Eight Dems Arrested in Bell, CA ‘Corruption on Steroids’ – Not a Single Mention of Party Affiliation From Media



Eight Dems Arrested in Bell, CA ‘Corruption on Steroids’ – Not a Single Mention of Party Affiliation From Media

September 21, 2010

Today, eight city council members were arrested in Bell, California for what Los Angeles County District Attorney labeled “corruption on steroids.” Thus far, every major news outlet that has reported on the story has omitted the fact that all eight individuals arrested are Democrats.

These glaring omissions come only weeks after NewsBusters reported that of the 351 stories on the then-brewing controversy, 350 had omitted party affiliations, and one had mentioned they were Democrats only in apologizing for not doing so sooner.

ABC, CBS, the Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, Bloomberg, USA Today, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and the San Francisco Chronicle all reported on the arrests today without mentioning party affiliations.

One commenter at CNN’s online story got it spot on: “I notice there is no mention of the party affiliation of the accused. I can find no mention of it in any story on the internet. This must mean they were all Democrats.”

Give the man a cigar.

Together, the eight city officials “misappropriated” $5.5 million in municipal funds. Robert Rizzo, the chief culprit, was arrested on 53 counts of various brands of corruption.

Before the scandal came to light, Rizzo had been making roughly $1.5 million per year, even though the per capita income in Bell is roughly half the national average (median income of $35,000).

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/09/21/eight-dems-arrested-bell-ca-corruption-steroids-not-single-mention-p#ixzz10M2tvDCY


To wit: City council members awarded themselves $96,000 per/year compared to $4800 in similar-sized cities.  Since 2001, the council approved annual 16% raises without a city audit or public comment period. Democrats, acting as tax-stewards, raised city manager Robert Rizzo’s salary 16 times, leading to 53 fraud charges and inexplicable plunder.  Bell, mind you, has a median income of $35,000, yet Rizzo, a part-timer, tucked away not one, not two, but EIGHT-hundred thousand, annually.

According to state official, John Chiang, Bell property owners also paid millions in extra taxes due to resolutions the council capriciously made “law.”  Similar crimes in nearby Vernon promise more revelations, more Dems behind bars, but don’t expect media-coverage here.



Media corruption/collusion to only portray Republicans/Conservative/Teaparty Patriots as evil,racist,bigoted,”lizard brains”, and Homer Simpsons?  Yet, to report the TRUTH and complete story, they tend to leave the word Democrat out of the story?





Healthcare Reconciliation Bill Done? What is HIDDEN in the Bill…


March 11, 2010

Over Twitter last night, Jeffery Young reported that House Democrats will meet tomorrow morning to review the health reform reconciliation “fix.”

The House Democratic caucus will meet at 10AM Thursday to review the final #hcr bill.

If this is true, then it means the reconciliation bill is written.

Further, given that House leaders have given up on negotiating with Stupak (or have they?), and given that neither the House nor the Senate Democratic leadership are likely to support anything in the way of strengthening amendments on the floor, it means that the last time changes will be made to the health reform bill by public votes will take place in the House Budget Committee markup of the reconciliation bill.  Any other changes will be placed into the final bill based on deals made behind closed doors between the leadership and individual members.

So, the Budget Committee markup is likely the last chance to improve the bill.  Representative Paul Ryan claims the markup will start on Monday, but that’s Paul Ryan.  Best to wait for other confirmation.

The list of Budget Committee members can be seen here.  Is isn’t, um, exactly the most progressive committee around.  In fact, if both Marion Berry and Marcy Kaptur are in the Stupak bloc (Berry probably is, but Kaptur probably isn’t), it only has a 20-19 majority in favor of passage.  And, even that narrow majority requires the support of three Blue Dogs: Etheridge, Moore and Schrader.

As I wrote earlier today, the time for agitation to change the bill has all but ended.  The time to decide, once and for all, whether you want Congress to pass this bill or not is practically upon us.

I am still not very optimistic about where the votes stand.  In a comment today, user kvandyke posted a good rundown of the votes the House leadership can get, and need to get. Link


Within the Healthcare Bill:

issue of including student loan reform

Which is badly needed.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.


WHAT does Student Loan Reform have to do with healthcare?


Comments by readers:

Grayson’s Bill Is Stand-Alone

Honestly, I think we have a better chance of passing a good public option in its own bill than passing a weak public option as part of the fix bill.  The other upside to that is we can see who the weasels really are; with nothing else in the bill, they would have no excuses.

by: themann1086 @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 20:38:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hear, Hear!

And given the popularity of the public option, a four page bill like Grayson’s is an extremely winnable fight without all the baggage of comprehensive Health Care Reform.Get comprehensive reform done now!  Then we can move on to improving the bill with small, popular, easy to understand reforms like Grayson’s Public Option Act.

PTDB! After that, pass Grayson’s Public Option Act!

by: youlikeit @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 20:52:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don’t see Grayson’s bill passing this session… I just don’t see a path to 60 and I doubt the Senate will do it through reconciliation.  However, if the Filibuster is reformed, next session this could be a real possibility.

Is this part of the plan?

Pass the lame healthcare bill; then submit Alan Grayson’s Act to amend?

H.R. 4789

Title: To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for an option for any citizen or permanent resident of the United States to buy into Medicare.


****America: THIS is single-payer healthcare; what Obama and the PROGRESSIVES have wanted all along***


Grayson has already garnered 50 Co-sponsors.

Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] – 3/11/2010 Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] – 3/11/2010
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] – 3/11/2010 Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] – 3/11/2010
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] – 3/11/2010 Rep Edwards, Donna F. [MD-4] – 3/9/2010
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] – 3/11/2010 Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] – 3/9/2010
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] – 3/9/2010 Rep Fudge, Marcia L. [OH-11] – 3/11/2010
Rep Green, Al [TX-9] – 3/11/2010 Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] – 3/11/2010
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] – 3/11/2010 Rep Hall, John J. [NY-19] – 3/11/2010
Rep Hare, Phil [IL-17] – 3/11/2010 Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] – 3/11/2010
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] – 3/11/2010 Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] – 3/11/2010
Rep Jackson Lee, Sheila [TX-18] – 3/9/2010 Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] – 3/11/2010
Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30] – 3/11/2010 Rep Johnson, Henry C. “Hank,” Jr. [GA-4] – 3/11/2010
Rep Kaptur, Marcy [OH-9] – 3/11/2010 Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1] – 3/11/2010
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] – 3/9/2010 Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] – 3/11/2010
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] – 3/11/2010 Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] – 3/11/2010
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] – 3/11/2010 Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] – 3/11/2010
Rep Meeks, Gregory W. [NY-6] – 3/11/2010 Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] – 3/11/2010
Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38] – 3/11/2010 Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] – 3/11/2010
Rep Pierluisi, Pedro R. [PR] – 3/11/2010 Rep Pingree, Chellie [ME-1] – 3/9/2010
Rep Polis, Jared [CO-2] – 3/9/2010 Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] – 3/11/2010
Rep Sablan, Gregorio [MP] – 3/11/2010 Rep Sanchez, Loretta [CA-47] – 3/11/2010
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] – 3/9/2010 Rep Shea-Porter, Carol [NH-1] – 3/9/2010
Rep Sutton, Betty [OH-13] – 3/11/2010 Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] – 3/11/2010
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] – 3/11/2010 Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35] – 3/11/2010
Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] – 3/9/2010 Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9] – 3/11/2010
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] – 3/11/2010 Rep Wu, David [OR-1] – 3/11/2010

Compare the above list to the Congressional Progressive Caucus list:


The Progressives will not stop.  They only way to change this is to vote all Progressives OUT in November 2010 amd 2012.

Is Alan Grayson making a power play for Nancy Pelosi’s Speaker Position?


The ONLY thing the Progressives fear is the ballot box.


End note:  THIS is the reason I left the Democratic Party in 2008 after being a Democrat for 35+ years…..more a Reagan Democrat (Blue-dog Democrat).  Now an Independent voter.

It became a party I no longer recognized.  The Congressional Progressive Caucus is shoving America over a cliff.

**Sen. Bernie Sanders is an open admitted Socialist from Vermont***


Beware: there are “Progressive” Republicans too!

 Olympia Snowe?

Susan Collins?

Lindsey Graham?





Guess Who’s Coming to Your House?


This posting at American Thinker deserves a full review.

**All Credit for this goes to Ken Blackwell, the author, and the American Thinker site***

March 08, 2010

Guess Who’s Coming to Your House?

By Ken Blackwell

It’s all supposed to be voluntary, those “home visits” that are tucked into the mammoth ObamaCare bill. If you have a strong stomach, and stronger bottom, you can find home visitation on pages 568-595.  That’s Section 2951 of H.R. 3590, the Senate bill that Harry Reid brought down the chimney on Christmas Eve.

All voluntary, they say, but once you “volunteer” to have the oh-so-helpful folks from Social Services come in to help with your newborns, or with a number of other specified issues, will you ever be able to get rid of them?

The bill provides for federal funding and supervision for this vast expansion of government intrusion into family life. This is the Nanny State on steroids.


Is your family being “targeted” for such home visitations? Let’s see if you fit into one of these very broad categories:


  • Families where Mom is not yet 21. (No mention here whether she is married or not.)
  • Families where someone is a tobacco user. (Does this include the White House? Watch out, Sasha and Malia!) Does Grandpa, whom you love and have taken in, enjoy his after-dinner pipe?
  • Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities.


As if that list were not wide-ranging enough, here’s the net that can encompass tens of millions:


  • Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States. [Emphasis added.]


So, while Johnny gets his gun, the government steps in to “help” his family at home.  

Who will sit atop the federal pyramid that runs this vast new invasion of family privacy? Why, it will be Sec. of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, of course. She was the most pro-abortion governor in American history when President Obama tapped her for his Cabinet.

Do you spank your children? You should know that HHS bureaucrats think you are an abuser.


Do you support the Second Amendment? How would you like HHS bureaucrats asking your children if you maintain firearms in the home for family protection?


Do you home school your kids? Take care. Members of Congress who have tried to abolish home schooling are big backers of this health care bill. Do you wonder why?


There are abundant reasons to oppose this health care bill. Conservative leader Gary Bauer cites the colorful words of Oklahoma Democratic Congressman, Dan Boren. Mr. Boren is one of the bluest of Blue Dogs. He says: “They can break my arms. They can do whatever they want to. They’ll never get my vote — ever. They’ll have to walk across my dead body if they want my vote on this issue.” Boren spoke for many concerned Democrats when he said: “…there is no chance I am voting for this bill because it raises taxes on businesses, creates job-killing mandates, grows the size of government, and cuts services to seniors.” 


All of this is true. But the White House is pulling out all the stops. One of their senior advisers told CNN’s Gloria Borger what President Obama’s people are telling wavering Democrats on Capitol Hill:


BORGER: Right. This isn’t going to be subtle at all today. I think this is it. I was speaking with one senior White House adviser just before I came on the air, and he said, think of it this way. This is the last helicopter out of Saigon, OK?


Could anything be more bizarre? A senior member of the administration is comparing the President’s signature measure in Congress to the forced evacuation of the U.S. Embassy in South  Vietnam in 1975.


Older Americans remember the shame and heartbreak of seeing thousands of America’s allies desperately clinging to U.S. Army helicopters as the North Vietnamese army closed in on South Vietnam’s capital city.


We don’t want to re-fight the Vietnam War, but it should not go without notice that the Democrats also controlled Capitol Hill back in 1975. The Democrats, led by Sen. Ted Kennedy and Minnesota Congressman Don Fraser, had cut off all the promised U.S. funding for the South Vietnamese armed forces that were trying to stave off a brutal Communist takeover of their country. And we’re told we have to pass ObamaCare as a tribute to Ted!


Is this the kind of hope and change Mr. Obama’s top advisers now want us to embrace? Are his own people thinking of this last-minute push as a debacle?  Helicopters in Saigon. What a confused and confusing mess this is!


One thing is clear: For life and liberty, we must defeat ObamaCare. Call your U.S. Senators and Representatives now (202.224.3121). Tell them to vote NO on ObamaCare.



Ezekiel Emanuel (Rahm’s Brother): Obesity is bad for the economy and infrastructure.

Michelle Obama: Obesity is bad for national security.

Your organs belong to the government unless you “opt out” of having your organs removed by government entities for organ transplants.

The “Human Lives” curve: only those between 25 and 45 have more “worth” than others.

Margaret Sangor: One that believed in abortion of the unfit (African Americans) was the founder of PLANNED PARENTHOOD.  Where are most abortion clinics located?

Obama has told progressives that this Health Care bill define his presidency……

Pelosi has told Democrats to vote FOR this bill even if it costs you your seat in Congress…..

Will SEIU be given healthcare contracts in this bill? 

Will ACORN be given contracts in this bill to “assist” those that need help filling out papers?

Ronald Reagan used to say the most frightening words in the English language were these: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.

“Greengate”…America’s New Scandal? Obama administration protecting the ‘green’ investments of its friends


Following on the heels of Climategate; the “new” scandal to surface is the possiblity of Greengate.

Ed Lasky at American Thinker writes:

Obama administration protecting the ‘green’ investments of its friends

March 4, 2010

Crony capitalism is alive and well in Barack Obama’s Washington. Business for lobbyists on K Street is booming as never before. Green energy promoters are raking in our tax dollars, often for wasteful “investments .”

Al Gore is certainly raking in the green. He is a global warming myth profiteer on a robber baron scale. Democratic sugar daddy George Soros, whose investments in the green energy industry amount to over one billion dollars and counting, has made parallel investments in bringing about Democratic dominance in Washington. Soros also has a friend in the Oval Office to help assure his investments pan out.

Now comes word that the Obama administration’s Department of Energy has engaged in some “monkey business” to rebut a study that showed investments in wind energy costs far more jobs than they create.

A Spanish university study had calculated that government subsidies for the wind power industry killed more jobs because they diverted money from more efficient private businesses

A wind power industry group tried to refute the study and, lo and behold, who helped out? The Department on Energy:

On May 12, 2009, more than a month after the study was released, a group of climate activists scheduled a conference call to discuss how to refute the Spanish researcher’s claims. The group included officials from the American Wind Energy Association – a wind industry trade group, known as AWEA, which spent millions of dollars lobbying last year in Washington.

The call also included researchers from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a division of the Energy Department, which produces often-highly-technical papers on renewable energy potential and development in the United States, including exhaustive research on renewable energy jobs.

Shortly after the call, the researchers began to devise what would become an unusual “white paper” for the Laboratory: a direct rebuttal of the Spanish study.

“I think it might make sense for us to pull together some proper analysis in the near term” on the Spanish study, one of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory researchers wrote on the afternoon of May 12, in an email obtained by the Tribune Washington Bureau. “AWEA policy people are quite concerned.” A colleague replied: “We need to come up with an appropriate response to these criticisms soon. I just spoke to a few people at AWEA about this.”

The Department of Energy seemed to be doing some front-running to help out friends of the administration in the wind power industry. That looks bad. But it gets worse.

Energy Department officials never disclosed the wind group’s role in the generation of the rebuttal report, telling an inquiring member of Congress last month only that the Laboratory researchers “felt compelled to post the response… due to the high media interest in green jobs creation.”

The Spanish researchers criticized the Department of Energy’ machinations ” It is almost impossible to know who is the government and who the lobbyists. They have merged into one single animal with different faces”

Christopher Horner has done some further digging and he found some investigative gold. The Obama administration’s attack on the Spanish study was written by two non-economist, pro-wind activists from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. This is a part of the Department of Energy and is overseen by Assistant Secretary of Energy Cathy Zoi , who previously served as the CEO of Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection. Al has a pal to protect his vast investments in renewable energy. But so does George Soros because it appears that Zoi turned to the Center for American Progress to help in the attack on the Spanish study (there is also a study from Denmark affirming the conclusions of the Spanish study). The Center for American Progress is a “think tank” “idea factory” and “hiring hall” for the Obama administration-and it was founded and primarily funded by George Soros.

What happened to the most transparent administration in history? What happened to the promise of reform?



End notes:

Obama Admin. Caught Red-Handed Working with Big Wind Energy Lobbyists, Misleading America People




George Soros a profiteer of the Green movement.

Van Jones dusted off and put back into the Center for American Progress for the green initiative push.  Tied to George Soros.

Al Gore, Pachauri,Maurice Strong, and Soros all betting on carbon credit exchange.



The Web of Deceit Involving Obama, Al Gore and Maurice Strong! America’s Sovereignty at Risk! Important Notice for America’s Future


Congress Will Implement “Trick” to Pass Health Care Reform


A Rep. Michelle Bachmann email expresses the Democrat  sleight of hand ‘trick” on the American people that is about to take place through the White House and Congress.

Congress Will Implement “Trick” to Pass Health Care Reform

From Free Republic:  Link

Well, so much for a bipartisan strategy session on health care.

Despite calls from the White House about bringing Republicans to the table to get their ideas into the debate, it looks like Democrats have already decided on a plan to pass their original legislation. Legislation Americans have soundly rejected from coast to coast.

Speaking at the National Health Policy Conference hosted by Academy Health and Health Affairs, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s senior health care adviser Wendell Primus said that Democratic leaders in Congress will implement a legislative “trick” to pass their very unpopular version of health care reform.

Mark Tapscott with the Washington Examiner writes that Congress Daily, which originally published the story, is a subscription-only publication, but provided a link to LifeNews.com, which provided these details:

“In comments reported by Congress Daily, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s top health care aide Wendell Primus admitted top Democrats have already decided on the strategy to pass the Senate’s pro-abortion, government-run health care bill.

“Primus explained that the Senate will use the controversial reconciliation strategy that will have the House approve the Senate bill and both the House and Senate okaying changes to the bill that the Senate will sign off on by preventing Republicans from filibustering.

‘The trick in all of this is that the president would have to sign the Senate bill first, then the reconciliation bill second, and the reconciliation bill would trump the Senate bill.

“’There’s a certain skill, there’s a trick, but I think we’ll get it done,’ Primus said.”

Why propose a televised, bipartisan meeting on February 25th if the underlying plan has been to pass the Democrats’ original health care proposal all along? Well, it’s simple. President Obama wants to give the appearance of bipartisan cooperation without really caring at all. It’s one PR stunt after another with this White House, and this latest action is a clear assault on the intelligence of the American people.

The Democratic leadership of this Congress and White House simply refuses to take no for an answer when it comes to a government takeover of your health care. They simply refuse to consider any idea being proposed by me or any of my Republican colleagues. Is this the leadership you want in Washington, or more importantly, the leadership you deserve?


End note:  Is Rep. Michelle Bachmann’s evaluation of our current Administration as a “Gangster Goverment” true?


A Target for the “Tea Party” Patriots’ Platform: Obama and the Government Employees


Ed Lasky writes at American Thinker about the Public sector Unions vs. Private sector Unions.  Chicago style politics personified.

Obama and the Government Employees

February 12, 2010

Barack Obama may not have learned much at Harvard regarding the Constitution, but he did learn in Chicago how politics works: the Chicago way. Reward supporters, and keep the bribery as opaque  as possible. Chicago mores have been brought to Washington.


There has recently been a flurry of critical columns examining the devastation done to our nation’s fiscal health by government workers. Our cities, states, and federal government are in critical condition. Cities have begun declaring bankruptcy, and states such as California and Illinois are tottering. The federal government, which supplied a big chunk of stimulus dollars merely to keep states on life support, is running massive deficits and accumulating debts as far as the eye can see. What caused the problems?


There are two sides of the ledger responsible. Declining state tax receipts (considered “earnings” by government) played a role (the receipts side). But the real scourge has been on the expense side of the ledger: salaries and pension benefits given — and I do mean given — to government workers.


Public-sector unions have amassed great power to extract taxpayer dollars from politicians. Politicians reward government workers with our dollars, and they in turn are rewarded at election time by donations, free labor (phone banks, people who pass out flyers), and votes.


“Fully one-third of the ‘stimulus’ money went to state and local governments — an obvious payoff to public employee unions that contributed so much to Democrats,” as Michael Barone noted. Barone describes the corruption at the core of this dealing:
Public-sector unionism is a very different animal from private-sector unionism. It is not adversarial but collusive. Public-sector unions strive to elect their management, which in turn can extract money from taxpayers to increase wages and benefits — and can promise pensions that future taxpayers will have to fund.


The results are plain to see. States such as New York, New Jersey and California, where public-sector unions are strong, now face enormous budget deficits and pension liabilities. In such states, the public sector has become a parasite sucking the life out of the private-sector economy.


Obama and the Democrats have been well-rewarded for their patronage. Unions contributed up to 400 million dollars to Democrats in 2008 and engage in skullduggery to advance their aims. The latest revelation: a union-funded slush fund secretly targeting GOP candidates through the use of money-laundering and front groups. Unions have funded all sorts of political activity — undoubtedly the major reason Obama, in one of his first acts as president, ended union disclosure rules requiring them to report how their members’ dues were being spent. So much for transparency.


This is one reason why the recent Supreme Court decision leveling the playing field, allowing corporations to exercise their First Amendment rights by contributing to candidates, inflamed unions and President Obama. He violated precedent by attacking the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address. Maybe the title should be changed to State of the Unions.


Franklin Roosevelt, of all people, was alert to the danger of this collusion between politicians and unions. He maintained that “the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.” Yet it has been transplanted; today, a majority of union workers for the first time work for the government. And the government has brought good things to them.

Government work is one sector of our economy that is booming (besides pawnshops and bankruptcy lawyers). Rich Lowry noted the paradox: We suffer, and government workers prosper.

For most Americans, the Great Recession has been an occasion to hold on for dear life. For public employees, it’s been an occasion to let the good times roll.

The percentage of federal civil servants making more than $100,000 a year jumped from 14 percent to 19 percent during the first year and a half of the recession, according to USA Today. At the beginning of the downturn, the Transportation Department had one person making $170,000 or more a year; now it has 1,690 making that.

The New York Times reports that state and local governments have added a net 110,000 jobs since the beginning of the recession, while the private sector has lost 6.9 million. The gap between total compensation of public and private workers has only widened during the downturn, according to USA Today. In 2008, benefits for public employees grew at a rate three times that of private employees. 

Nor does the boom look likely to end anytime soon.


The President’s new budget can be symbolized by the old wartime poster: Uncle Sam Wants You. Until Barack Obama came into office, the number of federal employees had held relatively constant. But that was so 2008. That number jumped from 1.875 million in 2008 to 1.98 million in 2009, and it looks to jump a farther in 2010 — a 14.5% leap in two years. (And the boom is in federal agencies, not the military; hiring at the IRS, EPA, and the Justice Department is a big portion of the increase. Big Brother is getting bloated — maybe we can get Michelle to work on this obesity problem.)


These jobs come with munificent salaries and benefits.


Federal workers now earn, in wages and benefits, about twice what their private sector equivalents get paid. They often have Cadillac health plans and retirement benefits far above the private sector average: 80 percent of public-sector workers have pension benefits, only 50 percent in the private sector. Many can retire at age 50.


The pensions are manipulated upwards and gold-plated, too, as I noted in “Taxpayers: Eat your hearts out, suckers.” Many others have begun to notice the drain on public finances by pensions for government workers, and the public pension tsunami has just begun.


This is the engine driving our ballooning deficits and public debt. Merely rolling federal employee pay back to where it was in 1998 relative to the private sector and shifting state and local government pay back to 2005 relative levels would save $116 billion annually from government costs.


We know this will never happen as long as Democrats are in power. They like this perpetual motion machine. A government bureau, Ronald Reagan quipped, is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on earth. But we can try, and there is certainly potential for Republicans to seize on this problem as it begins to gain traction in the public mind. The issue seems tailor-made for Tea Partiers.


Meanwhile, Big Brother, like many big brothers, has become a bully. The Internal Revenue Service is on a hiring binge to crack down on taxpayers; fees on candy, plastic bags, iPod downloads, sugar, and many other things that make life fun are going up and up; our tax rates are inflating; and studies show that there has even been an explosion in parking tickets and fines for every picayune sort of “violation” that the bureaucrats can dream up in all their spare time — phantom taxes, they have been called. The leviathan must be fed.


The massive debt accumulating will be our responsibility to pay in the decades ahead. Obama blames Bush for the problems he inherited, but we know whom to blame for the problems our children and grandchildren will inherit. This debt will be an albatross around the neck of our economy. Our taxes will go toward these pensions and debt repayment instead of investments that will help our economy grow.


But even this good deal is not good enough for Barack Obama. He is a very mischievous man whose Modus Operandi is to distract and defame and engage in a great deal of sleight of hand. If he truly is a “sort of God” (as one of his adoring Newsweek pundits characterized him), that God would be Janus of two faces. While he talks the talk about the deficit and freezing discretionary spending, Obama engages in a spending binge that would make Imelda Marcos proud. But look what else the Magician-in-Chief  is doing: giving even more money and benefits to government workers, and doing it in a very untransparent and sneaky way.


Barack Obama is planning a major overhaul of the Federal government pay system that would boost pay for government workers while loosening scrutiny on how they do their jobs.


When he released his budget, there was a section titled “Improving the Federal Workforce.” Sounds good, right? But watch what the man and his minions do, not what they say.


First, the document tries to justify the high salaries government workers are paid (responding to the mounting criticism).


But then comes the trickery, disguised as “reform” and “refreshing” the system. This team is addicted to euphemisms (and their thesauruses are well-thumbed).


John Berry, director of the Office of Personnel Management, is engaged in a major effort to overhaul the G.S., or General Schedule, classification and pay system that began in 1949. Change is coming, and it will gladden the hearts and fill the wallets of government workers. In a Washington Post interview, Berry
mused about eliminating the first two ranks of the 15-grade GS system and adding grades 16 and 17. Berry did not explicitly advocate a pay raise for federal workers during the interview, but those in the added grades presumably would be paid more than the current top rate.


Berry made noises about tying pay to performance (consider this chaff to deflect observation and criticism), but then he tipped his hand:


“I’m a strong proponent of breaking the chain to the desk and breaking the chain to the time clock,” he said. He wants government to “move in a direction to empower and trust our employees to get the job done … and not focus so much on where they’re sitting and what hours they’re sitting there.”


Does that sound like a plan to increase efficiency of government workers? Give them higher pay, but allow them to set their own hours and work from…where? Starbucks? Home? The zoo?


And how is this “reform” going to happen? Are the people or our representatives going to have a say in how our money is spent? Need one ask?

The plans are in the final stages and will be put in place by a presidential memorandum or executive order. In other words, they’ll be implemented by presidential fiat.


End note: **Emboldened and highlighted areas mine for focal points in article**

Will we see a Reaganesque candidate elected in 2012 that states to any Public Union (as in the Strike of Air Traffic Controllers in the 80’s when they tried to strangle-hold America’s government)……..“YOU’RE FIRED”?


In August 1981, President Ronald Reagan fired thousands of unionized air-traffic controllers for illegally going on strike, an event that marked a turning point in labor relations in America, with lasting repercussions. In the decades before 1981, major work stoppages averaged around 300 per year; today, that number is fewer than 30. A look at key events before the strike, and after:

1968: The Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization is created.

February 1981: New contract negotiations open between PATCO and the Federal Aviation Administration, which employs the air-traffic controllers. Citing safety concerns, PATCO calls for a reduced 32-hour work week, a $10,000 pay increase for all air-traffic controllers and a better benefits package for retirement. Contract negotiations with the FAA stall.

Aug. 3, 1981: About 13,000 PATCO members go on strike after unsuccessful contract negotiations. In doing so, the union technically violates a 1955 law that bans strikes by government unions. (Several government unions had previously declared strikes without penalties.) President Ronald Reagan declares the PATCO strike a “peril to national safety” and orders the controllers back to work.

Reagan warns that striking is illegal for public employees, and that anyone who does not return to work within 48 hours will be terminated. A federal judge finds PATCO President Robert Poli to be in contempt of court, and the union is ordered to pay a $1,000 fine for each day its members are on strike. About 7,000 flights are canceled.

Aug. 5, 1981: Most striking air-traffic controllers are fired. Reagan bans them from ever being rehired by the FAA. They are initially replaced by controllers, supervisors and staff personnel not participating in the strike and in some cases, by military controllers.

Aug. 17, 1981: The FAA begins accepting applications for new air-traffic controllers.

Oct. 22, 1981: The Federal Labor Relations Authority de-certifies PATCO. Later, new air-traffic controllers, hired in the wake of the strike, organize a new union to represent them, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association.

June 19, 1987: NATCA is certified as the sole bargaining unit for air-traffic controllers employed by the FAA.

Aug. 12, 1993: President Clinton ends the prohibition on rehiring any air-traffic controller who went on strike in 1981. (To date, the FAA has rehired about 850 PATCO strikers.)

Full article HERE.

Another RADICAL Leftist Nominee from Obama; Dawn Johnsen


Obama’s Big Plans for Justice Department Nominee Johnsen

By  Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski  

Feb 10, 2010

The Senate is about to act on the nomination of militant leftist Dawn Johnsen to be the chief of the U.S. government’s elite legal team. But that post is a stepping-stone for top judicial offices, including the Supreme Court itself. That’s likely Barack Obama’s plans for Johnsen, and it’s why she must be stopped now.


Ultra-liberal activist Dawn Johnsen, currently a professor at Indiana University School of Law, is President Obama’s nominee to be assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). As the OLC chief, Johnsen would shape the legal positions of the Obama administration on every issue. OLC is the elite legal team for the federal government, giving legal advice on every important issue to the attorney general, other department heads in the government, and to the president himself. That’s why the head of OLC is called “the attorney general’s lawyer.”

The problem is that Johnsen is a radical. As the former legal director for the extremist abortion-rights group NARAL, Johnsen argued in a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court that denying a pregnant woman the right to demand unrestricted abortion is to subject her to slavery, which was outlawed by the Thirteenth Amendment after the Civil War.


She also argues that wiretapping a known terrorist is illegal without first obtaining a warrant, that military detention of terrorists captured on foreign battlefields is illegal, and that being commander-in-chief gives the president no constitutional authority to use wartime measures that would not be allowed against U.S. citizens during peacetime.

And finally, she believes in “economic justice,” which is the euphemistic term of the Radical Left, referring to the concept that government should confiscate and redistribute personal wealth to create a more “just” society. In one word, it’s socialism.

Even worse, Johnsen passionately argues that liberals should, “focus on the courts as the vehicles for desired change.” In other words, her legal advice would not only be advice; she intends to craft legal strategies to cram ultra-left outcomes down America’s throat through judicial activist court decisions.

The normal rule is that the Senate should give tremendous deference to any president when it comes to whom that president wants to assist him in the executive branch. Such appointees serve only at the pleasure of the president, they are there solely to carry out the president’s directions in steering the government, and they go out the door the instant the president does, if not before.

But even tremendous deference is not unlimited deference. The Senate defers, but they do not give a blank slate. Otherwise there would be no Senate confirmation process; the Constitution would instead just empower the president to appoint anyone he wants to all executive-branch departments and offices.

And for low-ranking officers, called “inferior officers,” the Constitution does allow for the president to directly appoint without the Senate. But for senior executive officials, called “principal officers,” the Appointments Clause of Article Two of the Constitution requires Senate confirmation as a check on the president’s power.

This is one of those extraordinary circumstances where the Senate should reject a nominee. Comparing being pro-life to supporting slavery is a grossly offensive statement, especially to African-Americans, and her other extremist views are so radical that she is a textbook example of someone who must be denied confirmation.

What’s so important about the head of OLC is that it’s also a stepping-stone to top judicial positions, including the Supreme Court. Antonin Scalia was the head of OLC before he was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and then on to the Supreme Court. Samuel Alito was the deputy chief at OLC, before he went on to be U.S. attorney, then a judge on the Third Circuit, and now serves on the Supreme Court.

But former Chief Justice William Rehnquist is the best example. He was the head of OLC in the early 1970s, and then was nominated directly to the Supreme Court. The assistant attorney general at OLC is prestigious enough that a person can go straight from that position to our highest court.

That may be Obama’s plan for Johnsen. She’s a dream judge for the Radical Left. Although she likely wouldn’t go straight to the High Court, she looks like someone being groomed for our nation’s second-highest court, the D.C. Circuit, from which she would be on the top of the short-list for a Supreme Court vacancy.

Excerpted; Read entire article HERE.


A Blog I posted in APRIL 2009 about Dawn Johnsen’s Connections including GEORGE SOROS.

Dawn Johnsen: ACLU Union Trained Lawyer/Activist Who Likens Pregnancy To Slavery? Obama’s Pick For Head Of Justice Department’s Legal Counsel


Following his victory in the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama named Johnsen as his choice for Assistant Attorney General to the Office of Legal Counsel. Shortly thereafter, Johnsen stated that Justice Department job applicants whom the Bush administration previously had rejected because of their leftist political views should now receive “special consideration” in the Obama Justice Department’s hiring standards.

Moreover, Johnsen opined that nominees for the federal judiciary should automatically be disqualified from consideration if they subscribe to the concept of Constitutional originalism (as opposed to the notion that the Constitution is a malleable living document”), or if they belong to the judicially conservative Federalist Society.

Johnsen further announced her intent to exhort the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resource Division to “pursue innovative litigation and policy initiatives, such as the pressing issue of climate change.”

Though the OLC post is, by definition, apolitical, Johnsen openly asserts her support for “the progressive agenda” of “universal health care, public funding for childcare, paid family leave, and … the full range of economic justice issues, from the minimum wage to taxation policy to financial support for struggling families.”




Dawn Johnsen is a national board member of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.

 American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS)

ACS was officially co-founded by Walter E. Dellinger III (who served as Bill Clinton’s Solicitor General in 1996-97) and Peter J. Rubin (a Georgetown law professor who was counsel to Al Gore in the two Supreme Court cases involving the Florida presidential recount controversy in 2000). Dellinger and Rubin launched ACS on July 30, 2001, with the stated goal of countering the influence of the Federalist Society, whose conservative views were allegedly corrupting young minds in law schools from coast to coast.

ACS operates on a yearly budget of several million dollars, a portion of which is used to publish a journal and to organize working groups that produce white papers on various topics related to the law. Several foundations have contributed large sums of money to ACS, most notably the Streisand Foundation, the Deer Creek Foundation, the Ford Foundation, George Soros‘ Open Society Institute, the Overbrook Foundation, and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

ACS aggressively recruits and indoctrinates young law students, with the ultimate objective of helping them rise to positions of power within the legal system—and thereby dragging all of American jurisprudence further to the political left.


Read entire blog at this link:



Congressional Letter Questions Obama’s Commitment to Bipartisanship


The letter is penned by House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA).  

In the letter, they question the president’s true commitment to Bipartisanship and implore the White House to conduct all talks in public. In addition, they also ask the president to take the reconciliation process off the table.

Here is the letter:

February 8, 2010
The Honorable Rahm Emanuel
Chief of Staff
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. Emanuel:

We welcome President Obama’s announcement of forthcoming bipartisan health care talks. In fact, you may remember that last May, Republicans asked President Obama to hold bipartisan discussions on health care in an attempt to find common ground on health care, but he declined and instead chose to work with only Democrats. Since then, the President has given dozens of speeches on health care reform, operating under the premise that the more the American people learn about his plan, the more they will come to like it. Just the opposite has occurred: a majority of Americans oppose the House and Senate health care bills and want them scrapped so we can start over with a step-by-step approach focused on lowering costs for families and small businesses.

Just as important, scrapping the House and Senate health care bills would help end the uncertainty they are creating for workers and businesses and thus strengthen our shared commitment to focusing on creating jobs. Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people?

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said today that the President is “absolutely not” resetting the legislative process for health care. If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate.Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan way, does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation? As the President has noted recently, Democrats continue to hold large majorities in the House and Senate, which means they can attempt to pass a health care bill at any time through the reconciliation process.

Eliminating the possibility of reconciliation would represent an important show of good faith to Republicans and the American people.If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand? Our ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency. Will the President include in this discussion congressional Democrats who have opposed the House and Senate health care bills? This bipartisan discussion should reflect the bipartisan opposition to both the House bill and the kickbacks and sweetheart deals in the Senate bill.Will the President be inviting officials and lawmakers from the states to participate in this discussion?

As you may know, legislation has been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures, similar to the proposal just passed by the Democratic-controlled Virginia State Senate, providing that no individual may be compelled to purchase health insurance. Additionally, governors of both parties have raised concerns about the additional costs that will be passed along to states under both the House and Senate bills. The President has also mentioned his commitment to have “experts” participate in health care discussions. Will the Feb. 25 discussion involve such “experts?” Will those experts include the actuaries at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), who have determined that the both the House and Senate health care bill raise costs – just the opposite of their intended effect – and jeopardize seniors’ access to high-quality care by imposing massive Medicare cuts? Will those experts include the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which has stated that the GOP alternative would reduce premiums by up to 10 percent? Also, will Republicans be permitted to invite health care experts to participate?

Finally, as you know, this is the first televised White House health care meeting involving the President since last March. Many health care meetings of the closed-door variety have been held at the White House since then, including one where a sweetheart deal was worked out with union leaders. Will the special interest groups that the Obama Administration has cut deals with be included in this televised discussion?Of course, Americans have been dismayed by the fact that the President has broken his own pledge to hold televised health care talks. We can only hope this televised discussion is the beginning, not the end, of attempting to correct that mistake. Will the President require that any and all future health care discussions, including those held on Capitol Hill, meet this common-sense standard of transparency and openness?Your answers to these critical questions will help determine whether this will be a truly open, bipartisan discussion or merely an intramural exercise before Democrats attempt to jam through a job-killing health care bill that the American people can’t afford and don’t support. ‘Bipartisanship’ is not writing proposals of your own behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding Republican support. Bipartisan ends require bipartisan means.

These questions are also designed to try and make sense of the widening gap between the President’s rhetoric on bipartisanship and the reality. We cannot help but notice that each of the President’s recent bipartisan overtures has been coupled with harsh, misleading partisan attacks. For instance, the President decries Republican ‘obstruction’ when it was Republicans who first proposed bipartisan health care talks last May. The President says Republicans are ‘sitting on the sidelines’ just days after holding up our health care alternative and reading from it word for word. The President has every right to use his bully pulpit as he sees fit, but this is the kind of credibility gap that has the American people so fed up with business as usual in Washington.We look forward to receiving your answers and continuing to discuss ways we can move forward in a bipartisan manner to address the challenges facing the American people.



Now you have  the letter  that the leftists will try to twist and shill to keep trying to label the Republicans as the party of NO.

The leftists are looking to  split  the Republican party; force votes knowing what the outcome will be to try to paint the Republicans and Conservatives as obstructionists.  This is their plan to try to maintain a stranglehold on Congress.

WHO really are the obstructionists? (Could it possibly be infighting between the Leftists and the Blue Dog Democrats?)

The Democrats have had the MAJORITY in Congress since 2006.  They even increased their numbers in 2008.  They gained a filibuster proof magic number of 60 in the Senate until the passing of Ted Kennedy (even had a seat warmer until Scott Brown won the seat).  Yet they will flog the dead horse of Republicans obstructing any meaningful legislation from passing?


Look for the TRUTH. 

Frances-Fox-Piven: Glenn Beck Seeks Foreign, Dark Skinned, Intellectual Scapegoats


From Kyle Olson at Big Government.com


Frances-Fox-Piven: Glenn beck Seeks Foreign Dark Skinned Intellectual Scapegoats


Throughout much of 2009, Glenn Beck extensively covered the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” that was first brought into the public domain in a May 1966 article in The Nation magazine.  In the article, Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, two Columbia professors, developed a strategy by which the welfare system could be overwhelmed with demand, broken, and replaced with a “guaranteed annual income.”

Beck has successfully made the argument that the Cloward-Piven Strategy was a blueprint for success at overwhelming that system.  Don’t think it worked?  Ask the leaders of New York City.  The strategy worked so well, the mass rush for welfare benefits bankrupted the city in the 1970s.

So as Beck has brought new light to this strategy, no one has asked Frances Fox Piven’s opinion.  Until now.

Pay special attention from 2:15 to end of video!

Piven dismisses Beck’s opinion as “silly.”  But she also went a step farther.

“So, it’s an old technique of right-wing ideologues – finding a scapegoat, somebody preferably who is not a farmer, right, an intellectual, and attributing things that go wrong in American society to somebody who’s foreign or dark skinned or an intellectual.”



End note:  Piven’s own words: “foreign”…….WHAT does Piven know about Obama?


A comment on the above article by a reader worth repeating here:

Well, at least she has her Alinsky down pat: Isolate your target, ridicule, destroy. In typical Progressive fashion, she is ascribing to her opponent the very thing she herself is doing.

While Beck says unflattering things about her, his comments are almost entirely directed at her belief system and ideals.

These people are so full of themselves, they have lost any connection to reality. They really believe the stuff they’re saying, believing it to be profound and wrapping it up in an ‘everybody knows this is true’ attitude. They see the gathering pitchforks coming over the horizon and haven’t the slightest clue as to what it means.


Obama + the Democrats in Congress and Orwellian Doublethink(speak)


Ronald Cherry at American Thinker writes about HOW our Congress doublethinks and speaks as if they truly BELIEVE what they say is the truth.

February 08, 2010

Orwellian Doublethink

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs (the lie and the truth) in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.” George Orwell – 1984

If one wishes to experience and understand Orwellian Doublethink, look no further than the American Democratic Party. Congresswoman Donna Edwards (D) of Maryland and co-sponsor Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D) of Michigan, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced a constitutional amendment bill to overturn the US Supreme Court’s recent ruling allowing unlimited corporate money in elections.  The proposed amendment will read:

“SECTION 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds for political speech by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity. SECTION 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.”


From the website we find this comment:

“Free speech rights are for people, not corporations,” says John Bonifaz, Voter Action’s legal director and the director of http://www.freespeechforpeople.org .” 
Now read the 1st Amendment

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” 

Our 1st Amendment legally secures the individual’s God-given right to Liberty including individual free speech and press; and assembly with other individuals – the individual’s freedom to form a group such as a corporation. It is self-evident that if individuals are free to speak and publish, and free to form a group; then the group is free to speak and publish. Thomas Jefferson agreed with this obvious truth:

“It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind (or liberate) each of them separately.”  Thomas Jefferson.


Now recall Orwellian Doublethink as stated above:

First the truth: Congress via a Constitutional Amendment hereby destroys the free speech and press of assembled individuals – a freedom given by God and protected by the First Amendment:

1. “The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds for political speech by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity.”

Second the Orwellian lie: Congress via a Constitutional Amendment will not hereby destroy free speech and press:

2. “Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.”

Totalitarian government can only exist through the clever use of lies. One way to accept a government lie is by exercising the insanity of Orwellian Doublethink. Orwell’s 1984 character, Julia; an enemy of Big Brother’s Totalitarian government, “did not feel the abyss opening beneath her feet at the thought of lies becoming truth;” where “the heresy of heresies was common sense.”

One way free people can remain free is to think – to recognize truth – to reject the labyrinthine Orwellian world of Doublethink – to exercise the sanity of common sense. Common sense is the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously (the truth and the lie), and accepting only the truth… with the truth always one leap ahead of the lie.

<end article>


End thoughts:

1.  Do you find it almost absurd that the Democrats, especially Obama was given 74 MILLION dollars by the SEIU towards his election? The SEIU is in itself a corporation of sorts.  The SEIU Master Trust could be construed as an “investment firm”; they invest their members money into Management Funds.

(excerpt from SEIU’s own website): the SEIU Master Trust–a consortium of pension funds with approximately $1.3 billion in assets–demand that the companies’ boards overhaul their executive compensation structure so top executives do not reap bonuses and other incentivized pay rewards regardless of the companies’ performance.


2.  George Soros’ baby, the Democracy Alliance and his own Shadow Party invested MILLIONS into the Presidential election back Obama in 2008.  There were accusations of foreign credit card “donations” during Obama’s campaign.  Did our Federal Government or the FEC ……EVER look into this?………NO.

Another thought ahead of the Orwellian doublethink: Is Obama afraid foreign donations will be scrutinized by the Supreme Court decision? Read the following and decide for yourself.


For example, on Oct. 14, an individual using the name “O.J. Simpson” participated in Obama’s latest small-donor fundraising drive, making a $5 donation through the campaign’s Web site. 

Giving a Los Angeles address, he listed his employer as the “State of Nevada” and his occupation as “convict.” The donor used a disposable “gift” credit card to make the donation. 

The Obama campaign sent O.J. a thank-you note confirming his contribution, and gave him the name of another donor who had agreed to “match” his contribution. 

Four minutes earlier, an individual using the name “Raela Odinga” also made a $5 contribution, using the same credit card. 

The real Raela Odinga became prime minister of Kenya in April and has claimed to be a cousin of Obama’s through a maternal uncle. 

Obama donor “Raela Odinga” listed his address as “2007 Stolen Election Passage” in “Nairobi, KY.” This credit card donation raised no alarm bells in the Obama campaign. 

A few minutes earlier, “Daffy Duck” gave $5 to the Obama matching campaign, listing his address as “124 Wacky Way, Beverly Hills, Calif.” 

But just as with Odinga’s address, the “Wacky Way” address failed to raise any alarm bells or security traps on the Obama Web site. Daffy Duck also used the same credit card. 

Within the hour, three other new donors gave $5 to the Obama campaign. They were: 

  • Bart Simpson, of 333 Heavens Gate, Beverly Hills, Calif. 
  • Family Guy, of 128 KilltheJews Alley, Gaza, GA. 
  • King Kong, of 549 Quinn Street, Capitol Heights, Md. Newsmax learned of these contributions, which were all made on a single $25 Visa gift card (oddly, the total was $30), from a source that requested anonymity. Calling himself “Bart Simpson,” the tipster said he had been following the Newsmax investigation of Obama’s campaign finance irregularities “with great interest,” and believed that some of the small donations were coming from gift cards — “you know, the type of disposable debit card you can pick up at Rite-Aid or just about any supermarket.”



    Another article:

    Call for an Audit of Obamas Campaign Finances

    by Pamela Geller

    Back when Obama was running for President, I broke a number of campaign donation stories that should have blown the race wide open. The Obama campaign committed the most egregious violations of election contribution laws, and they were dismissed with a wave of the hand. Millions came in from foreign countries — which is illegal: the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) “prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly.”

    I broke the jaw-dropping story about how tens of thousands of dollars came in to the Obama campaign from a Hamas-controlled camp in Gaza. Al-Jazeera actually ran video of Obama phone banks in Gaza. One large contributor to the Obama campaign was Monir Edwan, who was listed on FEC documents as contributing to Obama from the city of Rafah in the state “GA.” If you were reading quickly, you might have thought it was just a contribution from Georgia. But there is no city of Rafah in the Peach State. Monir Edwan sent money to Obama from Rafah, Gaza.

    Monir Edwan, one of Obama’s Gazan donors, said he sold Obama t-shirts that the campaign had sent him in Gaza for around $9, and that a profit was made. Some young men,” Edwan explained, “even bought the T-shirts for 60 shekel ($17.29), which is a lot to spend in Gaza on a t-shirt, but that is how much Gazans like Obama.” I love it: jihadis in Obama Tees. How fitting.

    (Excerpted): Continue reading HERE.


    Final thought:  WHY are Obama and the Leftist Democrats screaming “Foul” when the sunshine has been highlighted upon their own past election donations?