RealClearPolitics – Video – John Kerry Complains About “Reading” Omnibus “Rather Than Working On It”

Duh, John, wouldn’t you want to read it so you could, uh, work on it?

 

RealClearPolitics – Video – John Kerry Complains About “Reading” Omnibus “Rather Than Working On It”.

Omnibus Earmarks…you won’t believe your eyes..

One of the most eye opening things to see is how we, the people, are totally ignored…even with the overwhelming voice that was shared in November.  You, me, everyone in this country is taken for granted that we won’t do it again.  Well, Senate and Congress, if you didn’t think the voice was freakin loud enough this past November, you WILL hear it in 2012.  Don’t think for a minute that we won’t remember what you have done, the time and effort you have wasted, and the absolute slap in the face we received just a little over 30 days later,

Here is a link to the FY11 Omnibus Earmark Database.  Dang near every Demorat, right along with sellout RINO’s including Mitch McConnell, Lamar Alexander, Olympia Snow and Saxby Chambliss.  I scanned for Bob Corker and John Boehner, and I got about 3/4 of the way and saw neither.  Jeff Sessions of Alabama signed on for military funding, and I agree it must be funded, but here was the deal…fund the government, forget the pork….the country is in a RECESSION, and you were supposed to set the example.  You didn’t…you lied, you cheated, and once again, you stole from our grandbabies.  I WILL NOT FORGET…

Look for yourselves…but be ready to be really angry!

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AqG0RPlBn7lIdFFETWl1OVViSmlRNjhPT3BOdC1WWXc&hl=en#gid=0

And they don’t know why they were voted out???

John Kerry, the Richest Legislator..

I’ve watched my home decrease in value, can’t trade cars…borrowing money is harder than ever, but my congressman, well, he got richer, another raise this year…See the full list at the bottom…from The Hill:

By Kevin Bogardus and Barbra Kim - 08/31/10 06:00 AM ET

The wealthiest members of Congress grew richer in 2009 even as the economy struggled to recover from a deep recession.

The 50 wealthiest lawmakers were worth almost $1.4 billion in 2009, about $85.1 million more than 12 months earlier, according to The Hill’s annual review of lawmakers’ financial disclosure forms.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) tops the list for the second year in a row. His minimum net worth was $188.6 million at the end of 2009, up by more than $20 million from 2008, according to his financial disclosure form.While the economy struggled through a recession during much of 2009 and the nation’s unemployment rate soared to 10 percent, the stock market rebounded, helping lawmakers with large investments. The S&P 500 rose by about 28 percent in 2009.

Total assets for the 50 wealthiest lawmakers in 2009 was $1.5 billion — that’s actually a nearly $36 million drop from a year ago. But lawmakers reduced their liabilities by even more, cutting debts by $120 million last year.

There are various reasons why asset values dropped. Some lawmakers saw their real estate holdings fall as the housing crisis intensified. A handful of lawmakers also had other investments or businesses that turned sour.

The only newcomer to the Top 10 list is Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), who came straight in at No. 5. He replaced Rep. Harry Teague (D-N.M.), the 10th wealthiest member in 2008. Teague fell off the top 50 list after the value of a company he has a stake in — Teaco Energy Services Inc. — fell in value from $39.6 million in 2008 to at the least $1 million in 2009.

There were a few other new faces in the Top 50, including Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), who received an inheritance after his late father, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), died in 2009.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis.) also made the list.

Twenty-seven Democrats along with 23 Republicans make up the 50 richest in Congress; 30 House members and 20 senators are on the list.

The bulk of Kerry’s wealth is credited to his spouse, Teresa Heinz Kerry, who inherited hundreds of millions of dollars after her late husband, the ketchup heir Sen. John Heinz (R-Pa.), died in a plane crash in 1991.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), with a net worth of $160.1 million, is the second-richest member of Congress under The Hill’s formula, even though his wealth declined by more than $4 million in 2009.

He is followed by Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), who saw her net wealth leap to $152.3 million, a jump of more than $40 million from a year ago.

The rest of the top 10 are Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), McCaul, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

To calculate its rankings, The Hill used only the lawmakers’ financial disclosure forms that cover the 2009 calendar year.Lawmakers are only required to report their finances in broad ranges. For example, a $2.5 million vacation home in Aspen, Colo., would be reported as being valued at between $1 and $5 million on a congressional financial disclosure form.

To come up with the most conservative estimate for each lawmaker’s wealth, researchers took the bottom number of each range reported. Then, to calculate the minimum net worth for each senator and member, the sum of liabilities was subtracted from the sum of assets.

As a result, the methodology used to find the Top 50 wealthiest in Congress can miss some of the richest lawmakers.

Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) is certainly one of the wealthiest lawmakers on Capitol Hill. As owner of the NBA’s Milwaukee Bucks, Kohl has a $254 million asset on his hands, according to Forbes magazine.

But under The Hill’s methodology, his team ownership only counts for $50 million, the highest range reported on the congressional financial disclosure form. Because of high liabilities on his 2009 form, Kohl actually is listed as being more than $4.6 million in debt on the 2009 form.

The Hill’s 50 Wealthiest List

Another Democrat has Brain Malfunction After Being Caught in the Cookie Jar

I always try to look for it, and there it is…I didn’t know what I was doing…unknowingly….yeah, right….

From The Dallas News:

By TODD J. GILLMAN and CHRISTY HOPPE / The Dallas Morning News
tgillman@dallasnews.com
choppe@dallasnews.comLongtime Dallas congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson has awarded thousands of dollars in college scholarships to four relatives and a top aide’s two children since 2005, using foundation funds set aside for black lawmakers’ causes.

Eddie Bernice Johnson

The recipients were ineligible under anti-nepotism rules of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, which provided the money. And all of the awards violated a foundation requirement that scholarship winners live or study in a caucus member’s district.

Johnson, a Democrat, denied any favoritism when asked about the scholarships last week. Two days later, she acknowledged in a statement released by her office that she had violated the rules but said she had done so “unknowingly” and would work with the foundation to “rectify the financial situation.”

Initially, she said, “I recognized the names when I saw them. And I knew that they had a need just like any other kid that would apply for one.” Had there been more “very worthy applicants in my district,” she added, “then I probably wouldn’t have given it” to the relatives.

Her handling of the scholarships puts a rare spotlight on the program and how it is overseen. Caucus members have great leeway in how they pick winners and how aggressively they publicize the awards. Some lawmakers promote the program online, for instance, while Johnson does not.

Philanthropy experts said such lax oversight of scholarship money doesn’t match the standards for charities.

The foundation – which is supported by private and corporate donations, not taxpayer money – provides $10,000 annually for each member of the Congressional Black Caucus to award in scholarships. Each gets to decide how many ways to split the money and whether to create a judging panel, choose personally or delegate the task.

Johnson, a former chairwoman of the caucus who has served on the board that oversees the foundation, said she wasn’t fully aware of the program rules and emphasized that she didn’t “personally benefit.”

In her interview with The Dallas Morning News, on Wednesday, Johnson said “hundreds of kids got scholarships since I have been here.” Her district covers much of southern Dallas County, including many of the area’s less affluent precincts.

“The most that any kid normally gets is from $1,000 to $1,200. … If it was a secret or if I was trying to hide it, I wouldn’t have done it,” she said.

The foundation’s general counsel, Amy Goldson, said Saturday that the scholarships Johnson awarded violated eligibility rules regarding relatives and residency and are “of great concern.”

The program “operates on an honor system,” so the foundation hadn’t known that money went to Johnson’s relatives, she said. But when a recipient fails to meet eligibility requirements or “misrepresents their eligibility, the scholarship funds must be returned.”

Further, Goldson said, the failure of a lawmaker or aides to follow eligibility rules “is a violation of the letter and spirit of [the Foundation's] requirements.”

“It is inappropriate for a lawmaker to certify the award of a scholarship to a relative in a situation where the lawmaker or their staff is involved in the selection of the recipient,” she said.

Apart from the residency requirements, the scholarship rules state that students must have a 2.5-grade-point average, but there are no explicit judging criteria.

Johnson awarded nine to 11 scholarships a year from 2005 to 2008, the most recent years for which information was available. Each of those years, three or four winners were related to her or her district director, Rod Givens. Johnson said she divided the available funds equally among recipients, and every qualified applicant got a scholarship.

The foundation asks applicants to certify that they aren’t related to those associated with the caucus or the foundation, but it does not specify which relationships that includes.

Scholarships have gone to two of the congresswoman’s grandsons, Kirk and David Johnson; to two of her great-nephews, Gregory and Preston Moore; and to Givens’ son and daughter. Givens did not respond to requests for comment, and none of the scholarship recipients could be reached.

‘Not … proper’

Daniel Borochoff, president of the American Institute of Philanthropy, said that, ideally, scholarship and grant decisions should be made by disinterested arbiters, preferably on the basis of excellence or need.

Johnson’s system “is not an appropriate or proper way to distribute scholarship funds,” he said.

“It’s totally fine if the congressman or -woman wants to reach inside their own pocket and give, but to use money that people got tax deductions on to then benefit their family – it would just be setting up nonprofit organizations to get tax benefits to put their kids through college. It would wreck the whole system if that kind of thing were allowed,” Borochoff said.

He said a scholarship with so few criteria for recipients would normally attract dozens if not hundreds of applicants if it were well publicized.

“There should be outrage because there are probably students who are more deserving and more needy of the funds,” Borochoff said.

The combined scholarship total for the six students over four years was less than $20,000, based on Johnson’s accounting of the scholarships. That appears to be less than half the total Johnson awarded over that time. Of 43 scholarships her office awarded between 2005 and 2008, 15 went to relatives of Johnson or Givens, according to foundation annual reports.

Johnson, in the interview Wednesday, dismissed concerns about the propriety of giving to her relatives or her staffers.

“We look at the kids that apply, look at their qualifications, and if they have the application there with all the ingredients, we try to help,” she said. “I doubt if there is anybody in my district going to question me giving $1,000 to a kid to help him with college.”

The congresswoman, 74, who is expected to handily win a 10th term this fall over a relatively unknown Republican, said flatly that there was no favoritism for her aide’s children or for her grandsons or great-nephews.

“Same application. Same requirements,” she said.

Rules clear, lawyer says

The Congressional Black Caucus consists of one U.S. senator and 41 House members – among them Johnson and two other Texans, Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee and Al Green, both of Houston. All are Democrats.

The foundation is a separate, nonprofit charitable organization whose board at any time includes only a few caucus members.

The foundation, which awarded $716,000 to 556 students last year, has been criticized for spending less on scholarships than on galas and conferences that allow lobbyists to rub elbows with influential lawmakers. Fundraising for the caucus itself and its members is tightly regulated, but the closely related foundation faces few restrictions.

In 2002, Johnson chaired the caucus and served on its board.

She continued to serve on the foundation board through 2005 – a year when both great-nephews and grandson Kirk Johnson received scholarships through her office, despite a rule explicitly forbidding awards to relatives of foundation board members.

Goldson, the foundation attorney, said the rules make clear that applicants cannot be related to any member of the black caucus, the foundation’s staff, directors, members of its corporate advisory council or any sponsor, a list that includes scores of major companies. “Any misrepresentation will result in disqualification of the application,” she said.

Each caucus member who participates in the foundation’s scholarship program is responsible for publicizing the competition locally. Some do so more aggressively than others. Many list the opportunity on their official U.S. House websites, often under a tab dedicated to “students.”

Johnson’s website makes no mention of the scholarships.

“This has been going on long before there was any websites,” she said. “We send information to the high schools. I haven’t known anybody who didn’t know about it, to tell you the truth.”

Counselors at four southern Dallas high schools didn’t return calls last week to discuss the matter.

Selection process varies

The foundation raises the funds, sets requirements and provides application forms. But the process for picking winners varies among lawmakers.

Apart from the GPA of at least 2.5, students must submit personal and financial information, a transcript, letters of recommendation, an essay on goals, and a copy of their federal student aid report to their local member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Johnson said aides in Dallas – where Givens is her senior aide – review applications and forward to her all those that qualify.

“When they come to this office, there’s hardly much decision to be made. We find out how many applicants, how much money, divide it up, send it in,” she said. “I’ve not given any money where there was no need. And I don’t think a $1,000 scholarship’s going to do too much, but it helps when you need it.”

Johnson’s assets – not counting a blind trust that owns a newsstand concession at Dallas Love Field – amounted to less than $97,000 in 2008. Her wealth puts her in the bottom quarter of House members, according to Center for Responsive Politics data. Apart from her $174,000-a-year congressional salary, she reported a $35,000 pension for her previous service in the state Legislature, and $22,000 from Social Security last year. (SHE DRAWS SOCIAL SECURITY WITH A $174,000 SALARY????)

In doling out their scholarship money, some lawmakers pick one winner, others as many as 18.

Johnson gave out nine scholarships in 2005, 11 in 2006 and 10 in 2007. Every qualified applicant got a piece of the pie, she said, though her office did not provide details on the number of applications submitted each year.

Johnson said she never asked the foundation or anyone else if it was acceptable for her to award scholarships to relatives.

“It’s never come up with me,” she said. “But let me just say this: None of these people are my immediate family. Immediate family doesn’t include grandchildren.”

‘As best I could’

But the Johnsons, Moores and Givenses weren’t eligible under other foundation rules requiring recipients to reside or go to school in a congressional district represented by a member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

None of the six lived or attended school in Johnson’s district. They lived in districts represented by white Republicans.

The Johnsons lived in Plano, in a district represented by Rep. Sam Johnson (no relation). The Moores lived in Manor, near Austin, Rep. Michael McCaul’s district. The Givenses, who live in Mesquite, are represented by Rep. Jeb Hensarling.

The recipients’ colleges – Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Baylor in Waco, Texas Christian in Fort Worth, Texas State in San Marcos and Sam Houston State in Huntsville – also fall outside any district held by a caucus member.

“I haven’t seen those rules,” Johnson said, “but let me just say this: I take the responsibility for as many kids as I can help in the North Texas area.”

Even though her grandchildren grew up near Austin, she added, there was nothing untoward about giving scholarships to students outside her district.

“There have been many others,” she said, including a student from Oklahoma , whom she helped at the request of Sen. James Inhofe, a conservative Republican.

District residency, Johnson said, has never been a critical factor in her selection process.

“I’ve tried to use it as best I could, but when there’s a needy kid living outside my district, and somebody recommends or calls and asks for help, I try to give it if I can, and I’ve been doing it 18 years,” she said.

“If there had been very worthy applicants in my district, then I probably wouldn’t have given it” to relatives, she added. “But, when you have enough money to give one additional scholarship and that person’s well-qualified, I have never considered it a violation of anything to give a little help.”

James Ferris, director of the Center on Philanthropy and Public Policy at the University of Southern California, said most nonprofits seek to avoid even the perception of conflicts of interest by establishing review boards to help make selections on scholarships or grants.

They avoid sole decision makers.

“In this case, it sounds like the power to make those grants rests in one person,” he said. “The member can allocate it without any kind of oversight or checks and balances. That’s sort of the nub of the problem.”

Ferris said the system invites skepticism.

“Basically, it’s whether you’re using money that was raised in the public interest for private gain,” he said.

Researcher Angelica Cortez in Dallas contributed to this report.

SCHOLARSHIPS AWARDED BY JOHNSON

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson has awarded at least 15 scholarships to her relatives and to children of an aide since 2005. The scholarships were provided by the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation.

Scholarship year Recipient Relationship to Johnson Age School 2005 2006 2007 2008 Kirk Johnson Grandson 23 Sam Houston State University (Huntsville) ● ● ● ● David E. Johnson Grandson 22 Texas State University(San Marcos) ● ● ● Preston A. Moore Great-nephew 23 Texas ChristianUniversity (Fort Worth) ● ● ● Gregory D. Moore II Great-nephew 26 TCU ● ● Julian Givens Son of aide 21 Southern Methodist University (Dallas) ● ● Mariyah Givens Daughter of aide 19 Baylor University (Waco) ●

SOURCES: Congressional Black Caucus Foundation; Dallas Morning News research

WHAT THEY SAID

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson

When first asked about the scholarships for her relatives and those of an aide:”I doubt if there is anybody in my district going to question me giving $1,000 to a kid to help him with college.”

Two days later, she issued a statement:

“I have recently been made aware that I unknowingly violated [Congressional Black Caucus Foundation] Scholarship rules by recommending that my grandsons and a staff person’s children qualify for [foundation] scholarships. I was further informed that my recommendation for students who do not live in my district to receive [foundation] scholarships was also a violation of rules.

“While I did not personally benefit, I never intentionally violated any rules and I have never restricted my helping a student based on his/her residence. In order to avoid any further appearance of impropriety, I will work with the [foundation] to rectify the financial situation. “

Amy Goldson, counsel to Congressional Black Caucus Foundation:

“The [foundation] expects that those participating in the scholarship programs will abide by the eligibility criteria for recipients. Like most other charitable organizations, the [foundation] operates on an honor system and relies upon a recipient’s signed certification of eligibility. … The current situation is of great concern to the [foundation]. … It is inappropriate for a lawmaker to certify the award of a scholarship to a relative in a situation where the lawmaker (or their staff) is involved in the selection of the recipient. … Scholarship funds awarded to an ineligible student must be returned to the [foundation].”

Facing Ethics Charges, Rep. Waters Points Finger at Bush Administration

You know, if this wasn’t real, it would be laughable.  How much more are they going to blame on Bush? Granted, he wasn’t good…but dammit, they’re a lot worse.  From Fox:

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) holds a press conference to defend herself on ethics charges, Friday, August 13, 2010. (FNC)

Embattled Rep. Maxine Waters on Friday blamed the Bush administration for her ethics problems — saying she had to intervene with the Treasury Department on behalf of minority-owned banks seeking federal bailout funds — including one tied to her husband — because the Treasury Department wouldn’t schedule its own appointments.

The California Democrat said in a Capitol Hill news conference — an event rarely held during a congressional recess — that she reached out to then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson in late 2008 when his department failed to respond to the National Bank Association’s request for a meeting.

“The question at this point should not be why I called Secretary Paulson, but why I had to,” she said. “The question at this point should be why a trade association representing over 100 minority banks could not get a meeting at the height of the crisis.”

But the House ethics committee, which is investigating Waters for allegedly improperly using her position for personal gain, says in its report of charges that when the meeting was held, the officers of only one bank came — OneUnited.

That’s a problem for Waters since her husband, Sidney Williams, served as a member of OneUnited’s board of directors from January 2004 until April 2008, and was a stockholder in the bank.

OneUnited eventually got $12 million of the $50 million in bailout money it requested, enough to keep the bank afloat. The ethics panel says that kept Waters’ family stock from becoming worthless, which the committee says shows that she personally benefited by using her office.

Waters said she wasn’t concerned about her husband’s stocks in the bank, which were worth about $350,000 at the time and which her husband still owns, if only because he can’t unload them.

“No one wants to buy them,” she said.

Waters said the media need to distinguish between making a call on behalf of one bank and making a call for an entire trade association. She added that even Paulson told the ethics committee that she never approached his office to speak about only one bank.

“When Paulson responded as a witness, he didn’t tell anybody I called him and asked for a meeting with OneUnited,” she said.

The 10-term representative from Los Angeles, insisted that she hasn’t done anything to violate House rules, and she “will not cut a deal.”

“I am teetering on a border here. What I am doing here is rare and unprecedented. I won’t go behind closed doors,” she said.

Waters pushed for a speedy trial, slamming the ethics committee for not setting a date for the hearing.

“Such a delay is unacceptable, considering that the investigation has dragged on for almost one year,” she said. “It does not provide due process.”

She added that neither her staff nor she “engaged in any improper behavior.”

“We did not influence anyone and we did not gain any benefit,” she said, reading from a written statement.

Waters, who holds a senior position on the Financial Services Committee, is the second prominent Democrat lawmaker facing ethics charges during a fiery election season. New York Rep. Charles Rangel of New York is facing 13 charges, including failing to disclose assets and income and delayed payment of federal taxes.

Rep. PETE STARK: – The Federal Government can do most anything in this country –

Just another reason to send em all packing

Texas Repubs Get the Message, the Hard Way…

Texas GOP Convention Reveals Split Between Moderates and Conservatives

| Print |

E-mail

Written by Raven Clabough

Monday, 14 June 2010 14:50

// Saturday’s Texas GOP convention in Dallas proved to be derisive and decisive when 8,000 moderate and conservative Republicans debated the Republican Party platform and party leaders. Conservative Texas Republicans called for stricter conservative measures, including the passage of an immigration law similar to that of Arizona’s. GOP members also indicated their unwillingness to compromise on their conservative principles by attempting to pass a resolution that would remove the allegedly too moderate House Speaker Rep. Joe Straus of San Francisco. Discussions on the GOP’s illegal-immigration policy sparked fierce debate. In the end, Texas delegates voted in favor of adding a plank to the Republican Party platform that supports a state law to reiterate the criminality of illegal immigration. The proposed plank allows local police to enforce the law by verifying immigration status when making arrests, as it does in Arizona. In the past, Texas Governor Rick Perry has been quoted as saying that the approach taken by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer “isn’t right for Texas.” Despite opposition from Perry, Texas Republicans have grown weary of compromise and wish to forge ahead with a crackdown on illegal immigration in the state. Several conservative delegates also requested a “nonbinding resolution calling on House Republicans to oust their own speaker, Rep. Joe Straus of San Francisco, considered too moderate for many of the bedrock conservatives meeting in Dallas this weekend,” Fox News reports. The resolution asked that Republicans “remove and replace” Straus, who, with the help of House Democrats, took power in 2009. According to the convention organizers, however, the resolution to remove Straus was deemed “out of order.” Straus’s spokeswoman Tracy Young indicated that Straus had “no comment” on the resolution. Another plank in consideration amongst Texas GOP members called for an “open carry” law, which would remove the requirement for gun carriers to have a concealed weapons permit when carrying firearms in public. Conservative leader Cathie Adams was voted out of her position and replaced by Houston businessman Steve Munisteri, who appealed to the GOP members by focusing his attention on the party’s $500,000 debt, indicative of the influence of Tea Party activists, who have demanded fiscal responsibility from Washington. Aside from the clashes between Texas moderates and conservatives, the convention, held every two years, carried on in much the same way as it has in the past, comprised of prayer, video tributes, and fiery speeches from Republican leaders, including Texas Governor Perry. Guest speaker Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour emphasized the importance of the 2010 elections, and indicated that the “stakes are higher than any midterm election in my lifetime.” Responding to the clear divisiveness within the GOP, Barbour asked the activists to “focus their ire not on each other but on the Democrats who had engineered the biggest lurch to the left in American history.” Rather than ensuring that members of the GOP agree on every issue, Barbour urged that the Republican activists not let “purity” stand in the way of much-needed “unity.” He said, “We cannot forget unity because some people will let purity be the enemy of unity. It’s a big party and we need everybody who is on our side.” Barbour’s language implies that a compromise can be struck between moderates and conservatives, but that philosophy proves to be dangerous if the compromise violates the strict parameters set by the Constitution. Unfortunately, it is those compromises that have ostracized strict constitutionalists from the Republican Party, as they could not support a political party that allows constitutional language to be distorted in order to support pre-emptive war and a movement towards global economy and governance. Republicans at statewide GOP conventions would do well to study the Constitution more closely and relearn what the document was intended to do: limit government control. Increasingly, this is what American voters are seeking in Washington, smaller government, and neither Republican nor Democratic politicians have satisfied that requirement. A recent CBS poll shows that 55 percent of American voters are dissatisfied with both parties. Likewise, by a margin of 2-1, voters now prefer a candidate that has no experience in Congress. According to Herb Asher, professor of political science at Ohio State University, these voters are angry over the national debt and what they perceive to be government over-reaching. It is the irresponsiveness of both parties that prompted the rise of the Tea Party movement in the first place. Chris Littleton, president of the Cincinnati Tea Party, explains, “Most people who identify with the tea party movement have come to the conclusion that both parties have been part of the problem,” and will likely vote Independent or third-party over Dems and Reps. The demands from Tea Party activists have been for limited government, free market, and personal liberties, all which have been outlined in the Constitution. Barbour advocates for “unity” over “purity,” but if the purity of the Constitution is compromised, nobody wins — certainly not the candidate who has compromised it, but most importantly, not the American people. That’s a lesson from which the GOP could learn.

BP should plug the Spill with Speaker Pelosi

Is there ever enough blaming the Bush Administration? When will these people ever take some blame? How many times did GW blame the Clinton administration?

Pelosi blames Bush administration for BP oil spill.

By: Joel S. Gehrke Jr.
Special to the Washington Examiner

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., blamed the Bush administration for any lack of oversight leading up to the Gulf oil spill. The Obama administration, on the other hand, is blameless.

From Talk Radio News Service:

“Many of the people appointed in the Bush administration are still burrowed in the agencies that are supposed to oversee the [oil] industry,” Pelosi said when asked if Democrats could have prevented or mitigated the crisis by keeping a closer watch on the industry.

Added the Speaker, “the cozy relationships between the Bush administration’s agency leadership and the industry is clear…I’ve heard no complaints from my members about the way the president has handled it,” Pelosi stated.

On Friday, the Washington Examiner requested that Speaker Pelosi’s office release the list of Bush appointees to whom she was referring. We’ll let you know when we hear back.

Obama courts Muslims, not Christians

For two years now, Barack Obama has dismissed a national observance of the National Day of Prayer, yet allows Ramadan in the US.  He doesn’t go to church, yet he claims to be a Christian…heck, he claims to be a lot.  Here’s one from the New York Times…which, by the way, isn’t a conservative publication:

White House Quietly Courts Muslims in U.S.

By ANDREA ELLIOTT

When President Obama took the stage in Cairo last June, promising a new relationship with the Islamic world, Muslims in America wondered only half-jokingly whether the overture included them. After all, Mr. Obama had kept his distance during the campaign, never visiting an American mosque and describing the false claim that he was Muslim as a “smear” on his Web site.

Nearly a year later, Mr. Obama has yet to set foot in an American mosque. And he still has not met with Muslim and Arab-American leaders. But less publicly, his administration has reached out to this politically isolated constituency in a sustained and widening effort that has left even skeptics surprised.

Muslim and Arab-American advocates have participated in policy discussions and received briefings from top White House aides and other officials on health care legislation, foreign policy, the economy, immigration and national security. They have met privately with a senior White House adviser, Valerie Jarrett, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to discuss civil liberties concerns and counterterrorism strategy.

The impact of this continuing dialogue is difficult to measure, but White House officials cited several recent government actions that were influenced, in part, by the discussions. The meeting with Ms. Napolitano was among many factors that contributed to the government’s decision this month to end a policy subjecting passengers from 14 countries, most of them Muslim, to additional scrutiny at airports, the officials said.

That emergency directive, enacted after a failed Dec. 25 bombing plot, has been replaced with a new set of intelligence-based protocols that law enforcement officials consider more effective.

Also this month, Tariq Ramadan, a prominent Muslim academic, visited the United States for the first time in six years after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reversed a decision by the Bush administration, which had barred Mr. Ramadan from entering the country, initially citing the U.S.A. Patriot Act. Mrs. Clinton also cleared the way for another well-known Muslim professor, Adam Habib, who had been denied entry under similar circumstances.

Arab-American and Muslim leaders said they had yet to see substantive changes on a variety of issues, including what they describe as excessive airport screening, policies that have chilled Muslim charitable giving and invasive F.B.I. surveillance guidelines. But they are encouraged by the extent of their consultation by the White House and governmental agencies.

“For the first time in eight years, we have the opportunity to meet, engage, discuss, disagree, but have an impact on policy,” said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute in Washington. “We’re being made to feel a part of that process and that there is somebody listening.”

In the post-9/11 era, Muslims and Arab-Americans have posed something of a conundrum for the government: they are seen as a political liability but also, increasingly, as an important partner in countering the threat of homegrown terrorism. Under President George W. Bush, leaders of these groups met with government representatives from time to time, but said they had limited interaction with senior officials. While Mr. Obama has yet to hold the kind of high-profile meeting that Muslims and Arab-Americans seek, there is a consensus among his policymakers that engagement is no longer optional.

The administration’s approach has been understated. Many meetings have been private; others were publicized only after the fact. A visit to New York University in February by John O. Brennan, Mr. Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser, drew little news coverage, but caused a stir among Muslims around the country. Speaking to Muslim students, activists and others, Mr. Brennan acknowledged many of their grievances, including “surveillance that has been excessive,” “overinclusive no-fly lists” and “an unhelpful atmosphere around many Muslim charities.”

“These are challenges we face together as Americans,” said Mr. Brennan, who momentarily showed off his Arabic to hearty applause. He and other officials have made a point of disassociating Islam from terrorism in public comments, using the phrase “violent extremism” in place of words like “jihad” and “Islamic terrorism.”

While the administration’s solicitation of Muslims and Arab-Americans has drawn little fanfare, it has not escaped criticism. A small but vocal group of research analysts, bloggers and others complain that the government is reaching out to Muslim leaders and organizations with an Islamist agenda or ties to extremist groups abroad.

They point out that Ms. Jarrett gave the keynote address at the annual convention for the Islamic Society of North America. The group was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a Texas-based charity whose leaders were convicted in 2008 of funneling money to Hamas. The society denies any links to terrorism.

“I think dialogue is good, but it has to be with genuine moderates,” said Steven Emerson, a terrorism analyst who advises government officials. “These are the wrong groups to legitimize.” Mr. Emerson and others have also objected to the political appointments of several American Muslims, including Rashad Hussain.

In February, the president chose Mr. Hussain, a 31-year-old White House lawyer, to become the United States’ special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The position, a kind of ambassador at large to Muslim countries, was created by Mr. Bush. In a video address, Mr. Obama highlighted Mr. Hussain’s status as a “close and trusted member of my White House staff” and “a hafiz,” a person who has memorized the Koran.

Within days of the announcement, news reports surfaced about comments Mr. Hussain had made on a panel in 2004, while he was a student at Yale Law School, in which he referred to several domestic terrorism prosecutions as “politically motivated.” Among the cases he criticized was that of Sami Al-Arian, a former computer-science professor in Florida who pleaded guilty to aiding members of a Palestinian terrorist group.

At first, the White House said Mr. Hussain did not recall making the comments, which had been removed from the Web version of a 2004 article published by a small Washington magazine. When Politico obtained a recording of the panel, Mr. Hussain acknowledged criticizing the prosecutions but said he believed the magazine quoted him inaccurately, prompting him to ask its editor to remove the comments. On Feb. 22, The Washington Examiner ran an editorial with the headline “Obama Selects a Voice of Radical Islam.”

Muslim leaders watched carefully as the story migrated to Fox News. They had grown accustomed to close scrutiny, many said in interviews, but were nonetheless surprised. In 2008, Mr. Hussain had co-authored a paper for the Brookings Institution arguing that the government should use the peaceful teachings of Islam to fight terrorism.

“Rashad Hussain is about as squeaky clean as you get,” said Representative Keith Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat who is Muslim. Mr. Ellison and others wondered whether the administration would buckle under the pressure and were relieved when the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, defended Mr. Hussain.

“The fact that the president and the administration have appointed Muslims to positions and have stood by them when they’ve been attacked is the best we can hope for,” said Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America.

It was notably different during Mr. Obama’s run for office. In June 2008, volunteers of his campaign barred two Muslim women in headscarves from appearing behind Mr. Obama at a rally in Detroit, eliciting widespread criticism. The campaign promptly recruited Mazen Asbahi, a 36-year-old corporate lawyer and popular Muslim activist from Chicago, to become its liaison to Muslims and Arab-Americans.

Bloggers began researching Mr. Asbahi’s background. For a brief time in 2000, he had sat on the board of an Islamic investment fund, along with Sheikh Jamal Said, a Chicago imam who was later named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case. Mr. Asbahi said in an interview that he had left the board after three weeks because he wanted no association with the imam.

Shortly after his appointment to the Obama campaign, Mr. Asbahi said, a Wall Street Journal reporter began asking questions about his connection to the imam. Campaign officials became concerned that news coverage would give critics ammunition to link the imam to Mr. Obama, Mr. Asbahi recalled. On their recommendation, Mr. Asbahi agreed to resign from the campaign, he said.

He is still unsettled by the power of his detractors. “To be in the midst of this campaign of change and hope and to have it stripped away over nothing,” he said. “It hurts.”

From the moment Mr. Obama took office, he seemed eager to change the tenor of America’s relationship with Muslims worldwide. He gave his first interview to Al Arabiya, the Arabic-language television station based in Dubai. Muslims cautiously welcomed his ban on torture and his pledge to close Guantánamo within a year.

In his Cairo address, he laid out his vision for “a new beginning” with Muslims: while America would continue to fight terrorism, he said, terrorism would no longer define America’s approach to Muslims.

Back at home, Muslim and Arab-American leaders remained skeptical. But they took note when, a few weeks later, Mohamed Magid, a prominent imam from Sterling, Va., and Rami Nashashibi, a Muslim activist from Chicago, joined the president at a White-House meeting about fatherhood. Also that month, Dr. Faisal Qazi, a board member of American Muslim Health Professionals, began meeting with administration officials to discuss health care reform.

The invitations were aimed at expanding the government’s relationship with Muslims and Arab-Americans to areas beyond security, said Mr. Hussain, the White House’s special envoy. Mr. Hussain began advising the president on issues related to Islam after joining the White House counsel’s office in January 2009. He helped draft Mr. Obama’s Cairo speech and accompanied him on the trip. “The president realizes that you cannot engage one-fourth of the world’s population based on the erroneous beliefs of a fringe few,” Mr. Hussain said.

Other government offices followed the lead of the White House. In October, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke met with Arab-Americans and Muslims in Dearborn, Mich., to discuss challenges facing small-business owners. Also last fall, Farah Pandith was sworn in as the State Department’s first special representative to Muslim communities. While Ms. Pandith works mostly with Muslims abroad, she said she had also consulted with American Muslims because Mrs. Clinton believes “they can add value overseas.”

Despite this, American actions abroad — including civilian deaths from drone strikes in Pakistan and the failure to close Guantánamo — have drawn the anger of Muslims and Arab-Americans.

Even though their involvement with the administration has broadened, they remain most concerned about security-related policies. In January, when the Department of Homeland Security hosted a two-day meeting with Muslim, Arab-American, South Asian and Sikh leaders, the group expressed concern about the emergency directive subjecting passengers from a group of Muslim countries to additional screening.

Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates, pointed out that the policy would never have caught the attempted shoe bomber Richard Reid, who is British. “It almost sends the signal that the government is going to treat nationals of powerless countries differently from countries that are powerful,” Ms. Khera recalled saying as community leaders around the table nodded their heads.

Ms. Napolitano, who sat with the group for more than an hour, committed to meeting with them more frequently. Ms. Khera said she left feeling somewhat hopeful.

“I think our message is finally starting to get through,” she said.