CA GOP Senate Candidate in Bed with Terrorists?

Just when it looks like the GOP may be able to make a clean sweep in blue states... the LA Times is featuring an investigative article that details some of moderate Republican Tom Campbell's pretty unsavory connections with Sami Al Aria and, indirectly, Khalid Sheik Mohammed. I ask you, is THIS the sort of Republican that should benefit from a year of tea parties and righteous vitriol at big government?

Tom Campbell's Israel problem

Tom Campbell, the moderate California Republican who hopes to challenge Sen. Barbara Boxer in November, might make a good U.S. senator, or he might not. We don't know yet because the campaign is just getting underway, and subjects from healthcare to taxes to immigration to foreign policy will all be part of the debate.

But at the moment, the participants are stuck on one subject: Israel. Bloggers on the American Spectator and Commentary websites have attacked Campbell, saying his record as a congressman in the 1990s suggests he is insufficiently committed to the Jewish state -- and soft on terrorism. On Thursday, predictably, his GOP rivals weighed in. Carly Fiorina said she was "deeply troubled" by what she'd learned, and Chuck DeVore's campaign called Campbell "a friend to our foes."

This kind of thing is hardly unusual in American politics. Everyone knows that Israel is a third rail -- that Jewish, evangelical and Republican votes, among others, can turn on it. But the topic has become more polarized than ever. One extreme argues that politicians must support Israel unreservedly; the other points to a sinister "Israel lobby" with disproportionate influence that can make and break candidates at will.

We find both views simplistic. We support Israel and believe Israelis have a right to live free from missile attacks and suicide bombings. We abhor terrorism and don't want our leaders palling around with those who engage in it. But we are also convinced that it is possible to criticize Israel without being anti-Zionist. We don't believe that public officials must be rigidly loyal to a single playbook of "pro-Israel" positions.

Which brings us back to Campbell. Has he taken positions so out of line that, as Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center said Thursday, they "send real alarms that this is someone who maybe doesn't . . . fully support a strong ongoing relationship with the state of Israel"? Do his beliefs make him an anti-Semite -- a nasty term that is already being thrown around? Is he hostile to Israel or soft on terrorism?

So far, we're not persuaded. Campbell has been accused by the Fiorina campaign of voting to "cut aid to Israel." But in fact, in one of the cases it cites, what he really did was vote against increasing foreign aid by $30 million (over and above the usual $3 billion he'd already voted for and the additional $900 million he'd already voted for). He objected to the increase, he says, because the money would have come from aid set aside for the world's neediest countries.

Similarly, Campbell has been attacked for saying that perhaps Jerusalem could serve as a "shared capital" for Israelis and Palestinians. Though that notion angers those who see Jerusalem as Israel's eternal undivided capital, it would be foolish not to acknowledge that "sharing" the city or redividing it is viewed by many as an essential element of an eventual peace.

The most disturbing allegations against Campbell involve his relationships with people who have ties to terrorism. He took a campaign contribution, for instance, from professor Sami Al-Arian, and later wrote a letter on his behalf when the University of South Florida tried to fire him. Al-Arian was subsequently arrested and pleaded guilty to aiding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Campbell insists he knew nothing about Al-Arian's terrorist ties. They'd met, he says, after he opposed the treatment of Al-Arian's brother-in-law, who was in jail but had been denied the right to view the evidence against him. That's why Al-Arian contributed. Why did Campbell write the letter? He says he'd been told Al-Arian was being fired for his outspoken political opinions.

Is Campbell's explanation credible? His opponents think not, but we're inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. He was naive, perhaps, and gullible; he certainly shouldn't have written the letter before gathering the facts. But we find it hard to believe he is a "friend to our foes" who knowingly supported an Islamic Jihad operative.

This is an important subject, and no doubt more will come out in the days ahead. To those who are concerned we say: Ask him. Challenge him. His positions are fair game. So is his judgment. But let's not allow innuendo, hyperbole and cheap politics to drown out reasonable debate.

Follow ECR on Facebook
Join: Email Updates

Was New DoD Logo Based on Iranian Design?

In all the furor about how similar the new DoD Missile Defense Agency's logo here

looks like the Obama campaign logo

a lot of people overlooked how creepily similar it is to the Iranian space agency logo

So, where is the MDA getting their patch design ideas from, the Obama campaign or the Iranian mullahs (known for their finely honed fashion sense)? I have some interesting info on the MDA's public response to this as well, but I'll have to post about it later tonight when I have time...

Follow ECR on Facebook
Join: Email Updates

Five Biggest Liberal Lies from Yesterday's Healthcare Summit

Yesterday's Democrat drone-fest was, thankfully, punctuated by some of the most cogent Republican arguments on healthcare that have yet been aired. Now we're finding that, in addition to being ceaselessly boring, the Dems were evidently plenty misleading, with Harry Reid setting the mendacity bar high. Real high.

If Democrats Would Start Listening To The American People, They’d Stop Telling Falsehoods

NO ONE’S TALKING ABOUT RECONCILIATION?

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) Claims “No One Has Talked About Reconciliation.” “No one has said -- I read what the President has online -- no one has talked about reconciliation but that's what you folks have talked about ever since that came out, as if it's something that has never been done before.” (“Transcript: White House Health Summit, Morning Session,” Kaiser Health News, 2/25/10)

But Reid Himself Is Talking About Reconciliation. “Harry Reid’s got a gift for hyperbole – and it keeps on giving. The Senate majority leader’s latest gem came in response to hints that Democrats might try to use the fast-track budget ‘reconciliation’ to bypass a Republican filibuster of President Obama’s health care plan. After advising Republicans on Tuesday to ‘stop crying over reconciliation as if it’s never been done before,’ he ticked off a list of legislative feats he contends were accomplished through the filibuster-busting process: ‘Contract [with] America was done with reconciliation. Tax cuts, done with reconciliation. Medicare, done with reconciliation.’” (Jonathan Allen, “Hyperbolic Harry,” Politico’s “Live Pulse” Blog, 2/24/10)

“For Some Bizarre Reason, During His Initial Presentation, Sen. Reid Said That ‘No One Has Talked About Reconciliation,’ … But That's Obviously Not True. Everybody's Talking About It. And A Lot Of Dems Would Be Pretty Upset If They Weren't Talking About It.” (Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo’s “Editors Blog” Blog, 2/25/10)

* “A Number Of Democratic Senators Have Signed A Letter Urging Reid To Use Reconciliation To Pass The Public Option.” (Eric Zimmermann, “Reid: 'No One Has Talked About Reconciliation,’” The Hill’s “Briefing Room” Blog, 2/25/10)

Obama Health Reform Advisor Says The Door Is Open For Reconciliation. “Linda Douglass, the communications director of the White House Office of Health Reform, left reconciliation on the table as an option for passing a health care bill if Democrats and Republicans don't reach consensus during Thursday's summit. … ‘Certainly if that were not to be the case, he would be asking for a simple up or down majority vote and would certainly hope that the Republicans would not try to block that simple up or down majority vote.’” (Carol Lee & Patrick O’Connor, “Douglass Open To Reconciliation,” Politico’s “44” Blog, 2/25/10)

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AREN’T INTERESTED IN RECONCILIATION?

Obama Claims Americans Don’t Care About Reconciliation. “You know, this issue of reconciliation has been brought up. Again I think the American people aren't always all that interested in procedures inside the Senate. I do think they want a vote on how we’re going to move this forward.” (President Obama, Health Care Summit, Washington, DC, 2/25/10)

But 52% Of Americans Don’t Want The Democrats To Use Reconciliation To Pass Their Government-Run Health Care Experiment. “In the survey, Americans by 52%-39% oppose Senate Democrats using the procedure, which allows a bill to pass with a 51-vote majority rather than the 60 votes needed to end debate.” (Susan Page, “Poll: Expectations Low On Health Summit,” USA Today, 2/25/10)

DEM PROPOSALS WILL LOWER PREMIUMS?

President Obama Claimed CBO Determined His Plan Would Lower Premiums. PRESIDENT OBAMA: “It's not factually accurate. Here's what the Congressional Budget Office says. The costs for families for the same type of coverage that they're currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent.” SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER (R-TN): “The Congressional Budget Office report says that premiums will rise in the individual market as a result of the Senate bill.” PRESIDENT OBAMA: “No, no, no, no. Let me -- and this is an example of where we've got to get our facts straight.” ALEXANDER: “That's my point.” OBAMA: “Well, exactly, so let me -- let me respond to what you just said, Lamar, because it's not factually accurate. Here's what the Congressional Budget Office says. The costs for families for the same type of coverage that they're currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent.” (President Obama, Health Care Summit, Washington, DC, 2/25/10)

But Actually, CBO Determined The Bill Would Raise Premiums For Americans Purchasing Insurance Individually. “CBO and JCT estimate that the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law.” (Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), 11/30/09)

INCREMENTAL PLANS ARE UNACCEPTABLE?

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): “[I]naction And Incrementalism Are Simply Unacceptable.” (Mike Allen, “Will Dr. Obama Go For Plan B-1, Or Plan B-2? -- Dems' Post-Summit Message: POTUS Was 'Thoughtful, Comprehensive,' Rs 'Insulted The Summit' -- New NYT Expose May Finish Gov. Paterson,” Politico’s “Playbook,” 2/25/10)

But 56.4 Percent Of Americans Prefer An Incremental Approach. “Moreover, 56.4 percent of people indicated they would prefer Congress to tackle healthcare reform on a step-by-step basis, not take the comprehensive approach as embodied in the legislation that passed the House and Senate last year but has stalled for the past month.” (Jeffrey Young, “Poll: Most Americans Think Congress Should Start Over On Healthcare,” The Hill’s “Briefing Room” Blog, 2/16/10)

PUBLIC FUNDS WOULDN’T GO TO ABORTION?

Pelosi Said Abortion Wouldn’t Be Funded Under The Plan. “The law of the land is there is no public funding of abortion and there is no public funding of abortion in these bills and I don't want our listeners or viewers to get the wrong impression from what you said.” (Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Health Care Summit, Washington, DC, 2/25/10)

But The Bill Allows Federally Funded Abortions. “Under the new abortion provisions, states can opt out of allowing plans to cover abortion in the insurance exchanges the bill would set up. The exchanges are designed to serve individuals who lack coverage through their jobs, with most receiving federal subsidies to buy insurance. Enrollees in plans that cover abortion procedures would pay with separate checks -- one for abortion, one for any other health-care services.” (Paul Kane, “To Sway Nelson, A Hard-Won Compromise On Abortion Issue,” The Washington Post, 12/20/10)

Pro-Life Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) Calls Obama’s Abortion Language “Unacceptable.” “Unfortunately, the president’s proposal encompasses the senate language allowing public funding of abortion. The senate language is a significant departure from current law and is unacceptable.” (Ben Smith,” Stupak: “Unacceptable,” Politico’s “Live Pulse” Blog, 2/23/10)

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) Says 15 To 20 House Dems Who Can’t Support Obama’s Proposal. “Rep. Bart Stupak, the Michigan Democrat who led efforts to tighten abortion language in the House health care bill, said Wednesday morning there are 15 to 20 House Democrats who cannot support President Barack Obama’s effort to bridge the gap between the House and Senate health plans. … He said well over a dozen House members will likely balk, not just on abortion but on the residual tax on so-called Cadillac health plans, which he said the House had already rejected.” (“Stupak: 15-20 Dems Can’t Back Obama Health Plan,” The Wall Street Journal’s “Washington Wire” Blog, 2/24/10)

Follow ECR on Facebook
Join: Email Updates

HOPING we can CHANGE this Nation back to America

Well, here's some encouraging news - fully 56% of those polled by CNN think that the government is a threat to citizens' rights. In fact, the more I think of it, unless armed men just stormed your office, government is usually the ONLY threat to citizens' rights, isn't it? In fact, odds are that IF armed men just stormed your office, they were probably government agents.
I think civics would be much better taught if they focused on the idea that it's not the government that keeps us free - it's the limits placed on our government by the constitution that make us free. And it's not the race or gender or even religion of people like Barack Obama that make us distrust him. It's the way they shrug off their constitutional limits, or see them as something to be worked around in order to deliver the next big freebie they promised...

CNN Poll: Majority says government a threat to citizens' rights

Washington (CNN) – A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to rights of Americans, according to a new national poll.

Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government's become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.

The survey indicates a partisan divide on the question: only 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents and nearly 7 in 10 Republicans say the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.

According to CNN poll numbers released Sunday, Americans overwhelmingly think that the U.S. government is broken - though the public overwhelmingly holds out hope that what's broken can be fixed.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted February 12-15, with 1,023 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the overall survey.

Follow ECR on Facebook
Join: Email Updates

Obama's Plan to Ambush the GOP on Healthcare

Everybody's saying that the GOP did well today at Obama's healthcare summit. EC shows you why that's not even the point, here. The Republicans better be careful or they'll get blindsided.


Join: Email Updates

Why the GOP Should Have Walked Out On Obamacare Democrat Dronefest

You ever feel like we've just jumped entirely through the looking glass and into some half-witted Wonderland? EC had that thought as he watched Obama ironically "moderate" a summit on his own proposal. Despite the Democrat drone-fest, the points that the GOP speakers made were salient, valid and compelling. Unfortunately they were punctuated by long periods of the senseless Democrat anecdotal babble that's aimed to work on an emotional level and exhaust you enough to make you stop thinking. And once you've stopped thinking, you'll agree with Obama every time


Join: Email Updates

Legislators End Busy Day Inexplicably Licking Obama's Executive Boots

I'm no expert in Constitutional law or bureaucratic protocol, but I seem to recall learning something about "separation of powers" being a big deal to the heads of the respective branches of government. Last I recall there were three and the media. But I wonder if Obama has different ideas. I wonder why none of the legislators - even the GOP - seem to balk as he arrogantly "moderates" an incredibly boring discussion on his own proposal - sitting up there like some kind of a corrupt political pharaoh. You'd think someone would have enough ego to be offended by this kind of treatment. I personally think that legislators of old certainly would have.

To be sure, the GOP did an excellent job of making their points with the 25% or so of the time that they were allowed the floor, but from what I saw of the "summit" (since when are routine legislative meetings summits, anyway?), it appears that Obama's tactic was to distract the public with long, boring statements about the "crisis" in our private healthcare system by people who haven't had to use the private healthcare system since their political careers began, in most cases that has been decades.

One note: I find myself thinking that the GOP should have walked out on this summit BS until the Dems agreed once and for all to take reconciliation off the table. As long as that's an option you have to wonder what's the point of the summit annyway, unless it's just to provide political momentum for Obama?

One other note: Apparently routine legislative meetings became "summits" at about the same time that it became proper for the head of the executive branch to preside over them...




Join: Email Updates

Gruesome Abortion Doc's Sick History of Abuse

When investigators entered Dr. Kermit Gosnell's office last week, they probably expected to see some sick things - it IS an abortion mill, after all. What they found was FAR worse than anyone could have expected, and Gosnell's past has some horrifying clues about the type of "healthcare" provided by the good doctor. Is it any surprise that many abortionists routinely mistreat, abuse, and injur More..e their patients - at least the ones they don't kill. Perhaps the most shocking fact is that the people who perform these procedures are still allowed to call themselves doctors.



Join: Email Updates

Seances with the Brain-Dead or Explaining Reality to Liberals

EC uses Obama's insane government power-grab in healthcare as an example of how we sane people can explain things like simple economics and government spending to anyone - EVEN A LIBERAL. While it hasn't been field-tested yet, there are indications that speaking to them in their native dialect - referring to things like pork-barrel spending and frivolous government projects as "unsustainable," and, while introducing them to advanced concepts like value and profit and labor and free exchange may take some time, buzzwords that they understand may be the key to breaking through to the "other side" and communicating with the brain-dead


Join: Email Updates

Even an "Anarcho-Communist" Can See Obama's Fascist Tendencies

EC loves callers - even self-described "anarcho-communist" callers. This call shows that even leftists are alarmed at Obama's huge government power grab, and along the way EC explains to this leftist how anarchy and communism have no business being on the same team


Join: Email Updates

New Obama Logo/Islamic Crest DoD Patches?

Check out the snazzy new logo designed for the Department of Defense's Missile Defense Agency. It appears to be a mixture of Obama's campaign logo and an Islamic crescent.

This is one of those things that makes you say to yourself, "Is this really happening? Can this really be the new patch for the DoD's Missile Defense Agency?" Apparently it is, as the official Missile Defense Agency website confirms.

Is it self-aggrandizing hubris? An Islamic crest? A bizarre mixture of the two? Or just an amazing coincidence?

Hat tip to Chris Islam for catching this. Here's where you can follow him on Facebook. His site's been down from a malicious attack recently.

On that note, we've just started a fan page on Facebook ourselves. You can follow us here.

Join: Email Updates

Global Warming - A Fraud So Gigantic and Obvious Only A Politician Could Love It

The dominos continue to fall, as the fraud of Anthropogenic Global Warming continues to be laid bare for all to see. At least anyone who bothers to. Now the head of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, Professor Phil Jones, has had to come clean about his mishandling of the data used to create the infamous "hockey stick chart" (the one Al Gore is always referencing). It seems the poor professor, whose data has been used to justify the creation of, and therefore underpins, a slave-like system of carbon credits under which we would all have our lives inexorably and permanently changed, is just so darn absent-minded that he's lost the original data. I told you when something was rotten in Denmark. I don't know where the hell East Anglia University is, but something smells pretty rotten there, too.




Join: Email Updates

If We Keep Helping Al Qaeda, Maybe They'll Think We're Reasonable

It's too bad that a military tribunal can't offer the kind of platform for America-bashing and Islam-glorification that a huge public trial in a civilian court in downtown Manhattan can - otherwise we wouldn't have to listen to all this crap about where to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and particularly the media's insultingly incompetent efforts to make this all look sane.

I get aggravated as all hell with the free pass that Obama continues to get from the media - and their ability to run interference for his indecision and procrastination on issues of real importance just blows my mind. Remember the snow job they did when he dithered, dathered, twiddled, and twaddled his way to a decision on the Afghanistan troop levels, all while the men on the ground were being killed daily? Well, here we go again.

This time, instead of asking Obama why, if the American public is hungry for a civilian trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, as his administration claims, are cities doing everything they can to avoid hosting it, I guess they're too busy waiting worshipfully for Obama to spearhead some kind of "process" and entertain some kind of "debate" about the whole matter.

Obama will help select location of Khalid Sheik Mohammed terrorism trial

President Obama is planning to insert himself into the debate about where to try the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, three administration officials said Thursday, signaling a recognition that the administration had mishandled the process and triggered a political backlash.

Obama initially had asked Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to choose the site of the trial in an effort to maintain an independent Justice Department. But the White House has been taken aback by the intense criticism from political opponents and local officials of Holder's decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian courtroom in New York.

Administration officials acknowledge that Holder and Obama advisers were unable to build political support for the trial. And Holder, in an interview Thursday, left open the possibility that Mohammed's trial could be switched to a military commission, although he said that is not his personal and legal preference.

"At the end of the day, wherever this case is tried, in whatever forum, what we have to ensure is that it's done as transparently as possible and with adherence to all the rules," Holder said. "If we do that, I'm not sure the location or even the forum is as important as what the world sees in that proceeding."

Administration officials said the president's involvement has to do with securing congressional funding for the costly trial before bipartisan efforts to strip financing for the case against Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators gain greater momentum. They said it was a matter of national security, not just politics.

Senior White House officials said that the decision to try Mohammed in New York was Holder's and that no single person in the administration was responsible for handling the politics of that choice. In an effort to avoid leaks, Holder kept the decision close in the days leading up to his Nov. 13 news conference, calling New York officeholders that day to inform them. Several New York officials said they have dealt exclusively with Holder, first during the rollout of the announcement and more recently as he struggles to find another venue.

Officials acknowledged that Holder does not deserve all the blame for the political problems. "Their building represents what they do -- justice. It's rightly not staffed with people who have to worry about congressional relations or federal funding," one White House official said.

At first blush, the choice of New York made sense to many lawyers inside and outside of the administration: Judges and prosecutors there have handled serious national security trials, the Manhattan courthouse and tunneled detention complex would not require any of the suspects to move aboveground, and security costs would be lower than building a new facility.

But several sources questioned why the administration -- especially one replete with political veterans -- has not done a better job of managing the complex politics of national security.

"How did this happen?" asked Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.). "It was being blind to political realities, and I don't mean partisan politics. I mean the real, legitimate grass-roots feelings. They misread it."

Managing the politics of terrorism has not been assigned to one person at the White House. Many people are dealing with the issue of the trial, including Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, National Security Council Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, deputy national security adviser Thomas E. Donilon, senior adviser David Axelrod and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. Increasingly, Phil Schiliro, the head of White House legislative affairs, has worked on building support in Congress. The new White House counsel, Bob Bauer, is also managing "a central piece of it," one senior White House adviser said.

Word of Obama's increased attention to one of the biggest national security issues he inherited comes as disagreement grows over the Justice Department's use of federal courts to try accused terrorists. George W. Bush's administration employed that strategy at least 100 times, but the public mood has shifted since the Mohammed trial announcement and a thwarted Christmas Day airline bombing plot.

According to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, 55 percent of voters say military tribunals should be used to try suspected terrorists, compared with 39 percent who say the civilian court system should be used. In November, there was an even split on this question. Still, Obama has an advantage on national security, with a majority of Americans continuing to approve of the way he is handling the threat of terrorism -- his highest-rated issue -- and 47 percent saying they mainly trust Obama on the issue compared with 42 percent who trust the GOP.

Officials across the administration recognize that they have been slow to respond, defend and communicate their position, prompting a flurry of forceful comments over the past week.

Democrats, to help the administration push back on Republican attacks, sent Obama a letter Thursday afternoon that endorsed the use of federal criminal courts. "Our system of justice is strong enough to prosecute the people who have attacked us," wrote Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.) and Senate Intelligence Chairman Dianne Feinstein (Calif.).

In his interview, Holder reiterated his belief that a civilian trial would be the best legal option for Mohammed. "Trying the case in an article III court is best for the case and best for our overall fight against al-Qaeda," he said. "The decision ultimately will be driven by: How can we maximize our chances for success and bring justice to the people responsible for 9/11, and also to survivors?"

Holder reflected on his first year as the nation's top law enforcement official and the nature of his interaction with the White House on counterterrorism, his top priority.

"What I've tried to do is re

establish the department in the way that it has always been seen at its best, as an agency that is independent, given the unique responsibilities that it has," he said. "But to be truly effective in the national security sphere, you've got to involve partners outside this building. To make decisions the AG has to make, you have to involve the commander in chief and these other people. I'm part of the national security team in a way that I'm not involved in the environmental resources team, the civil rights team."

Support from allies on Capitol Hill may not translate into a venue that would welcome a trial of Mohammed and four other defendants, especially after New York's mayor, police commissioner and senior U.S. senator all but ruled out Holder's first choice: the courthouse in Manhattan.

White House officials said that negotiations with Congress are underway -- even suggesting that some sort of deal may be in the works, with the White House using the Mohammed trial as an opening to prod Congress to act on a range of detainee-related issues. "Our hope would be that we could use the increased attention to the issue on Capitol Hill to come up with a solution to this piece of a much bigger puzzle," one senior adviser said.

Administration officials said the decision will be made soon.

Obama gave little clue about how the administration will proceed when he was asked Sunday about the trial. But he made clear that, in a shift from last year, he is now part of the decision-making process, saying in a CBS interview that Manhattan was still an option. "I have not ruled it out," Obama said.

If the White House is unable to find a civilian court where the Mohammed trial can be held, and if the political pressure continues, the administration may be forced to shift to a military commission.

Officials in the states where a civilian trial could be held have voiced clear opposition to hosting one. Two of the likeliest states with ties to the terrorist attacks -- New Jersey and Virginia -- recently elected Republican governors. Two other potential states -- New York and Pennsylvania -- have key 2010 elections. One possible site is the town of Newburgh, N.Y. State officials have said they would fight that move.

Join: Email Updates

Why the Stock Market is Crashing and Why It's Likely to Get Out Of Control

Today the stock market closed under 10,000 after more than a week of heavy selling. Everyone's asking the same question - WHY? EC answers that and explains the heavyweight battle going on inside our government and in our markets... and why the result of this Mexican standoff may well be the destruction of your financial security.


Join: Email Updates

Are the Natives Getting Restless?

I ran across this on Free Republic and, well, thought it was interesting enough to pass along. It was written by Gargantua, without whose permission I have reprinted it here, fair use and all - or is it Fair Use? I'm no attorney.

Anyway, one of the things we'll talk about this week is whether the birth certificate issue is hurting us or helping us - and does that really matter in issues of right vs. wrong and our Constitution?

Why The Need To Lie About “Birthers?”

We all, those of us on the ironically enough referred to “right,” understand without any explanation why it is that the Liberal Left and their complicit major Media lapdogs feel a need to demonize and intentionally misrepresent the thrust of what is insultingly called the “birther” movement. According to the ‘straw man’ set up by these disingenuous smut peddlers so that they can easily knock it down, is that this “birther” movement is kooks who insist that there is a ‘vast conspiracy,’ an evil, well-orchestrated cover-up of the fact that Barrack Obama was not born in the United States.

Their need arises from a desperate desire to cloud the issue at hand, and take the trained-seal public’s attention off of the actual question being posed, and focus it instead on those asking the question while simultaneously painting us as crackpots worthy only of ridicule and, eventually, dismissal. Calling any who would ask questions about Barry’s birth “crackpots” does the job quite nicely, and encourages others not to pursue this line of inquiry.

This is not unexpected or surprising, as such obfuscations and sleight-of-hand trickery are mainstays of the Liberal Alinskyites who seek to destroy the America we all grew up in and dearly love, and replace this Constitutional Republic and its omnipotent Manifest Destiny with just another limp 3rd World Banana Republic ruled by dictatorial fiat and One World considerations.

The truth about the “birthers” is that we acknowledge certain inarguable, publicly known facts, and in response to these facts, pose some really simple questions.

The facts which are all a matter of public record, and which we herewith admit into evidence are these;

1. Barack Hussein Obama has spent north of one million dollars in legal fees challenging the release of his original long-form birth certificate, which bears his footprint(s), the name and signature of the delivering physician and at least one witness, and the time and place of the birth. Nobody has ever claimed to have seen this document, and having seen it, specifically verified that it proves Mr. Obama meets the aforementioned “natural-born” requirement.
2. Included as protected in this convoluted legal challenge of secrecy concerning his own founding documents are all of his college transcripts, his applications for college student financing, and all travel records as would have been recorded on his passport(s).
3. His own maternal grandmother (in Kenya) insists that she was present when he was born there.

The three big questions posed by the “birthers” in direct response to this truly unfathomable need for secrecy and the apparent role of the media in either burying the story or demonizing those who might dare to tell it are these:

1. If everything is as you have stated regarding your founding documents, why not just show them and be done with it?
2. Why has Hawaii’s Attorney General come out and publicly refused to back up the statements made by other Hawaiian officials who claim to have seen and verified the information on your long-form birth certificate?
3. How did you travel to Pakistan with your college roommate at a point in time when Pakistan was at war, and it was illegal for American citizens to enter that country? How, if you are a documented citizen of the USA, were you allowed in?

There are many other questions that should be answered, like why did the DNC’s own Elections Certification body not verify in writing to all 50 states (as the law requires them to do) that you were indeed a verified natural-born citizen of the United States of America prior to the 2008 general election?

Why is the Media not asking you these questions?

In over two-hundred-and-fifty interviews and question-and-answer sessions with major Media outlets beginning with your announcing your candidacy for president, no reporters have ever asked you directly about, or reported upon, the highly unusual need for the unprecedented and very expensive secrecy over what for most of us would be rather mundane, everyday documentation. Again, why?

But I digress.

What bothers me is not the way the usual liberal suspects are playing this shell-game. My problem is with otherwise reputable and normally reliable information sources and conservative organizations playing this same game. As an example, Townhall.com currently has an article attacking Joseph Farrah for playing to the “birthers” at the Tea Party Convention taking place in Tennessee this weekend. In it, Townhall posits that such “conspiracy theories” only “diminish” and “hurt” the conservative cause.

How does asking a question, or a series of questions, regarding undisputed facts in the public domain, make those who pose the questions “conspiracy theorists?” Why would conservatives want to caution other conservatives about asking questions that need to be asked, or, worse still, call those querying individuals insulting names for merely asking? I readily admit that there is a small percentage of actual “conspiracy theorists” among the far larger number (according to one recent national poll, nearly 50% of all Americans!) who believe that Obama might not be a naturally-born citizen), but most of us simply want and deserve answers to some rather important questions about this man who openly states that it is his goal to “fundamentally transform” the greatest nation in the history of mankind.

What we do not deserve is to be denigrated or insulted for performing our civic duty as involved citizens. To those “conservatives” who might, for whatever ill-advised reason, want to shore-up the liberal lie and attack us “birthers” I have the following sincere comments.

It is not those of us asking the questions about Obama’s origins who pose biggest threat to America and her conservative causes. It is the Liberal liars smearing us who pose this threat, and it is the misguided “conservatives” who join their screed who aid and abet this vile enemy. If that doesn’t cause you to rethink your motives and your game-plan, then consider this:

Look you now at Tennessee. Look well at the tens-of-millions of independent swing voters represented by those gathered at the Tea Party Convention. You castigate them and urinate on what they deem important at your permanent political peril. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

;-/

Join: Email Updates

Dems Failing and Flailng at Tea Partiers

One way you can tell that the Tea Parties have really gotten under the skin of the elites, liberals and statists who run DC is how quickly the term "Teabagger" became a pejorative. Now a law firm, best known for its defense of Obama vs. birther lawsuits, is focusing itself on a new objective - making sure that candidates who espouse the "radical" ideas of the Tea Partiers are duly slimed and targeted by the state-run media thugs who populate our airwaves. Lower taxes, smaller government, accountability by elected officials... yeah, pretty radical bunch those Tea Partiers.


Join: Email Updates

Irony Alert! - Obama Rips GOP for Obstructionism

Here's a great one for you - Obama's blaming the Republicans for the miserable year of failure that 2009 was for the Democrat agenda. Perhaps someone should explain to Obama, whose party has had a decisive majority in the House, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for the past year, that it was Democrats that stopped the Democrat agenda from steamrolling America like they planned. The Republicans didn't have the firepower. Besides, IMO, this is all a thinly veiled attack on those Obama sees as REALLY responsible for his failure - the American people.

Link to the CNN Blog

Washington (CNN) - President Barack Obama tore into the Republican opposition on Capitol Hill Wednesday, blaming the GOP for what he claimed is politically-motivated opposition on virtually every issue.

Democrats have been willing to incorporate Republican ideas on health care and other issues, he said, but Republicans have not been willing to do the same.

Addressing a gathering of Senate Democrats, Obama promised to "call (Republicans) out when (Democrats) extend a hand and get a fist in return."

Senate Republicans, he said, have employed the filibuster more over the past year than in all of the 1950s and 1960s combined. The GOP's strategy has been "twenty years of obstruction packed into one," he said.

Join: Email Updates

Hypocritical Attacks on Free Speech? Nah... Just Business as Usual for the Democrats

This is an excellent example of how and where Obama wants to lead us, and how the Democrat party is more than happy to promote ignorance of the Constitution and encourage limitations on liberty for no reason other than grandstanding for political points on an issue that they think has "traction" but is really not an issue at all - just an opportunity to educate people. Let me explain.

The recent Supreme Court reversal of the patently unconstitutional McCain-Feingold Act (read as defending the 1st Amendment and the right of all Americans to exercise it) is being twisted by the left, under Obama's direction. Obama tried to make the (dishonest) point last week that the ruling paves the way for unfettered political access by foreign corporations to our political process. Unfortunately, in order for that to be true, we'd have to ignore laws that have been on the books for decades and are still in force because they were particularly NOT addressed in the court's ruling.

Oh well. Now they're on to the loony idea that "free speech is for people, not corporations." Given that many many people ARE corporations (I'm incorporated), I guess the liberals are now calling for most doctors, lawyers, small businesspeople, professionals, entrepreneurs, financial advisers, athletes, and others who use incorporation as a management strategy to be excluded from the nation's political process? Evidently so.

The ignorance is astounding... but why all the posturing for something (a constitutional amendment) that doesn't stand a prayer- oops! It's the DU... I forgot- an incantation of happening? Because they think it makes Republicans look like they're in bed with corporations. Never mind that Dems are getting more than half of all corporate PAC money now anyway...

I've gone to the loony-pit Democrat Underground site so that you don't have to:

Reps Edwards, Conyers Just Put in Constl Amendment to Overrule SCOTUS
Posted by davidswanson in General Discussion
Tue Feb 02nd 2010, 03:11 PM
Congresswoman Donna Edwards has just introduced a Constitutional amendment, together with Congressman John Conyers.

Watch this video:
http://freespeechforpeople.org/edwardsvide...

PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS APPLAUD REP. DONNA EDWARDS FOR FILING CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BILL TO OVERTURN US SUPREME COURT RULING ON CORPORATE MONEY IN ELECTIONS

HOUSE JUDICIARY CHAIR JOHN CONYERS, JR JOINS FILING

"Free Speech Rights Are For People, Not Corporations"

WASHINGTON, DC – Congresswoman Donna Edwards of Maryland introduced today a constitutional amendment bill to overturn the US Supreme Court’s recent ruling allowing unlimited corporate money in elections. Congressman John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, is a co-sponsor of the amendment bill.

A coalition of public interest organizations and independent business advocates praised the Congresswoman’s action. The groups, Voter Action, Public Citizen, the Center for Corporate Policy, and the American Independent Business Alliance, say the Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC poses a serious and direct threat to democracy. Immediately following the Court's ruling on January 21, 2010, the groups launched a constitutional amendment campaign at www.freespeechforpeople.org to correct the judiciary's creation of corporate rights under the First Amendment over the past three decades.

"Free speech rights are for people, not corporations," says John Bonifaz, Voter Action's legal director and the director of http://www.freespeechforpeople.org . "Our history has included prior amendments to the US Constitution which were enacted to correct egregiously wrong decisions of the US Supreme Court directly impacting the democratic process. The Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC demands a similar constitutional amendment response. We applaud Congresswoman Edwards and Congressman Conyers for taking this critical step toward restoring the First Amendment to its original purpose."

"The Citizens United decision is wrong as a matter of law, history, and our republican principles of government," says Jeffrey Clements, general counsel to http://www.freespeechforpeople.org . "The decision is devastating to our democracy, which is already dominated to a dangerous degree by corporate interest money. Congresswoman Edwards and Congressman Conyers are showing the leadership we need in Congress at this hour."

"The First Amendment was never intended to protect the likes of ExxonMobil, Pfizer or Goldman Sachs, nor should it," said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen. "Public Citizen thanks Representative Donna Edwards for her courage and leadership in responding to the Supreme Court majority's aggression with a proposal for a constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment to its rightful purpose: guaranteeing the speech rights of real, live persons."

"An amendment allowing regulation of corporate spending in elections is not only necessary to correct the twisted logic of the Citizens United ruling," says Charlie Cray, director of the Center for Corporate Policy, "but will also go a long way towards rousing us as citizens to assert our authority over the now presumptively untouchable corporations."

"The American Independent Business Alliance is pleased to see Representatives Edwards and Conyers respond to public outrage over the Supreme Court's rewrite of our Constitution," says Jeff Milchen, co-founder of the American Independent Business Alliance. "America's independent businesses are among those which recognize that we need to limit corporations to their appropriate role--doing business. Allowing giant corporations even more power over our elections and government would be as bad for business as it is for democracy."

In addition to the filing of Congresswoman Edwards’ amendment bill, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts joined the call today for a constitutional amendment. In testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Senator Kerry said: "We need a constitutional amendment to make it clear once and for all that corporations do not have the same free speech rights as individuals."

Join: Email Updates

Earth to Katie Couric - No One's Watching

With dozens of people losing their jobs at CBS News, and the threat of financial devastation that probably has on all of their families, I thought it may be wise to ignore all that and focus on the real outrage - that Katie Couric is having to take a pay cut!

In fact, she may have some kind of a discrimination suit here if she plays her cards right. After all, why should she have to suffer at all, just because she butched herself up and now can't get anyone with opposable thumbs to watch her slimey brand of journalistic malpractice?

I wonder if the White House is concerned that these idiot journalists may eventually put two and two together and realize that Obama-style economic devastation doesn't help ANYONE... even the elite "chosen" mouthpieces? I guess that's a stretch, being that most journalists are pretty much idiots... and in Katie's case, no one's watching anyway.

From the NY Observer:

On the evening of Monday, Feb. 1, Katie Couric, anchor of the CBS Evening News, was wearing red. For the next half-hour, she tore through the headlines. There were allegations of bigotry among the federal air marshals in the U.S., an American church group accused of trafficking children in Haiti, faulty gas pedals in Toyotas, a suicide bombing in Baghdad, a massacre in Mexico and a bodybuilder in Latvia with a rippled back like a map of Switzerland. “Thank you for watching,” said Ms. Couric, at the end of the broadcast. “I’ll see you here tomorrow.”

Many of Ms. Couric’s viewers would return the following night. Much of Ms. Couric’s staff would not.

It had been a rough day at CBS News. Four and a half years earlier, CBS chief Les Moonves had joked in The New York Times Magazine about bombing the news division. And now, among the seasoned veterans of the newsroom, there was a sense that the detonation had finally gone off. Earlier that morning, CBS News executives and bureau chiefs, led by senior vice president Linda Mason, told their employees that 2009 had been a disastrous year in the ad market. They had no cable operation to buoy the sinking revenues. It’s not you, was the message, it’s us. Dozens of employees—including staff members in D.C., San Francisco, Miami, London, Los Angeles and Moscow—were being let go. The changes were effective immediately. There would be no buyouts. According to one longtime staff member, the network had long ago negotiated away most of the severance clauses in staff members’ contracts.

Word of the layoffs had first surfaced the previous Friday afternoon in the L.A. Times. Over the weekend, CBS staffers vacillated between acceptance of the situation and cautious optimism. Maybe it wouldn’t be as bad as reported? After all, the company was already lean. Where would top brass find 100 or so people to let go? Perhaps there was some stash of employees hidden on the digital side, some long-forgotten deal between, say, 60 Minutes and Yahoo, that would provide some bodies to lessen the blow?

But in the end, the cuts were surprisingly deep. By Monday afternoon, staffers from Washington to L.A. were sputtering in disbelief as they heard of top producers on the chopping block—particularly Mark Katkov and Jill Rosenbaum in D.C. and Roberta Hollander and Barbara Pierce in L.A. These were seasoned veterans, part of the old school known back in the Dan Rather days as “the Hard Corps.” Over the years, they had somehow managed to outlive every big buzz saw to cut through the newsroom. They knew how to get more from less. Each thought of himself as worth five producers at ABC News. Their theme song was Merle Haggard’s “Holding Things Together.” It was hard to imagine what the already third-place morning and evening news operations would look like without them.

The most disturbing news of the day for many observers was that Larry Doyle would no longer be working for CBS News.

Mr. Doyle, according to CBS News legend, joined the organization some 40 years ago, when then D.C. bureau chief Bill Small found him working as a porter at a Washington hotel. Mr. Small promptly made Mr. Doyle the bureau’s go-to “dogrobber”—the guy you sent into nasty situations to stare down snarling subjects and get the job done. From there, Mr. Doyle gradually worked his way up the news ladder, eventually becoming the network’s top war producer, churning out great television from every hellhole on the planet—including Baghdad, where he served as the network’s bureau chief during the early years of the ongoing war.

Reached the afternoon of Tuesday, Feb. 2, Dan Rather recounted various stories of Mr. Doyle’s heroism in the field, including his impressive management of gun-toting teenagers in Somalia. “He’s one of the all-time greats,” said Mr. Rather. “He’s the soul of the place.”

“This is a guy,” he added, “whom Ed Murrow would have been glad to have as his producer.”

For the time being, no on-air reporters or anchors have been asked to leave. But according to multiple sources, the network did inform a handful of veteran correspondents, including Randall Pinkston in New York, Sandra Hughes in L.A. and Sheila MacVicar in London, that they were being reassigned from prominent network jobs to reporting for CBS Newspath.

Historically, the Newspath—a news-gathering service that provides coverage for local CBS stations—was a stepping stone for young correspondents on their way from regional station jobs to the big time at the network. Going from network to Newspath is generally seen as a major demotion. Some sources speculated that the move was made as a passive-aggressive attempt to chase off salary-heavy talent. It had the appearance, as one source put it, of “a slower form of death.”

On Tuesday, CBS staffers were still on guard. Word had it that executives from the news division were still on the move, meeting with staffers at bureaus around the country, bringing more bad tidings.

Reporting on the death of CBS News is an age-old discipline among TV writers. Books have been written on the subject. (See, Boyer, Peter; 1988; Who Killed CBS?) But as the names of the laid-off began to circulate, it looked less like the end of days and more like the end of an era. The final vestiges of the pre–Katie Couric regime were finally leaving the network. “It’s like we’re Lehman Brothers,” said one longtime staff member, “and the JPMorgan guys are finishing moving in.”

Join: Email Updates

Canadian Lawmaker Rushes to US for Decent Medical Care

What do Canucks do when they have to have a SERIOUS medical procedure done? They come to the USA. But what happens when you're the Canadian Premiere of Newfoundland? Well, that's extra special because it gives people like me a good reason to point out once again the foolishness of Obama's plan to socialize our healthcare system and it makes the liberal squirt-video fantasy of a Canadian-style healthcare system seem like what it really is- just a huge power grab by people who would really prefer we start dying off anyway. As for the Premiere (is there an 'e' on that? I'm not sure), his health is reportedly doing much better than his political prospects, as Canuck media are giving him a hard time for opting out of the junky Canadian system and availing himself of the first-rate healthcare we have here in America. Don't worry too much - we suspect he is some kind of super-wealthy dog farmer... he also rules some place called Labrador. OK, OK, now I'm just baiting Canucks. Seriously. we love you guys.


Join: Email Updates

Conservative Reality vs. Liberal Fantasy

EC plays a little game with liberal fantasy and conservative reality - can you tell the difference? Congressman Clyburn vs. Senator Gregg, and later we talk about Rubio's widening lead over Obama-huggin' Charlie Crist.


Join: Email Updates