Politics | Politics for Pros- moderated


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: D. Long who wrote (486430)5/9/2012 1:48:15 PM
From: Tom Clarke3 Recommendations   of 536486
 
I like the first comment - "Systemic crisis. Is that like...liberals pissing their pants?"

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (486425)5/9/2012 1:51:32 PM
From: Brian Sullivan1 Recommendation   of 536486
 
From the Jonathan Chait article:

The most important and alarming facet of Lugar’s defeat, and a factor whose importance is being overlooked at the moment, is one of the things Mourdock cited against him: Lugar voted to confirm two of Obama’s Supreme Court nominees. Obviously, Lugar would not have chosen to nominate an Elena Kagan or a Sonia Sotomayor. But he was following a longstanding practice of extending presidents wide ideological latitude on their Supreme Court picks.
However he conveniently omits that fact that President Obama vote against both of President Bush's nominations:

Chief Justice Roberts:

senate.gov 

and Justice Alito

senate.gov 

In fact the only Democratic Senator that voted for Alito who isn't retired or retiring is

Senator Johnson of South Dakota:
en.wikipedia.org 


From THe NY Times in2006:
nytimes.com 

The vote on the nomination was unusually close and partisan. In the last 100 years of Supreme Court confirmations, only one vote was closer: the 52-to-48 decision to confirm Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991.

In this confirmation, 54 Republicans voted for Judge Alito, and just one, Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, voted against him. Only four Democrats — Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia — voted for confirmation, while the other 40 Democrats and the one independent voted against it.

The senators sat at their desks as the roll was called to reflect the solemnity of the occasion, and Mr. Byrd, 88, the oldest and longest-serving member of the Senate, made his way to his desk with canes in each hand to cast the last vote with a thumbs-up gesture.

Although only four Democrats crossed party lines, the vote reflected a deep divide within the party over how hard to fight Judge Alito's confirmation. An effort by a handful of Democrats to stage a filibuster over the objection of party leaders failed on Monday, when only 25 senators voted against closing debate.

The 42 senators who voted against confirmation would have been enough to block the nomination if they had voted against closing the debate. But many Democrats were unwilling to do so because it would have drawn charges of obstructionism from Republicans, who have threatened to change Senate rules to bar filibusters on judicial nominees.



Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: LindyBill5/9/2012 1:54:37 PM
2 Recommendations   of 536486
 
What was she thinking? Now, I wouldn't vote for her for dog catcher.

Swiss Miss



By Mark Krikorian
May 9, 2012 12:08 P.M.
Comments
14



Tim Mak at Politico reports that Michele Bachmann has acquired Swiss citizenship through her husband’s immigrant parents. It’s not that they’re giving up American citizenship and moving to Switzerland, which is their right, if the Swiss permit it — rather, they’re acquiring dual citizenship. This is outrageous and she needs to hear about it.

I’ve met Representative Bachmann, and the leftist caricatures of her are scurrilous. She’s highly capable and no doubt a patriot. While I don’t think she’s ready to be president, she’d make a fine cabinet secretary in the Romney administration — but only if she weren’t also a citizen of a foreign country. Dual citizenship isn’t simply a matter of convenience, a way to make travel easier or a sentimental tie to the Auld Sod. It’s a formal declaration of divided allegiance, civic bigamy, if you will. As Theodore Roosevelt said: “There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag . . . and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

People obviously have have multiple connections — church memberships, community groups, fraternities, ethnic associations, professional societies, etc. But one’s chief political allegiance is expressed through citizenship, through being a member of We the People — and claiming membership in two national communities is like belonging to two different religions, which means neither is accorded the respect due it.

Keep reading this post . . .

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: LindyBill5/9/2012 2:04:13 PM
1 Recommendation   of 536486
 
The FBI’s Muslim Outreach Follies

Posted By Patrick Poole On May 9, 2012 @ 12:00 am In Homeland Security,Legal,Politics,Religion,Uncategorized,US News | 11 Comments


When FBI Director Robert Mueller testifies today for a House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing [1], undoubtedly he will be questioned about the FBI’s ongoing “Islamophobia” purge [2].

Specifically, members of Congress are concerned about the FBI’s continued secrecy [3] regarding the identity of the three outside subject matter experts (SME) the bureau brought in to help with the purge (two other SMEs from inside the FBI assisted). One reason for congressional skepticism about the FBI’s use of these outside SMEs is that the bureau has an extensive history of failure when vetting Muslim outreach partners.

In June 2002, Director Mueller took fire [4] for a speech to the American Muslim Council (AMC), which his spokesman described [5] as “the most mainstream Muslim group in the United States.” During his speech Mueller asked the group [6] for their help in fighting terrorism. But the head of AMC at the time was Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was videotaped [7] in October 2000 delivering a speech just yards away from the White House, proclaiming: “I have been labeled by the media in New York as being a supporter of Hamas. We are all supporters of Hamas. I wish they added that I am also a supporter of Hezbollah.”

That same year, AMC board advisor and former acting President [4] Jamil Al-Amin was arrested for murdering a Georgia police officer. Alamoudi was arrested [8] in 2003 in a Libyan assassination plot targeting the Saudi crown prince, and was later identified [9] by the U.S. Treasury as one of al-Qaeda’s top fundraisers [10] in the United States.

At the time of Mueller’s speech in 2002, Alamoudi had been under investigation by the FBI for almost a decade for funneling money [11] between Osama bin Laden and “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman. During the AMC conference at which Mueller spoke, Alamoudi approached [12] Jewish Forward D.C. bureau chief Eli Kintisch are warned him that it might not be “good for your health” to remain at the event (ironically, during a panel discussion on “American Muslims and the Media”), prompting the reporter to leave.

In October 2003, just days before a ceremony honoring Detroit Muslim leader Imad Hamad and bestowing on him the Director’s Award for exceptional public service, the FBI contacted Hamad to tell him he wasn’t receiving the award [13]. The FBI initially claimed they had decided to give the award to a victim of the 9/11 terror attacks, but later an FBI spokesman revealed that unflattering information about Hamad had been made public during the deportation proceedings for one of his close associates.

In fact, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) fought for two decades to deport Hamad for his suspected support for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a designated terrorist organization. That information had come to light not due to any checking or vetting by the FBI, but thanks to an article published [14] by the New York Post days before Hamad was stripped of the award. In recent days, Hamad has been quoted [15] encouraging the FBI’s ongoing “Islamophobia” purge.

During the trial of Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami Al-Arian, the terror leader’s attorney attempted to subpoena evidence of meetings and conversations that Al-Arian had with high-ranking officials at the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the speaker of the House of Representatives, and even the White House. Al-Arian had gained access [16] to the highest levels of the U.S. government despite having been subject to FISA wiretap warrants [17] since the early 1990s and having his home raided in 1995. As part of a plea deal [18], Al-Arian admitted [19] to being part of the leadership structure of the terrorist group and knowingly supporting the terrorist organization.

In 2008, Mueller handed [20] one of his Director’s Community Leadership Awards to Imam Yahya Hendi, who had testified [21] during Al-Arian’s trial as a defense witness. According to testimony [22] delivered to the 9/11 Commission, Hendi had served as a moderator during a 2000 fundraiser for the Benevolence International Foundation, which was shut down in November 2002 by the U.S. government and designated [23] a terrorist organization for its support of al-Qaeda and several other Islamic terrorist groups.

The FBI has a long history of partnering [24] with groups accused of supporting Islamic terrorism. Among the first groups appointed [25] to the FBI’s Arab, Muslim, and Sikh Advisory Council following the 9/11 attacks was the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). After CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator [26] in the largest terrorism financing trial in American history, an FBI agent testified [27] during that trial that CAIR was a front for the terrorist group Hamas. Federal prosecutors also told [28] a federal court: “From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists.” The FBI was publicly forced to sever ties [29] with CAIR.

As I reported exclusively [30] here at PJ Media last year, top FBI officials have continued to meet unofficially with CAIR, even to the point of working to conceal [31] their ongoing relationship. This is despite CAIR warning its members last year to avoid speaking [32] with the FBI.

Another story I broke [33] in September 2010 detailed the inclusion of known Hamas cleric Kifah Mustapha. As part of a six-week FBI Citizens’ Academy, he was treated to guided tours of the top-secret National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), FBI Headquarters, and the FBI Academy at Quantico. Mustapha’s participation in the FBI program came after he was personally named [34] an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial and his appointment as a Muslim chaplain to the Illinois State Police had been revoked [35] (a background check revealed his terrorist ties and support [36]).

After the publication of my report, the FBI doubled-down [37] on its support of Mustapha, dismissing his extensive Hamas connections and calling him an important Chicago-area Muslim leader. But when Mueller was asked [38] about it following a speech he gave a week later, he refused to answer questions [39] about Mustapha’s participation in the program. Court documents filed by the Chicago U.S. Attorney’s Office in response to Mustapha’s discrimination lawsuit [40] against the Illinois State Police revealed that the special agent in charge of the Chicago FBI field office — the same office that had sponsored the Hamas cleric in the FBI Citizens’ Academy — had warned the state police that Mustapha would never be able [41] to pass a background check for a similar position with the FBI. Yet the FBI’s own website [42] states that a background check and interim security clearance are necessary for participation in the FBI Citizens’ Academy.

When Time featured a profile [43] on Mohamed Majid — imam of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) Center and current president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) — in November 2005, it highlighted Majid’s award [44] from the FBI for “the imam’s cooperation in the war on terror,” claiming that “Majid regularly tips off the bureau.” But in a letter [45] to the ADAMS Center community the day after the Time article appeared, Majid told his mosque members that he did no such thing (the letter has now been taken down from the ADAMS Center website, but is still available [45] through Internet Archive).

Majid made clear that he never reported on anyone in the Muslim community, and his relationship with the FBI was one-sided, with the outreach meetings intended “solely to create avenues to work with law enforcement to preserve our civil liberties and civil rights.” It should come as no shock that Majid has recently met with top DOJ officials urging the criminalization of criticism of Islam [46] and has been one of the most vocal cheerleaders for the FBI’s training “Islamophobia” purge, meeting at least twice [47] with FBI Director Mueller on the topic.

Last September, Mohamed Elibiary was given [48] the FBI’s Louis E. Peters Memorial Award in a ceremony at Quantico for his help with the FBI as a “deradicalizer” within the Muslim community. But the two cases that Elibiary trumpets — the case of five D.C. kids who went to Pakistan to fight U.S. troops, and that of “Underwear Bomber” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab — are cases of his “deradicalization” subjects jumping headlong into terrorism, not away from it.

Questions were raised in October 2010 when Elibiary was appointed [49] to the Department of Homeland Security’s Advisory Council in light of his previous appearance at a Dallas conference honoring Ayatollah Khomeini [50], his defense [51] of jihadist ideological godfather Sayyid Qutb, and his veiled threats [52] against the life of Dallas Morning News editor Rod Dreher.

As I reported here exclusively at PJ Media back in October, Elibiary was caught downloading documents [53] from a secure DHS server, which he then tried to market to a left-leaning publication claiming they represented a pattern of Islamophobia by the Texas Department of Public Safety. I subsequently reported that Elibiary’s non-profit organization had its tax exempt status revoked [54] for failing to file the required IRS Form 990s. Elibiary continues to work with the FBI and serve on the DHS Advisory Council today, and he too has been an outspoken advocate of the ongoing “Islamophobia” purge. He was described in one article [55] as the “FBI’s Key Muslim Ally” and complained that “bigoted briefings make my job harder.”

The FBI’s Muslim outreach hasn’t always gone as planned, such as during the March 2008 Community Relations Executive Seminar Training (CREST) program hosted by the Ohio chapter of CAIR. During the session tempers reportedly flared [56] and the three FBI agents addressing the crowd barely escaped violence. More recently, an FBI outreach event in Seattle intended to improve communications and to build trust with the Muslim community grew heated [57] when attendees complained that the FBI’s presentation focused too much on Islamic terrorism, and that a slide on state-sponsored terrorism showed a picture of former Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini.

Unfortunately, the above are just a small selection from the FBI’s Muslim outreach follies. But they are representative of the ongoing failure by the FBI under Director Mueller’s tenure to properly vet their outreach partners.

With these episodes in mind, the concerns expressed by members of Congress — concerns regarding the FBI’s selection of outside SMEs chosen to purge their training programs and materials for supposed “Islamophobia,” and the FBI’s refusal to divulge the names of the SMEs claiming such information is classified — are reasonably rooted in the bureau’s long history of Muslim outreach failure.


Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: LindyBill who wrote (486435)5/9/2012 2:07:49 PM
From: D. Long2 Recommendations   of 536486
 
I don't know how she could ever be appointed to a position of executive authority or possess a security clearance now. She would not only be married to a dual-citizen spouse, she would be dual-citizen herself. A foreign national in a cabinet position, or VP? Forget it.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: LindyBill who wrote (486154)5/9/2012 2:09:02 PM
From: Brian Sullivan   of 536486
 
Obama to take a definitive stance?

Gay Marriage Issue Looming, Obama Sits for an Interview
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR and MICHAEL BARBARO

2:03 p.m. | Updated With his re-election bid looming, President Obama is set to confront one of the most sensitive political challenges of his presidency on Wednesday as he sits down for an interview that is likely to include a discussion of his views on gay marriage.

The hastily-arranged interview, with ABC’s Robin Roberts, will give Mr. Obama another opportunity to clarify what he has called his “evolving” position on a social issue that continues to sharply divide the American public.

In 2010, Mr. Obama said that his long-standing opposition to the idea of same-sex marriages has been changing. But he has refused to say since then whether he now supports extending the rights and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples.

“My feelings about this are constantly evolving,” he said two years ago. “I struggle with this. I have friends, I have people who work for me who are in powerful, strong, long-lasting gay or lesbian unions. And they are extraordinary people. And this is something that means a lot to them and they care deeply about.”

The effort by the White House to set up the interview comes after several days of intense pressure on Mr. Obama following comments in support of gay marriage by Vice President Joe Biden and Arne Duncan, the secretary of education.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (486426)5/9/2012 2:10:03 PM
From: mistermj6 Recommendations   of 536486
 
Massive GOP turnout for Walker in a virtually meaningless GOP primary...that is the take home message for me.


Huge victory margin for Barrett, massive GOP turnout for Walker
By Craig Gilbert of the Journal Sentinel
Updated: 9:30 a.m.

An election day largely bereft of real suspense managed to produce at least two eye-popping numbers Tuesday:

24 points: Tom Barrett’s massive statewide victory margin over Kathleen Falk in a Democratic primary that was far more of a rout – and much less of a brawl – than once expected, punctuated by Barrett’s 31-point margin over Falk in Dane County, where she was county executive for 14 years.

626,538. The astonishing number of votes Gov. Scott Walker generated in an uncompetitive GOP primary, more votes than Barrett and Falk combined and almost as many as were cast for all the candidates on the Democratic side. It’s just not normal in politics for a major incumbent with token opposition to generate turnout on a par with a heavily contested race in the other party. It was an unexpected turnout bomb, a demonstration of Walker’s greatest political asset, even greater than his considerable money advantage -- the ability to mobilize his base.

Put it all together and Tuesday’s vote was a momentum boost to both candidates in a four-week drag-race of an election.

Barrett won 56 out of 72 counties, utterly dominating in the two big base counties of Milwaukee (where he beat Falk 72% to 25%) and Dane (where he won 61% to 31%). His biggest margins were in the northwest and the southeast, and he topped 60% in 11 counties.

While Barrett’s opposition among labor spent heavily to elect Falk, it critically backed off from frontal attacks once Barrett jumped into the race, began piling up party endorsements, cemented his lead in the polls and won a war of perception over which Democrat had the best shot of beating Walker.

That not only eased Barrett’s path to victory Tuesday but averted the destructive intra-party fight many Democrats feared. He emerged a fairly unscarred and unexpectedly resounding primary winner. It couldn’t have played out any better for him, other than the extremely sobering reminder Tuesday that Republicans are at least as dedicated to keeping Walker in power as Democrats are to driving him out.

It was as if Walker turned on a turnout switch on the eve of the primary, appearing on talk radio and on the stump to urge GOP voters looking ahead to June 5 to first deliver a show of strength for him on May 8.

Walker’s vote total was only 20% lower than the combined votes of his party’s presidential field in the April 3 Wisconsin primary; and he drew 280,000 more votes than the GOP winner in that contest, Mitt Romney.

In the GOP bastion of Waukesha County, the Walker vote represented about 27% of all voting-age adults in the county (79,049 people).

In the Democratic bastion of Dane County, the Democratic vote represented about 28% of all voting-age adults in the county (105,437).

In effect, Republican Waukesha matched Democratic Dane’s turnout rate despite the fact that the GOP primary was meaningless.

In terms of total turnout (Republican and Democratic primaries combined) Ozaukee was No. 1 in the state Tuesday, with 39.4% of voting-age adults going to the polls (based on 2010 population), followed by Waukesha at 38.8%. (Dane was seventh at 36.3%.)

The Walker turnout phenomenon in the juggernaut GOP “WOW” counties (Waukesha, Ozaukee and Washington) is to many Democrats the single most daunting obstacle to defeating the incumbent governor.

“That group is extremely mobilized,” Robert Kraig of the liberal advocacy group Citizen Action of Wisconsin said in interview hours before the polls closed Tuesday. “They’re every bit as passionate as Walker opponents. It’s overwhelming (in those suburban counties) … It means that we need top mobilization just to match it … We need to perform at a top level across every constituency, because they’re going to.”

That’s why the size of the vote in Milwaukee June 5 is a major question for Democrats. Of the party’s two geographic bases, Madison is reliably high-turnout and unmistakably and deeply engaged in the recall fight. The city of Milwaukee is not reliably high-turnout and it remains to be seen how deeply engaged its voters are in the recall fight. Milwaukee Mayor Barrett enjoyed his biggest countywide margins in Milwaukee County Tuesday. But the county’s turnout rate was much lower than Dane’s: 17% of voting-age adults, or 123,638 people, voted in the Democratic primary. The turnout gap between Dane and Milwaukee is nothing new. But it will be vital for Democrats to narrow that gap and drive up Milwaukee turnout June 5 in order to offset the huge turnout Walker is expected to generate in the suburban counties outside Milwaukee.

There's also the broader question: Is the sum total of roughly 670,000 votes generated by Democrats Tuesday a warning sign about the party's turnout June 5, when they will need far more than that number to defeat Walker?

“The Democrats should worry about turnout in June. They should put the GOTV machine into full gear,” said political scientist Barry Burden of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

The counter-argument is that Walker is the motivating force for Democrats as much as he is for Republicans, and that voting against him next month will be far more mobilizing for them than Tuesday’s primary was.

Either way, it’s a turnout game. Both sides have now shown in very concrete ways they are highly motivated. But it’s probably fair to say that between now and June 5, the bigger turnout questions are on the Democratic side.

jsonline.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: LindyBill who wrote (486432)5/9/2012 2:25:17 PM
From: goldworldnet   of 536486
 
Most of what I've read maintains that Greece will be better off returning to their own currency and I'm inclined to agree.

* * *

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (486426)5/9/2012 2:26:48 PM
From: Alan Smithee3 Recommendations   of 536486
 
From the comments:

cubanbob said... Chait's fright is my delight.


Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: skinowski who wrote (486408)5/9/2012 2:28:36 PM
From: Little Joe7 Recommendations   of 536486
 
Our kids are not allowed to play dodgeball, tag, and a host of other games we all played as kids. Playgrounds have been sanitized to the point where they are expensive and liability risks and they think kids are obese because they drink soda.

lj

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.