also necessary to restrain the power of a centralized and potentially heavy-handed government. Decisions made by the people’s representatives should be made as close to the people as possible. Ours should be a citizen government, not one populated only by professional politicians and bureaucrats. “By, for and of the people” is the foundation of modern conservatism and sets the highest possible bar for both transparency and accountability of government to the people.

I started out as a medieval history major, a law school dropout and a full-time receptionist. Only in America could a woman like me rise to become the chief executive of one of the largest American companies in the world. Only in America can any individual rise from any walk of life and with an education and the opportunity to do meaningful work, achieve their full potential.

The American Dream is precious, but it is also perishable. Unchecked government spending, fueled by ever-increasing taxation, does not create opportunity — it cripples our economy. What’s going on in California proves this beyond rebuttal. And bigger government doesn’t deliver better service. California proves this as the quality of our education and infrastructure continues to deteriorate.

And so conservatism must first be about restoring fiscal accountability and transparency. Washington has a spending problem, so we should do what every responsible family does when a teenager has a spending problem — we stop giving them more of our money.

We should hold government accountable for every one of our dollars spent. Technology can help. All proposed legislation should be posted on the internet for every citizen to view — before, not after, votes are cast. Every agency budget should likewise be available for common sense scrutiny — before the appropriation is passed.

I have managed budgets worth billions of dollars for my entire career. And I know from experience that if a billion dollars is being spent without scrutiny or accountability, then millions of dollars are being wasted, misdirected, or misappropriated.

Conservatism is not about saying no — rather conservatism is about the political courage and political will to choose our spending priorities and to recognize that tax dollars belong to the people, not to the government, and are not an unlimited source of funds.

Conservatism is about opportunity, not opposition. We must encourage the potential of as many people as possible by ensuring they have the tools of education.

We must focus on job creation by encouraging the engine of growth — small business — and rein in the unwarranted taxation and regulation that cripples small business. We must provide incentives for those who most fuel the American dream — innovators and entrepreneurs. We must recognize that the power of choice and competition makes everything from health care to education to procurement more effective and efficient.

Does conservatism need reinvention? Our Founding Fathers declared that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” I don’t think we can improve on that. Conservatism requires only re-engagement by citizens willing to remind Washington who is really in charge.

Source:

Justice Dept.: Obama administration may take action on BCS

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is considering several steps that would review the legality of the controversial Bowl Championship Series, the Justice Department said in a letter Friday to a senator who had asked for an antitrust review.

In the letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch, obtained by The Associated Press, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote that the Justice Department is reviewing Hatch’s request and other materials to determine whether to open an investigation into whether the BCS violates antitrust laws.

“Importantly, and in addition, the administration also is exploring other options that might be available to address concerns with the college football postseason,” Weich wrote, including asking the Federal Trade Commission to review the legality of the BCS under consumer protection laws.

Several lawmakers and many critics want the BCS to switch to a playoff system, rather than the ratings system it uses to determine the teams that play in the championship game.

“The administration shares your belief that the current lack of a college football national championship playoff with respect to the highest division of college football … raises important questions affecting millions of fans, colleges and universities, players and other interested parties,” Weich wrote.

Source:

(Excerpt) Read more at sportsillustrated.cnn.com