Archive | May, 2010

Lies, Damn Lies, and Politicians: High Crimes and Misdemeanors at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. (Part 2: The Inconsistencies)

Crossposted at David Horowitz’s NewsRealBlog

In Part 1 of this three part series I discussed the Obama administration’slatest scandal, Sestak-gate, a classic quid pro quo for political advantage and its subsequent cover-up.

In summary, the scandal ignited after an interview 3 1/2 months ago when Congressman Joe Sestak explicitly reaffirmed he was offered a “high ranking position” by “someone in the White House” if he would drop out of the primary race against Arlen Specter, the former-Republican Senator whose switch in party affiliation last year presented Democrats with a 60-vote majority and the power to advance the Obama administration’s agenda undeterred.

After Specter’s conversion his popularity among constituents “nose-dived,” endangering both his seat and the Obama administration’s filibuster-proof majority. Without the guarantee of a Senate majority after the November elections, the Obama administration faces Congressional gridlock and an inability to continue their “fundamental transformation” of America. As a result, the White House conspired to ensure Specter retained his seat by offering Congressman Joe Sestak an offer they assumed he couldn’t/wouldn’t refuse. Using the Chicago pay-for-play tactics they attempted to bribe Sestack to drop his bid for the Senate seat in Pennsylvania so Specter would, by default, be the Democrat candidate on the ticket.

After multiple denials of a job offer(s) to Sestak, the Obama administration released a public response to the scandal over Memorial Day weekend in an effort to obfusacte the truth. In their rush they overlooked a mountain of inconsistencies and their legal ramifications, throwing sunlight onto the seamy underbelly of Chicago-style politics and opening the door to calls for a Special Prosecutor.

Click here for print and video support of the summary.

The Inconsistencies

The inconsistencies between the White House and Congressman Sestack’s statements lead to more questions than their “coordinated” statements answer.

The Obama administration is adamant that “White House staff did not discuss these options with Congressman Sestak.” Really? Sestak claims the offer originated from “someone in the White House,” but former President Bill Clinton is not part of the Obama White House. And Sestak has repeated this claim on numerous occasions. (Hattip: The NRSC)

On March 10, 2010, Fox News’ Bret Baier pointedly asked Sestak: “Did the White House offer you a job to not get in the primary?” Sestak answered: “And I answered that yes, and I answered it honestly.”

Again, on March 20, 2010 to Fox News’ Neil Cavuto.

In order to get you out of the Senate race the White House offered you a job. Is that true?” Sestak responded: “I got asked that question as you know a few weeks ago, of something that happened last summer, a direct question. I answered it honestly, and I said yes.

And, again, on April 22, 2010, to NBC’s Savannah Guthrie,

 “Were you offered a job in the administration not to run?” Sestak responded: “The answer, as I was asked this for the first time a month ago even though it happened last July, and I never brought it forward. I answered it honestly, and I’ll do it again. Yes.

And again, May 23, 2010 on Meet The Press.

“I was asked a question about something that happened months earlier and I felt I should answer it honestly. And that’s all I had to say about it. I was offered a job, and I answered that.” You said, ‘No you won’t take the job.’ Sestack responded, “By then I also said, Look I’m getting into this….” Was it the Secretary of the Navy job?Sestak replied, “Anything that goes beyond that is for others to talk about.”

And again, on May 24, 2010 to CNN’s John King.

You said some time ago that when Arlen Specter was still in the race, early in the primary somebody at the White House came to you and said I will offer you a job, will give you some kind of a job if you would get out.” Sestak responded: “Well I was actually asked by a reporter something that a few months ago that had happened almost eight months earlier…  And I answered it honestly… I said – and I did answer it honestly and said yes…”

The White House admits multiple “efforts” were made in “June and July” for “options for Executive Branch service.” When asked how many times the offer was discussed, Sestack claims one 60-second conversation occurred in July.

“No, no just that one phone call.”

So who is telling the truth? How many job offers were made? And how frequently did the Obama administration attempt to subvert a primary election constitutionally determined by the People’s vote and not the Executive branch?

The White House denies the offer was for the position of Secretary Of Navy, attesting that the offer was for an “uncompensated position.” This doesn’t pass the smell test. An unpaid advisory position would not be a “high ranking federal job.” Sestak’s statement does not exclude the possibility that someone in the White House subsequently sweetened the deal with either the Secretary of the Navy job offer. What was the “high ranking federal job” and who would have the power to offer it?

But the White House’s position is, again, in direct conflict with Sestak who, when queried about the Secretary of Navy position on MSNBC’s Morning Joe show, responded thus.

http://www.mrctv.org/public/eyeblast.swf?v=XdqG6U2G2G

The White House claims the offer was as a seat on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, which would “allow him to retain his seat in the House,” yet Byron York reported Friday,

Sestak was not eligible for a place on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, the job he was reportedly offered by former President Bill Clinton. And indeed a look at the Board’s website reveals this restriction:

“The Board consists of not more than 16 members appointed by the President from among individuals who are not employed by the Federal Government. Members are distinguished citizens selected from the national security, political, academic, and private sectors.”

As a sitting member of Congress, Sestak was not eligible for the job. And since the White House intended for Sestak to remain in his House seat, he would not have been eligible for the board after this November’s elections, provided he was re-elected to the House.

So let’s get this straight…Sestak was being asked to give up his $217,000 per year job, to serve on a board whose members are unpaid and on which he could not legally serve, in order to drop his primary bid against the incumbent Senator who switched parties to deliver Obama passage of his health care legislation and a filibuster-proof majority? It sounds like pay for play, the Chicago Way.

How far will Obama and the Chicago Machine at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue go to maintain complete power? Have they committed high crimes and misdemeanors? Part 3 extensively covers the list of potential crimes commited by the Obama administration that establish their pattern of bribery, corruption, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy to corrupt the American electoral process while reigning at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Click here for Part 3: The Crimes

Advertisements

Lies, Damn Lies, and Politicians: High Crimes and Misdemeanors at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. (Part 1)

 

Crossposted at David Horowitz’s NewsRealBlog

The Chicago Machine moved to Washington and a disturbing pattern of bribery, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy to corrupt the American electoral process is now synonymous with 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The latest incident is a classic quid pro quo for political advantage and subsequent coordinated cover-up to mitigate collateral damage and obstruct the truth. In this three part series, I will delve into the scandal, the blatant inconsistencies between the “coordinated” statements of involved parties, and the potential crimes commited by the Obama administration in this, and other, pay-for-play schemes.

The Scandal

Set in a motion by a February 18th interview with Philadelphia news anchor Larry Kane, Congressman Joe Sestak’s allegation ignited a political firestorm.

“Were you ever offered a job to get out of this race?” Kane was referring to the Democratic Senate primary against Arlen Specter.
“Yes,” Sestak answered.
“Was it Navy Secretary?”
“No comment,” said Sestak.
According to Kane, Sestak talked about staying in the race but added that he “was called many times” to pull out. Later, Kane asked: “So you were offered a job by someone in the White House?”
Yes.”

After disavowing the offer’s existence for three months, President Obama was forced to publicly comment on the Sestak scandal Thursday, but only after meeting privately with former President Bill Clinton, the sacrificial lamb upon whom the blame would be laid the following day. (How bad can the truth be when the sitting President has to bring in a proven perjurer to be his alibi?)  Mimicking press secretary Robert Gibbs, the Obfuscator-In-Chief blathered to reporters at the White House…

“I can assure the public that nothing improper took place.”

In other words, he did not have employment relations with that Congressman.

As with Van Jonesresignation in the middle of the night on Labor Day weekend, the Obama administration used the Friday news dump on Memorial Weekend to finally respond to questions about the Sestack deal. White House Attorney Robert Bauer formally issued a legal memorandum stating, in part:

We have concluded that allegations of improper conduct rest on factual errors and lack a basis in the law.

“Secretary of the Navy. It has been suggested that the Administration may have offered Congressman Sestak the position of Secretary of the Navy in the hope that he would accept the offer and abandon a Senate candidacy. This is false….At no time was Congressman Sestak offered, nor did he seek, the position of Secretary of the Navy.

“Uncompensated Advisory Board Options. We found that, as the Congressman has publicly and accurately stated, options for Executive Branch service were raised with him. Efforts were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high-level advisory capacity for which he was highly qualified. The advisory positions discussed with Congressman Sestak, while important to the work of the Administration, would have been uncompensated.

White House staff did not discuss these options with Congressman Sestak. The White House Chief of Staff enlisted the support of former President Clinton who agreed to raise with Congressman Sestak options of service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board. Congressman Sestak Declined the suggested alternatives, remaining committed to his Senate candidacy.”

Hmmm, that’s in direct contradiction to Sestak’s original statements. Is it any surprise Sestak clammed up and refused to identify any other details until “the White House released its report on the matter?” Sestak’s silence provided ample room for the White House to manuever multiple alibi scenarios. (How long does it take to compose an alibi?)

This is Sestak’s latest version:

“Last summer, I received a phone call from President Clinton. During the course of the conversation, he expressed concern over my prospects if I were to enter the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate and the value of having me stay in the House of Representatives because of my military background. He said that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had spoken with him about my being on a Presidential Board while remaining in the House of Representatives.

I said no. I told President Clinton that my only consideration in getting into the Senate race or not was whether it was the right thing to do for Pennsylvania working families and not any offer. The former President said he knew I’d say that, and the conversation moved on to other subjects.”

Although intimately coordinated with the White House’s formal statement, Sestak is a prime candidate to become the Obama administration’s Deep Throat. Like Obama’s private meeting with Clinton, the clandestine meeting between the Sestak camp and the White House Wednesday was never meant to reach the airwaves. But silence is not Sestak’s finest quality. Whether intentional or not, he has much more to say about the coordinated affair. The Washington Post reports Sestak stated last week,

“They (the White House) got hold of my brother on his cellphone, and he spoke to the White House… about what’s going to occur,” said Sestak, who said he expects the White House will release its information Friday. He declined to elaborate on his discussions with his brother.”

Shades of a Watergate-esque cover-up continue as the complicit media lay the groundwork for plausible deniability. Tweeting a White House source told him Obama was kept in the dark about the bribe attempt, CNN’s John King reports (Hattip: Freeper Kristin)

The Obama administration’s institutionalized corruption led them to first deny, then  ”coordinate” a statement in hopes of whitewashing their latest quid pro quo scandal over a holiday weekend. In their rush they overlooked several contradictions in their “story” and the subsequent legal ramifications.

Tune in tomorrow for Part 2 on the inconsistencies created by the White House’s effort to obfuscate the truth, and further details on the pattern of bribery, corruption, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy by those working at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Click here for Part 2: The Inconsistencies

Marxist Terrorists Promote Obama’s Green Agenda

How do you complete your “fundamental transformation” of America. Why, with a little help from your friends, of course. And Barack Obama’s Hyde Park friends, Marxist terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, are more than willing to help a fellow traveller achieve their live-long goal of overthrowing the government of the United States. In conjunction with the Obama administration’s EPA-managed faith-based initiative which partners government and religion to promote environmental and social justice, former Weatherman leaders Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn will be Featured “Visionary Speakers” for the Seattle 2010 Green Festival, June 5-6, 2010. The Green Movement is shamelessly parading its ties and admiration for domestic terrorism and organized crime as Global Exchange and Green America launch a national campaign, Green Festivals, promoting,

“sustainability, ecological balance and social justice.”

Ayers, who will be speaking on the topic,  Trudge Toward Freedom: Movement-Making for Peace and Justice in the Long Haul, is described on the event’s website as a “distinguished professor” who has “written extensively about social justice, democracy and education.” Dohrn is flaunted as a writer and lecturer on “international human rights law, war and peace, racism and justice,” and highlighted as a,

“national leader of SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) and the Weather Underground, [who] was on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted List for over a decade”
This is the same woman who, in 1969 after the Manson family murders in Beverly Hills, told an SDS audience,

”Dig it! Manson killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach.”

The Left is so secure in the success of their radical ideology now that one of their own occupies the White House, they feel no shame in promoting “membership” on the FBI’s Most Wanted List. But Ayers and Dohrn aren’t your typical ’60s radicals. Avowed Marxists and founders of the Weathermen, a Communist-driven splinter faction of Students for a Democratic Society, the Weathermen openly called for revolution in America, and led a violent rampaging protest in Chicago. As if that’s not enough, they also took responsibility for 25 bombings including, according to Ayers memoir, Fugitive Days,
“the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972.”
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
During the “Days of Rage” riots, they held marches, smashed windows, and used guerrilla-style tactics to viciously attack police officers and civilians for four days, during which time 290 militants were arrested and 63 people were injured. Damage to windows, cars, and other property soared to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Although the group  always emphasized that their targets were property, not people, it was around this time when Ayers famously summed up the Weatherman philosophy as,

”Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at.“

In 1970, Bernadine Dohrn released a tape from the Weather Underground threatening violence against civilians,

“Now we are everywhere. Next week families and tribes will attack the enemy around the country. We’re not just attacking targets. We’re bringing a pitiful, helpless target to its knees. Guard your planes. Guard your colleges. Guard your banks. Guard your children. Guard your doors.“

And according to Larry Grathwohl, an undercover operative assigned to investigate the group, the Weather Underground planned to “eliminate” 25 Million Americans, diehard capitalists who were unable to be reeducated in camps, if and when the group succeeded in overtaking the government.

Dohrn, described by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover as ”the most dangerous woman in America” and ”la Pasionara of the Lunatic Left,” would later be sent to prison for failing to cooperate in solving the robbery of a Brink’s armored car in which a Brink’s guard and two police officers were killed by fellow Weatherman Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert. Ayers avoided conviction when the evidence against him turned out to be obtained through illegal wiretaps conducted by the FBI. He was, in his words, “Guilty as sin. Free as a bird”

How much, really, have Dohrn and Ayers changed since 1969? In their own words, very little. As late as September 11, 2001, Ayers told the NY Times,

”I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”

In November 2007, Ayers and Dohrn spoke at a SDS reunion at MSU. Hear, in their own words, how they feel today about their actions then and now.

These are the faces of the Green Movement promoting social and environmental justice. Avowed Marxists who committed violent acts of terrorism as a means to overthrow the government of the United States. And they’re not only old friends of President Obama, they helped propel his political career.

The Obama-Ayers Connections

Recognizing their failure, Ayers and Dohrn moved from violent overthrow of the government to changing it from within the system. In 1995, the duo hostessed Barack Obama’s first Illinois Senate campaign fundraiser in their Hyde Park home. But the ties between Obama, Ayers and Dohrn extend much deeper than a political “coming out” party. According to Dick Morris, the Obama-Ayers connection,

“was, in fact, an intimate collaboration and that it led to the only executive or administrative experience in Obama’s life.

Steve Diamond, at No Quarters USA, called attention to Obama’s Developing Communities Project (DCP) supported radical school reform project with Bill Ayers.

“In 1987 in the wake of a controversial strike by the Chicago Teachers’ Union, the Alliance for Better Chicago Schools, or ABCs, was formed to lobby for a new Illinois law that would mandate the establishment of a new power center in Chicago public schools.

“Bill Ayers helped organize the ABCs group, was its contact person and later its chair. Barack Obama worked on school reform efforts for the DCP at that time and the DCP was a member of the ABCs.”

The Woods Fund also provided additional financial support to the DCP in 1988 to support its school reform efforts. A program officer of the Woods Fund at the time was Ken Rolling who would later be hired by Bill Ayers and Barack Obama as Executive Director of the $110 million Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

Ayers and Obama concurrently served as board members of the Woods Fund, a Chicago anti-poverty, nonprofit organization that supports community-based groups and passed out funds to radical left wing and anti-Israel groups. Obama joined the board of the Wood Fund in 1993, serving as a paid director on the board from 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002, during which time the organization granted funding to the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), a controversial Arab group co-founded by Rashid Khalidi, a well-known critic of Israel who reportedly worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The AAAN openly mourns the establishment of Israel as a “catastrophe” and routinely made defamatory statements against Israel, yet received $40,000 in 2001 and $35,000 in 2002 from the Woods Fund. Ayers served on the Woods Fund board of directors beginning in1999 and remained after Obama departed. Continue reading

Obama’s Latest Bailout: Another Payoff To Teachers’ Union

You may be unemployed, but according to the Obama administration more than 300,000 teachers’ jobs were “saved” through the Democrat’s Economic Stimulus package. But no worries, the Democrats’ payoff to union supporters isn’t over yet! You, and your descendants, still have much more money to earn which they intend to spend buying votes and securing party loyalty during their reign. 

Almost unnoticed last Wednesday night, the Obama administration quietly announced its support for $23 Billion in off-the-books emergency funding to save educator jobs, and requested it be included in an upcoming supplemental spending bill to fund military operations and other expenses. ABC News notes the request also included an

“additional $1 billion for early childhood education jobs.”

Education Secretary Arne Duncan wrote in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., posted on the White House blog,

“We applaud Chairmen Harkin, Miller and Obey for crafting legislation in direct response to these challenges.  S. 3206, the Keep Our Educators Working Act, H.R. 2847, the Jobs for Main Street Act,  and H.R. 4812, the Local Jobs for America Act, each call for$23 billion in emergency support to preserve education jobs modeled after the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) established in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).  This funding would keep teachers in the classroom while helping to sustain meaningful and necessary reforms in public education across the country.”

According to Fox News,

The request comes just a year after an unprecedented $100 billion in federal stimulus money was allocated to school districts as part of the $863 billion recovery act.

Three bailout bills for educators, each calling for $23 Billion in “emergency” funds, i.e., exempt from certain Congressional budget enforcement rules. How much will the teachers’ union receive should all three bills pass? $69 Billion? Where are the results from the first massive bailout? And precisely what are the “meaningful and necessary reforms in public education?” 

The culture of corruption continues unabated, disguised as ”emergency” funds.

Neal Boortz caused quite a stir when he said the “greater long-term threat to this nation’s future was not the Islamists, but the teacher’s unions.” Judging  by the Obama administration’s bailouts of the education system, Boortz was not only right, but the Left plans to ensure the indoctrination of our children is permanently funded.
 

Andrew Klavan: Financial Crisis 101

Brought to you by the people who brought you the Financial Crisis! Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank are finally going to take on Wall Street fat cats and their unsavory political cronies Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. What’s that mean for us? Andrew Klavan and Pajamasmedia tell us.

AFL-CIO Leadership Clashes With Union Members Over Arizona Immigration Law

Amid blind support for his left-wing ideology, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka forgot his claim to represent the “working man” and joined Wade Henderson, President of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, in a letter this week to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, calling for the immediate stop of federal cooperation with Arizona law enforcement officials or,

“be complicit in the racial profiling that lies at the heart of the Arizona law. [S.B. 1070]”

But Trumka’s ideology differs from his union members. Recognizing Trumka’s support for Amnesty as an opportunity to undermine employment opportunities for legal citizens while increasing the union’s voting power and dues, union members are loudly expressing their discontent with leadership on the AFL-CIO’s blog:

Dr: “What the Hell is wrong with the AFL-CIO? Do you not understand that the legal citizen of this great country is tired of supporting non citizens.The great majority of the Rank and File wholeheartedly support Arizona’s effort to do something to curb the abused brought on us by Illegal Immigration.”

homerj1970: “I GOT YOUR BACK BROTHER!! I am IBEW Local 827, and I am disgusted by the stance taken by the AFL-CIO!! THEY HAVE BETRAYED EVERY UNION BROTHER AND SISTER!!!!!!”

duhman182: “The AFL CIO is not stupid they are looking to lock in votes and also make money they don’t give a damn about you.”

dbozman: “I am appalled that the union leadership would advocate that the federal government should REFUSE to cooperate with AZ – in other words to CONTINUE TO FAIL IN THEIR DUTY TO ENFORCE OUR LAWS AND SECURE OUR BORDERS. By the way, I plan to boycott anyone who boycotts Arizona.”

oldmanward5: “I fail to understand how the President of the AFL-CIO can possibly side with ILLEGALS entering our country and taking OUR JOBS. I have been out of work now for over FOUR MONTHS AND in my Local there are guys that have been out of work for OVER A YEAR!”

Titan58: “AFL-CIO NEED NEW LEADERSHIP!!! We need Leadership who cares for UNITED STATES CITIZENS.
A word of advice to union leaders: The assault on real Americans is not without consequence. You too can be isolated, marginalized, and easily replaced.

 

Crossposted at David Horowitz’s NewsRealBlog


%d bloggers like this: