Another Example Of What Awaits Us In A Socialized Health Care System: Father Dies Slow Death In Emergency Room

Those who support socialized medicine know the truth but refuse to speak it out loud. Nationalized health care would not be socialized, it would be rationed. In fact, it would be rationed to the point of the United States seeing the horrors that are now commonly seen in Canada and Great Britain.

Here is a sad story coming out of the United Kingdom:

DAD-of-two Stewart Fleming grips his head in pain as he waits to be seen in A&E - but he died after being ignored for SIX hours. Clearly suffering, Stewart was clutching a note from his doctor saying he must be seen IMMEDIATELY. But the railway signalman, 37, was left to die as a deadly virus ravaged his body and one by one his organs collapsed.

An A & E (Accidents & Emergencies) is the equivalent of an American ER (Emergency Room).

More:

His distraught wife Sarah, 42, said: "We were waiting for so long. I was just mucking around on my phone trying to get him to smile. But he was in so much pain he couldn't even look up to the camera. "I can't stop thinking that the last hours of his life were wasted. They were spent waiting around for help. "His doctor obviously realised the severity of his condition. His life might have been saved if the hospital had given him something to fight the infection sooner." It was three hours before Stewart was assessed by staff at the hospital to see if he was a priority case and a further three hours until he was admitted. Heartbroken Sarah, from Rainham, Kent, added: "There are so many questions. Why wait three hours for triage when his doctor had already done it and put it in writing? "We should not have had to queue. He should have been dealt with immediately. I was with Stewart when the GP called the hospital. “He typed us a letter and told us to go to A&E and hand this letter over. He said Stewart would be given a bed and treated immediately. "But when we got to A&E it was full to bursting. I walked to the front with the letter and told them what the GP had said but I was just told to go to the back of the queue."

That is what awaits us with Nationalized Health Care: stacking at the hands of bureaucrats and waiting hours just to be cataloged as to whether or not our conditions are serious enough to even be looked at. Someone once said that socialized health care would have all the efficiency of the Post Office and all the warmth of the Internal Revenue Service.

Six hours is a very long time to spend in an Emergency Room, especially when the patient has already been diagnosed by a qualified physician.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Dying Father Ignored For 6 Hours
Lynsey Haywood
The Sun UK
December 29, 2008

UAW Resorts For UAW Officers: More Examples Of Where The Tax-Payer Funded Bailout Will Be Going

My last blog entry dealt with the hypocrisy of the United Auto Workers and their leadership in owning a resort that consistently has lost money over the years.

But, Michelle Malkin has taken this story to new levels by exposing other projects that the UAW leadership has wasted it's members' money on.

From Town Hall:

In May and November 2007, the UAW forked over nearly $53,000 for union staff meetings at the Thousand Hills Golf Resort in Branson, Mo. In September 2007, the UAW dropped another $5,000 at the Lakes of Taylor Golf Club in Taylor, Mich., and another $9,000 at the Thunderbird Hills Golf Club in Huron, Ohio. Another bill for $5,772 showed up for the Branson, Mo., golf resort. On Oct. 26, 2007, the union spent $5,000 on another "golf outing" in Detroit. In May and June 2007, UAW bosses spent nearly $11,000 on a golf tournament and related expenses at the Hawthorne Hill Country Club in Lima, Ohio. And in April 2007, the UAW spent $12,000 for a charity golf sponsorship in Dearborn, Mich. In August 2007, the UAW paid nearly $10,000 to its for-profit Black Lake golf course operator, UBG, for something itemized as "Golf 2007 Summer School." UBG had nearly $4.4 million worth of outstanding loans from the union. Another for-profit entity that runs the education center, UBE, had nearly $20 million in outstanding loans from the union. ... And while the UAW and carmakers cry poor, they've operated massive joint funds for years that have paid for lavish items such as multi-million-dollar NASCAR racer sponsorships and Las Vegas junkets. The dire economic downturn hasn't changed the behavior of profligate union bigs at the front office or the shop floor. Local Detroit TV station WDIV recently caught local UAW bosses Ron Seroka and Jim Modzelewski -- both of whom make six-figure salaries -- on tape squandering thousands of hours of overtime on such important labor security matters as on-the-clock beer runs and bowling tournaments.

And the idiots in Congress who voted "Yea" on the Detroit bailout still beleive they were doing something honorable.

Let the bums go bankrupt.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The UAW's Money-Squandering Corruptocracy
Michelle Malkin
Townhall.com
December 31, 2008

$33 Million Lakside Resort Owned By UAW Exposes Jim Webb's Hypocrisy

You know, one of the things that really angers me is arrogant hypocrisy. What I mean by that is a "Do as I say, not as I do" attitude. As the proud father of a newborn baby boy, I can honestly say that I will teach my son to never engage in such behavior. I only wish that the full-grown politicians who ride roughshod over us would live by the same rules we teach our children to live by.

To wit, there is an interesting story from Fox News that came out on December 26th concerning a resort owned by the United Auto Workers and financed by the Big Three Automakers through union negotiated contracts.

You all may recall that I wrote letters to my Congressional Representatives concerning the proposed bailout of Detroit. I noted that legacy costs such as the Jobs Bank program were forcing higher costs on the Big Three and that was why they were facing backruptcy. I further noted that many small businesses here in Virginia were in danger of failing but that no one was talking about bailing them out.

Well, I did get a response back from Jim Webb. In his response, he noted that the Big Three executives recieved much higher salaries when compared to the executives of foreign automakers and proposed forcing the U.S. executives to take a parity of salary. It should also be noted that Senator Webb never made one single mention of the plight of small businesses here in Virginia nor did he express any concern their situation.

This brings me to the point of the above mentioned arrogant hypocrisy. If we are to take such a negative view of the American Automakers executives' salaries, then we must also look at the perks that the officers of the UAW are enjoying. One of those perks is a UAW owned golf course that has bled off $23 million over the past five years.

From Fox News:

Even as the industry struggles with massive losses, the UAW brass continue to own and operate a $33 million lakeside retreat in Michigan, complete with a $6.4 million designer golf course. And it's costing them millions each year. The UAW, known more for its strikes than its slices, hosts seminars and junkets at the Walter and May Reuther Family Education Center in Onaway, Mich., which is nestled on "1,000 heavily forested acres" on Michigan's Black Lake, according to its Web site. But the Black Lake club and retreat, which are among the union's biggest fixed assets, have lost $23 million in the past five years alone, a heavy albatross around the union's neck as it tries to manage a multibillion-dollar pension plan crisis.

So, if we are to take Jim Webb seriously about his proposal of forcing executives to accept parity of salary, should we not also impose the same standard on the UAW officers who live the high life while the rest of America (most of whom can't afford to spend time at high class resorts like the UAW does) floats them?

Or how about applying that same standard to Congress and other government officials? Should we not also impose "parity of salary" on them as well? According to the Census Bureau, the median household income in the United States in 2007 was $50,233.00. Thus, government officials, if they truly believe themselves to be the servants of the people and to be in touch with the peoples' needs, should only accept salaries of $50,233.00 per year. If they are not willing to accept such parity for themselves, then they certainly should not be suggesting that it be imposed upon others.

But I am certain that Jim Webb lacks the integrity necessary to make such a bold stand. He has no problem imposing his standards on others, but will resist to the end any attempt at imposing those same standards on himself.

If any of the bailout money that President Bush released to finance the Big Three ends up floating that resort, it will serve as proof that the Democrats were more interested in repaying the UAW for political support than they were in bailing out the Big Three.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Autoworkers Union Keeps $6 Million Golf Course For Members At $33 Million Lakeside Retreat
FoxNews.com
December 26, 2008

A New Addition To My Family

Hello everyone! First, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to read my blog. I know there are thousands of blogs and message boards that you could be reading right now and you picked my little corner of cyberspace to visit.

Anyway, my son was born this past Tuesday, December 23rd, 2008. As such, we are adjusting to having an newborn infant in the house and that won't be leaving me much time to blog about the important issues of the day. I'll still post every now and then, but not with the frequency I had been doing.

I will say this much, though: Seeing all those newborn babies in the nursury at the hospital has caused me to re-affirm my commitment to the Culture of Life.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Indiana Lawmaker Calls For Planned Parenthood Defunding After Video Exposés

This is yet another story you will not hear about from NBC, ABC, CBS or CNN nor will you read about it on the front page of the Washington Post or New York Times.

We all know that Planned Parenthood of Indiana openly defied Indiana law by counseling a girl whom they believed to be only 13 years old to lie about the age of the man whom they believed was 31 years old and had gotten her pregnant. In fact, it happened at two different Planned Parenthood clinics on the same day and the actions of the PP staff in each case were almost identical.

You can read my previous blog posts about this here:

Planned Parenthood Caught On Video Covering Up The Rape Of A Thirteen Year Old Girl
84rules
December 3, 2008

More On The Video Of A Planned Parnethood Nurse Caught Covering Up A Case Of Statutory Rape
84rules
December 5, 2008

SECOND Indiana Planned Parenthood Hides Rape Of 13-Year-Old
84rules
December 17, 2008

Now, an Indiana State Representative has called for Planned Parenthood to be defunded for their efforts at circumventing Indiana State law. Rep. Jakie Walorski has written a letter to to Attorney General Steve Carter and Social Services Secretary Mitch Roob asking for an investigation into Planned Parenthood.

From Life Site News:

"Seeing these events occur at two different locations in Indiana and seeing 3 different employees react in virtually the same manner, showing a blatant disregard for all Indiana laws pertaining to protecting minors from sexual abuse, today, I called for the 'defunding' of Planned Parenthood of Indiana," said Walorski in a statement released yesterday. Walorski also asked the Indiana's Social Services to suspend Medicaid funding. "This story has flown into the national spotlight because of the blatant disregard for Indiana's law regarding the protection of minors," Walorski said. ... "It is unacceptable for this pattern of behavior to be happening at two different Planned Parenthood clinics, in different parts of the State; therefore, I believe we must look out for the safety of Hoosier minors in this State and proceed with the full investigation of Planned Parenthood of Indiana." Indiana Right to Life is coupling Walorski’s call with its own appeal to Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi to immediately launch an investigation into Marion County Planned Parenthood offices to determine if child sexual abuse is being reported as required by Indiana law.

Planned Parenthood has no excuse for what they did in these videos. Even if Lila Rose wasn't really thirteen years old, the Planned Parenthood staffers believed she was only thirteen and mostly likely acted as they were trained to act in such a case.

And as I wrote earlier, you won't see this in Old Media.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Indiana Lawmaker Calls For Planned Parenthood Defunding After Video Exposés
Kathleen Gilbert
LifeSiteNews.com
December 17, 2008

Democrats Inch Ever Closer To Stealing Senatorial Election In Minnesota

After all of the legal votes were cast and counted, Norm Coleman was the victor of the Senatorial Election in Minnesota. Thus, the Democrats did what they did with Governor Gregoire in Washington State: they kept pursuing legal channels until enough votes were "found" to ensure the Democrat was the winner. Many of the votes that were "found" in Washington State were extremely questionable at best, but the State's election board and the courts, both of which are highly controlled by the Democrats, sided with the Democrat candidate and thus, Gregoire was selected (not elected) to be Washington State's Governor back in 2004.

The same thing is happening up in Minnesota right now. Even though Norm Coleman won the popular vote according to election boards who were entrusted with counting the votes and not counting the questionable votes, the Democrats are trying to get a foul-mouthed clown in Al Franken selected as the next Senator from Minnesota.

It is a slap in the face to Americans everywhere that the Democrats work so hard to usurp the electorial system in order to ensure their own power. Here is a brief history of how this election and recount (conducted by Democrats) has been playing out:

Will The Dems Steal The Senate Race In Minnesota?
84rules
November 7, 2008

Dems Inching Closer To Stealing The Minnesota Senate Race
84rules
November 10, 2008

Mischeif In MInnesota: Dems Working To Steal Senate Seat
84rules
November 12, 2008

Dems Still Trying To Steal Senate Seat In Minnesota
84rules
November 17, 2008

Al Franken Lawyered Up And Ready To Steal Senate Seat
84rules
November 21, 2008

Here is the latest from Amanda Carpenter at Town Hall:

Franken is currently leading by a little more than 100 votes. This is the first time Franken has pulled ahead of Coleman in recount, which has been taking place for over a month. Minnesota’s powerful Canvassing Board is expected to finish counting all the disputed ballots by the Friday night. The board’s review of the disputed ballots, however, is not the last step in the recount. There are nearly 300 ballots left to examine. The Minnesota Supreme Court gave the board another assignment on Thursday by ruling that roughly 1,600 more ballots improperly rejected needed to be examined by the end of the month.

As you can see, the Canvassing Board (controlled by Democrats) and the courts (controlled by Democrats) are following the same exact strategy that their counterparts in Washington State used. Make rulings that favor the Democrat candidate until enough votes are "found" to have the Democrat declared the winner. Or, as Communist Josef Stalin once said: "It does not matter who casts the votes, it only matters who counts them."

You also have to wonder: How many of these questionable votes that the Democrats "found" to be in favor of Al Franken were cast by people registered by ACORN?

Wake up, America. This may be our electorial future if we allow the Dems to continue stealing elections like they did in Washington State and are actively trying to do in Minnesota right now.

You can access Amanda Carpenter's complete article on-line here:

Coleman Says Franken's Lead is "Temporary"
Amanda Carpeter
TownHall.com
December 19, 2008

Canadian Human Rights Commission: One Of The Most Hypocritical Organizations In North America

Mark Steyn is a pistol. He has no problem pointing out the idiots and fools in any crowd, regardless of what meaningless insults those idiots and fools throw back at him.

The latest batch of foolish idiots to be highlighted by Mr. Steyn are the members of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. You remember them, don't you? They are the kangaroo courts who prosecute thoughtcrimes in Canada on behalf of Big Brother.

But, as Napoleon Pig pointed out, some perpetrators of thoughtcrime are more equal than others. Read what Mark has to say in his latest blog entry:

Marc Lebuis (of the excellent Quebec website Point de Bascule) has had his complaint against a Montreal imam, Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Dameus al-Hayiti, rejected by the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission. M Lebuis filed the case to test the consistency of the CHRC: Do they apply their speech codes equally to all Canadians? Or do they just screw over the soft targets who've had the misfortune to catch the eye of serial plaintiff Richard Warman? Well, M Lebuis has his answer. In the eyes of the CHRC's international laughingstock Jennifer Lynch, QC and the rest of the Lynch Mob, not all hatemongers are equal. As the headline in Le Devoir puts it: Commission canadienne des droits de la personne - S’attaquer aux gais, aux occidentales et aux juifs n’est pas nécessairement haineux That's to say, "CHRC: Attacking gays, western women and Jews isn't necessarily hateful." Hey, that's great to know, isn't it? At least if you're an imam. If you're an Alberta pastor opposed to gay marriage, you might want to tread more carefully. Over at Point de Bascule, M Lebuis lists some of the choicer statements from Imam al-Hayiti's book: * "Homosexuality is a 'perversion'" * "Homosexuals 'spread disorder on earth'" * "Homosexuals and lesbians should be 'exterminated in this life'" * "Homosexuals caught performing sodomy are beheaded..." * "Most Infidels 'live like animals'" * "they are evil people, they love perversity," and "they are our enemies..." * "Men are superior to women and better than them..." * "This is the reason why ethnic groups are not equal..." * "It is because of this religion of lies [Christianity], which goes against human nature, that the West is now full of perversity, corruption and adultery..." * "Jews 'spread corruption and chaos on earth.'" * "Most Jews 'seek only material goods and money, apart from that, they have nothing...'"

Apparently, these Canadian kangaroo courts are perfectly happy to read and hear about Islamic Imams bashing gays and women and attacking other religions, but if a Christian were to mention anything negative about gays, women or any other religion, then the CHRC is primed up for litigation and legal action as well as smearing the names of those they prosecute, or rather persecute.

Hypocrisy, thy name is leftism.

You can access the original blog entry on-line here:

CHRC: Infidels Are Not A Protected Category
Mark Steyn
SteynOnLine.com
December 17, 2008

Caroline Kennedy: The Dems Cover-Girl For Entitlement Over Experience

Back during the Presidential campaign, the Dems beat a very insincere drum about Gov. Sarah Palin's qualifications. They said that she didn't have any experience and therefore was not qualified for the position she would have been voted into had the GOP ticket won.

Do the Dems really believe this? No, they don't. The problem with their criticisms of Sarah Palin has been brought out into the light over the proposed appointment of Caroline Kennedy to fill the vacated New York Senate seat should Hillary Clinton become the next U.S. Secretary of State. It is the problem of a double-standard.

Let's compare the self-made woman Gov. Sarah Palin to the Kennedy heiress Caroline Kennedy.

Gov. Palin has actually done her own work, stood on her own and has actually been voted into office starting with the local politics of Wasilla, Alaska before moving on to the State Politics of Alaska and then was introduced to the nation this past year. She has a resume of independence, hard work and accomplishment.

Caroline Kennedy was born into a rich family with a very recognizable name. That's it. Nothing more. She has never been voted into office nor has she ever stood on her own. The only thing she brings to the table is a recognizable name.

Steve Chapman, writing for Town Hall, notes some interesting points that we need to be aware of about Ms. Kennedy and why any Democrat supporting her would be two-faced:

Kennedy is a well-spoken, pleasant woman who is indistinguishable from many other rich folks who would never be considered for a seat in the nation's highest elected body. Indistinguishable, that is, except for her name, which in some minds confers magical powers denied to ordinary mortals. If she had been born Caroline Kelly, no one would indulge her expressed desire to become a United States senator. But because of her pedigree, Paterson appears to think she's doing him a favor instead of the other way around. Kennedy is the latest example of the rise of "branding" in American politics -- in which merely coming from a particular family is taken as a qualification for office.

Anyone who is willing to say that Kennedy is fit for office must also be willing to recant any criticism they had of Gov. Palin's apptitude and fitness. Sarah Palin is light-years ahead of Kennedy in qualifications and experience, yet the Dems, like well-trained parrots, kept repeating over and over that she wasn't suited to national public office.

But somehow, they think that an unqualified woman whose only asset in life is that her name is "Kennedy" is a good thing. However, the name "Kennedy" isn't always remembered as being a profile in courage.

More:

In the Kennedy case, of course, not everyone would agree that Caroline's Uncle Ted has been a boon to the nation during his years in the Senate -- quite the contrary, since he has long been one of the most liberal lawmakers on Capitol Hill. That's without even taking into consideration the minor matter of Mary Jo Kopechne, the young woman he killed in a mysterious car wreck in 1969. Other Kennedys have fallen short in office. Joe Kennedy, son of Robert, was known as a telegenic lightweight during his time in the House of Representatives. Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), son of Ted, has made news mostly with his drug use and traffic accidents. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, daughter of Robert, was elected lieutenant governor of Maryland, but in 2002 managed the feat of becoming the first Democrat in more than three decades to lose a governor's race in that state.

And let's not forget William Kennedy Smith's sexual improprieties.

This all comes down to Caroline Kennedy's (and many Dems') belief that somehow, bearing the name Kennedy entitles one to office regardless of how inexperienced the Kennedy is.

If the Dems want to be taken seriously as the party of "change," they need to shout down any possible appointment of Caroline Kennedy and demand that all proposed appointments for the vacated Senate seat must abide by the same standard that they held Sarah Palin to during the 2008 Presidential campaign.

Should we be serious about this? You betcha!

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Caroline And The Lure Of Royalty
Steve Chapman
TownHall.com
December 18, 2008

SECOND Indiana Planned Parenthood Hides Rape Of 13-Year-Old

Finding it once may lead some to suspect that an event recorded at Planned Parenthood in Bloomington, Indiana during which a staffer counseled a "13-year-old" girl to hide the fact that she was a victim of statutory rape was nothing more than a isolated incident meriting only the firing of the staffer involved.

But finding it again at a separate clinic in a separate video but with astonishingly similar solutions to the problem the "13-year-old" girl is facing means that it is more than just an isolated incident and may very well be policy taught to Planned Parenthood staffers, not just in Indiana but nationwide.

If nothing else, it is certainly worthy of investigation to see just how many laws Planned Parenthood is willing to break in order to get an abortion done and how many rapists and child molesters that Planned Parenthood wants to see let go. Remember that Planned Parenthood makes money everytime they get to kill an unborn child.

Watch this video of yet another Planned Parenthood counselor trying to hide a statutory rape and coaching the girl on how to get an abortion without her parents' knowledge. This video was recorded in Indianapolis, Indiana on the same day as the video recorded in Bloomington.



This is your tax dollars at work. Planned Parenthood gets money from the Federal Government and uses it to ensure that rapists and child molesters get away without having to face any consequences for their crimes. What is worse, the rapists and molesters are free to stike again, all courtesy of the money that the government confiscates from your paycheck.

You can access the original source file of this video on-line here:

MLP #2: SECOND Indiana Planned Parenthood Hides Rape Of 13 Year Old
LiveActionFilms via YouTube
December 16, 2008

God bless Lila Rose for having the courage to make these films and expose the corruption at these abortion mills.

What Obama "Didn't Know" And Now His Appointees "Didn't Know" Either

Have you ever noticed how many things Barack Obama “didn’t know” about the people he associates with? There appears to be a very disturbing pattern emerging here.

Obama “didn’t know” that Jeremiah Wright preached racial hatred from the pulpit.

Obama “didn’t know” that Tony Rezko was a crooked real estate developer.

Obama “didn’t know” that Bill Ayers was a domestic terrorist.

And now, Obama “didn’t know” that Rahm Emanuel had more contact with Rod Blagojevich than was previously reported. Further, Obama's pick for Attorney General also "didn't know" about his own connection with Blagojevich.

These two stories both come from the Chicago Sun-Times. First, about Rahm Emanuel's contact with Blagojevich despite Obama's early claims that no such contact took place:

President-elect Barack Obama's incoming chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, was pushing for Obama's successor just days after the Nov. 4 election, sources told the Chicago Sun-Times. Emanuel privately urged Gov. Blagojevich's administration to appoint Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett, and the Sun-Times learned Tuesday that he also pressed that it be done by a certain deadline. Jarrett was initially interested in the U.S. Senate post before Obama tapped her to be a White House senior adviser, sources say. The disclosure comes days after Obama's camp downplayed Jarrett's interest in the post.

It seems as though the Obama camp's story changes every time the wind in the Inner Loop changes direction. But we can't be sure of what the truth is because Obama himself has obfuscated it so much, just like a typical politician. (So much for "change" or any kind of transparant investigation.)

And what about Attorney General designate Eric Holder and his relationship with Blagojevich? Turns out there was a big one, a relationship worth $300,000 to Holder.

Before Eric Holder was President-elect Barack Obama's choice to be attorney general, he was Gov. Blagojevich's pick to sort out a mess involving Illinois' long-dormant casino license. Blagojevich and Holder appeared together at a March 24, 2004, news conference to announce Holder's role as "special investigator to the Illinois Gaming Board" -- a post that was to pay Holder and his Washington, D.C. law firm up to $300,000. Holder, however, omitted that event from his 47-page response to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire made public this week -- an oversight he plans to correct after a Chicago Sun-Times inquiry, Obama's transition team indicated late Tuesday.

Maybe Holder "didn't know" that the relationship, especially the dollar amounts involved should have been reported? Or maybe, because of the Chicago-style politics being played, Holder arrogantly assumed that he was above the law and therefore had no need of disclosing anything?

These two stories may have nothing to do with Blagojevich trying to sell the vacated Illinois Senate seat, but it is very important that this infomation comes to light. Especially since the United States has approved of Obama's team transplanting its corrupt Chicago-style politics to Washington D.C.

Besides, remember the non-outing of Valerie Plame and how that led to a completely unrelated charge against Scooter Libby? Americans, especially Democrats, were okay with that. If they are fair and apply the same standard here, these same Americans, and especially the Democrats, will be okay with us learning everything we can about the corruption that will soon make its way from Illinois to D.C.

You can access both articles on-line here:

Rahm Emanuel Pressed For Jarrett Appointment To Senate
Natasha Korecki And Fran Spielman
Chicago Sun-Times
December 17, 2008

Holder Omitted Blagojevich Link From Questionnaire
Chris Fusco
Chicago Sun-Times
December 17, 2008

It might very well happen that the Obama Administration is going to be the most corrupt in history.

Barack Obama: The New Race-Baitor In The White House

Yes, you read the title correctly. I purposely wrote it that way and will stand by it, especially after an interview he gave that was published in the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times. Basically, Obama reasserted his promises to make sure that Hispanics and blacks are scrutinized less by the criminal justice simply because of their skin color, no matter what the severity of the crime or how much evidence is against them. Obama might as well have said that if a white person commits a crime, prosecute them to the full extent of the law, but if a non-white commits the same crime, let them go because of their skin color.

It may be that I am being blunt, but taking someone's skin color into consideration is a complete departure from Dr. Martin Luther King who said that "content of character" was paramount and "color of skin" should not be considered at all.

Writing for Front Page Magazine, John Perazzo looks at the issue more closely and brings up some very thought provoking points. It turns out that racial profiling does not play a significant role in the judicial system decision making process, but that other factors do:

The most exhaustive, best designed study of this matter—a three-year analysis of more than 11,000 convicted criminals in California—found that the severity of offenders’ sentences depended heavily on such factors as prior criminal records, the seriousness of the crimes, and whether guns were used in the commission of those crimes. Race was found to have no effect whatsoever. In fact the researcher, Joan Petersilia, was forced to admit that these results contradicted conclusions she had drawn from an earlier study—in which she had not taken prior convictions and the use of firearms into account.

But what about the race issue? Where is that coming from?

Read this:

Black overrepresentation is almost entirely at the arrest stage—reflecting the simple fact that the “average” black breaks the law more frequently than the “average” white.

And this:

The National Crime Victimization Surveys, conducted annually by the Census Bureau, show that statistically the “average” black is far more likely than the “average” white to be identified, by a victim or witness, as the perpetrator of a violent crime. This racial gap, moreover, is approximately equal to the racial gap in actual arrest rates. “As long ago as 1978,” says Manhattan Institute scholar Heather MacDonald, “a study of robbery and aggravated assault in eight cities found parity between the race of assailants in victim identifications and in arrests—a finding replicated many times since, across a range of crimes.”

The fact that blacks engage in more crimes than whites is never mentioned by Old Media and was certainly not mentioned by the Barack Obama campaign or transition team. It is an embarrassment to them to tell the truth about this issue. If they did tell the truth, they wouldn't be able to play the race card.

In fact, the decisions after the arrest tend to favor blacks more than whites:

More:

At all the decision points subsequent to arrest, the outcomes are virtually identical for blacks and whites alike—and the slight differences that do exist tend to favor blacks.[2] In studies that consider all relevant variables—such as the defendant’s prior criminal record, the severity of the crime in question, the offender’s demeanor with police, whether a weapon was used, and whether the crime in question was victim-precipitated—no differences have been found in sentencing patterns, either in relation to the victim’s race or the offender’s race.[3]

Barack Obama's comments about the alleged disparities in the criminal justice system are nothing more than attempts at race-baiting a la Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright. For a man who says he didn't know about Wright's racial tirades and would have left the church had he known, Obama sure does seem to want to implement Wright's philosophy of racial hatred in his policies.

While Obama harps on this, notice that he is also ignoring things like the fact that inter-racial crime is more likely to be black-on-white than any other scenario. If Obama really wants to be the "post-racial" candidate, rather than the same-old, same-old race-baitor of the past thirty years, he will demonstrate "change" by taking the racial rhetoric out of his policies and go foward with Dr. King's dream of "not by color of skin but by content of character" fresh in his mind.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama: Tilting At Racial Windmills
John Perrazzo
FrontPageMagazine.com
December 16, 2008

Dennis Prager: Minorities Should Express Shame, Not Only Pride

Let's start off with Dennis Prager's first few paragraphs:

Gay Pride. Jewish Pride. Black pride. Hispanic Pride. Multiculturalism. Ethnic pride. Minority rights vs. tyranny of the majority.

That's right. You can't turn anywhere these days without seeing something about celebrating any one of these issues. But what you don't see is any celebration of white Christian heterosexual males.

In fact, usually, the only time you ever hear about white Christian heterosexual males is when some activist group has something bad to say about them or is criticizing them for some imagined transgression.

Why does one almost never hear expressions of group shame from members of any American group other than white Christians (specifically, white Christian male heterosexuals)? Are the only evildoers in America white male heterosexual Christians? Is there something inherently wrong about members of minorities expressing anything but group pride? Are there no minority sins worthy of shame? The latter is in fact the argument advanced by many intellectuals concerning black racism, for example. For a generation, college students have been taught that it is impossible for blacks to be racist because only the racial group in power, i.e. whites, can express racism. Of course, that is nonsense. A black can be a racist just as a white can be one. A minority race might not have the power to implement racist national policies but that hardly means that no minority group, or any individual, can be a racist.

Yes, it is nonsense. Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a prime example of a black racist. So are Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan and several recent leaders of the NAACP.

From Old Media, we are bombarded with ideas that only whites can be racist or prejudicial. Reality shows otherwise. For example, the FBI's Uniform Crime Report shows clearly that most inter-racial crimes are black on white crimes. Further, it also shows that blacks are more likely to be victims of crimes committed by other blacks than by whites. And yet, only the white on black crime ever makes the news.

And gay pride? Where is the pride in being the major group vector for HIV infections? I never hear any gay leaders expressing regret that the homosexual community is still leading the spread of AIDS. Or how about terrorizing a little old lady in California? Where is the pride in that?

Prager has more examples of a serious skew in pride vs. shame:

The relative absence of expressions of shame in the Muslim world over the atrocities committed in Islams name is an example of the above. The labeling of blacks who express shame over disproportionate rates of violent crime and out-of-wedlock births in the black community as Uncle Toms is another. The absence of any expression of shame in the gay community over the current blacklisting -- and attempts to economically destroy -- anyone who donated to the California proposition defining marriage as between a man and a woman is another example.

This column is very thought provoking on many levels. Read it and then ask yourself, "Would I be proud if my ethnic/social group engaged in such shameful behavior?"

Prager's parting shot:

Expressing group shame when morally necessary is not airing dirty linen or giving solace to ones ideological enemies. It is, rather, one of the highest expressions of moral development. And it is therefore universally applicable. Being a minority doesnt exempt its members from moral responsibility. It will be a great day for America and the world when minorities begin to express shame as well as pride. In fact, there is real pride in expressing shame. Minorities should give it a try.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Minorities Should Express Shame, Not Only Pride
Dennis Prager
TownHall.com
December 16, 2008

Ken Blackwell: Reagan Coalition Must Unite

There are three pillars of the Reagan Coalition: Social Conservatives, Economic Conservatives and National Security Conservatives. When all three of these pillars are united, the Republican Party wins. When they are not united, disaster happens.

That is what happened in 2006 and 2008. There was no unity between these three pillars. That is the reason for the massive losses on November 4th. Some in the party, like Colin Powell, are saying that we should abandon Social Conservatism altogether, but the GOP moved away from Social Conservatism in 2008 and we lost big time. Clearly, abondoning Social Conservatism is not the way to go.

Ken Blackwell, writing for Town Hall, shows us what this unity means for us and why it is so important. He writes about the concerns of Social Conservatives:

The issue of judges, most especially the Supreme Court, has been the foremost issue for social conservatives for a generation. It has been the highest priority for the pro-life movement ever since Roe v. Wade in 1973. Lawsuits since 2003 involving gay marriage have made it the focal point on that issue as well. The courts have also been ground-zero since the 1960s on controversies involving faith and religion. And after the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the courts might become the central arena over Second Amendment rights as well.

But that doesn't mean that Economic Conservatives shouldn't be right alongside:

In 2007, the Supreme Court handed down Massachusetts v. EPA, where some states were suing the federal government to force the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate all sources of carbon dioxide. The theory was greenhouse gases such as CO2 cause global warming and should be designated a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The Court stunned legal observers, turning all sorts of longstanding legal doctrines on their heads, and decided the suit was proper. It then ordered the EPA to decide whether CO2 and other greenhouse gases affect the environmental and, if so, to set up a regulatory scheme that will control every source of these gases in America—including every car. The EPA is still working to implement the Court’s order. This decision, criticized by conservative legal scholars as an activist ruling, could cost the American economy hundreds of billions—and possibly over a trillion—dollars. The EPA case will impact countless businesses across the country, with devastating consequences. Economic conservatives should wake up to this decision as a sign that a 5-4 majority of the four liberals on the Court, plus the Court’s one moderate, are willing to engage in economic policymaking through judicial fiat that could have a crippling impact on business.

And what about National Security Conservatives?

The Supreme Court has recently begun second-guessing the policy judgments of the president and Congress on how to manage national security matters arising from an ongoing war. This is completely unprecedented in American history. The most extreme example was the Boumediene v. Bush decision. The Supreme Court held in a 5-4 split decision that the writ of habeas corpus extends to terrorists captured on the battlefield that are not U.S. citizens and held on foreign soil. Habeas corpus gives these terrorist detainees the right to challenge their detention in civilian U.S. courts. Military personnel can be forced to testify under oath and classified evidence can be forced to be revealed. All the other rights designed to protect American citizens can be exploited by our enemies to gain release back onto foreign battlefields. This stunning decision changes American national security policy forever. Dozens of lawsuits are already underway, brought by many of these terrorists seeking either release or for the government to publicly expose the intelligence gathered against them and their terrorist networks. One national security law expert I consulted informed me this one decision is the single worst national security mistake the Supreme Court has ever made in our country’s history.

All three branches of Conservatism must unite now and over the next four years do everything in our power to prevent the socialists in the Obama Administration and the socialists of the Democrat Party from completely taking over our judicial system and forever ruining the fabric of the American way of life with their twisted ideas of government intervention enforced by judicial activists who are not responsible to any electorate.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Reagan Coalition Must Unite
Ken Blackwell
TownHall.com
December 12, 2008

Pro-Abortion Groups Issue Marching Orders For Obama Administration

Despite the obvious unethical behavior of groups like Planned Parenthood that coach 13-year-old girls on how to hide the sex crimes committed against them, pro-abortion groups have issued their instructions to Barack Obama. Given that the Obama transition team has posted the memo on-line, it looks as though they are going to follow these orders to the letter.

Steven Ertelt of Life Site News has this:

A coalition of dozens of pro-abortion groups have issued a 55-page memorandum and the web site for the Barack Obama transition team posted it online. The new memo from groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL gives Obama his marching orders for the next four years.

What do the orders include? Douglas Johnson of National Right to Life notes the following:

"The pro-abortion lobby has presented its radical abortion agenda to the Obama Administration in a single tidy 55-page package -- even including the exact language of presidential orders that these lobbying groups want Obama to sign," he explained. "The groups instruct the Obama Administration that it should propose repeal of the Hyde Amendment, and include an abortion mandate in a 'health care reform' bill, within the first 100 days. Longer-term goals include the so-called 'Freedom of Choice Act' and packing the federal courts with judges who are pre-committed to vote with the pro-abortion side," Johnson added. The memo calls for Obama to strike all limits on taxpayer funded abortion in various circumstances. "The President’s budget should strike language restricting abortion funding for (i) Medicaid-eligible women and Medicare beneficiaries (Hyde amendment); (ii) federal employees and their dependents (FEHB program); (iii) residents of the District of Columbia; (iv) Peace Corps volunteers; (v) Native-American women; and (vi) women in federal prisons," it says.

In other words, the pro-abortion lobby wants to use abortion as a means of birth control rather than teaching responsibility on the part of potential parents. That even includes defunding abstinence training programs.

The memo urges Obama to take other actions like putting together a federal health care plan that covers abortion, reduce abstinence education funding, and pull down information from federal web sites that talks about the medical and mental health problems women suffer after abortions. It also calls on Obama to only appoint pro-abortion judges to the Supreme Court and lower federal courts. The memo includes the actual text Obama should use for Executive Orders and Presidential Memorandums, legislative language changes, new regulatory initiatives, and a list of judicial vacancies. Johnson says pro-life advocates have a clear list of what they will need to oppose immediately after Obama takes office and he urges all pro-life advocates to get involved immediately to stop these proposals.

The pro-abortion lobby also called for more funding for Planned Parenthood despite the unethical and illegal behavior that Planned Parenthood routinely engages in and the fact that Planned Parnethood has turned into a franchise abortion mill with an annual income of over $1 billion. I'm pretty sure that money could be better used in medical research to cure diseases rather than killing innocent, unborn children.

If you would like to give comment to the Obama transition team about the pro-abortion agenda that has been dictated to them, feel free to do so here: Advancing Reproductive Rights (i.e. abortion) In The New Administration. But do not expect them to be the least bit respectful of your pro-life views.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Pro-Abortion Groups Issue 55-Page Marching Orders For Barack Obama Admin
Steven Ertelt
LifeSiteNews.com
December 10, 2008

Great News! Automaker Bailout Dies In The Senate!

This is good news for America. The proposed bailout for the Big Three in Detroit has died and for very good reasons. The remaining GOP Senators demanded that the United Auto Workers scale back their demands to be more on par with the compensation given to auto workers employed by Toyota and Honda.

That was a more than reasonable request given the current economic conditions, but the UAW wouldn't budge and the Dems couldn't do anything about it.

Associated Press has this to say via MSNBC:

Republicans, breaking sharply with President George W. Bush as his term draws to a close, refused to back federal aid for Detroit’s beleaguered Big Three without a guarantee that the United Auto Workers would agree by the end of next year to wage cuts to bring their pay into line with U.S. plants of Japanese carmakers. The UAW refused to do so before its current contract with the automakers expires in 2011.

Why is such a request meaningful? Because of this:

Congressional Republicans have been in open revolt against Bush over the auto bailout. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky joined other GOP lawmakers Thursday in announcing his opposition to the White House-backed bill, which passed the House on Wednesday. He and other Republicans insisted that the carmakers restructure their debt and bring wages and benefits in line with those paid by Toyota, Honda and Nissan in the United States. Hourly wages for UAW workers at GM factories are about equal to those paid by Toyota Motor Corp. at its older U.S. factories, according to the companies. GM says the average UAW laborer makes $29.78 per hour, while Toyota says it pays about $30 per hour. But the unionized factories have far higher benefit costs. GM says its total hourly labor costs are now $69, including wages, pensions and health care for active workers, plus the pension and health care costs of more than 432,000 retirees and spouses. Toyota says its total costs are around $48. The Japanese automaker has far fewer retirees and its pension and health care benefits are not as rich as those paid to UAW workers.

If the Japanese carmakers can produce cars for only three-quarters of the cost that American carmakers incur, then there is absolutely no reason why American carmakers can't bring themselves in line with the lower costs.

But the unions are against this, mostly because it reduces their power and because the union bosses will no longer have any justification for their own high salaries nor for the massive donations they routinely make to the Democrat Party.

The GOP was absolutely right to make sure this deal is killed. It will be a day of reckoning for the UAW and for the Dems who have failed to pay them back for their support. Plus, it aims the spotlight exactly where it needs to be pointing.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Auto Industry Bailout Plan Dies In The Senate
Associated Press via MSNBC
December 12, 2008

More Evidence Of Obama's Talks With Blagojevich, The Talks Obama Claims Never Took Place

Ever read the novel 1984 by George Orwell? If you haven't, you should. Why? Because something is happening right now that should scare anyone who has ever read that novel. Someone is trying to rewrite history.

According to Wikipedia, the following is the role of the Ministry Of Truth from Orwell's 1984:

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history and change the facts to fit party doctrine, for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite history so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the "how" of the Ministry of Truth's existence. Within the novel Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the party must seem eternally right and strong.

So, how does that apply to today's real world? Well, when the Blagojevich scandal broke in Illinois, there were immediate questions about whether or not Barack Obama or any of his staff were involved in any way. Evidence began to surface.

David Axelrod said unambiguously during an interview with ABC News that Barack Obama had spoken with Gov. Blagojevich about filling the vacated Senate seat. There were also two news stories from KHQA (connecttristates.com), (one by Carol Sowers on Novemebr 5th, the other by Alexis Hunt on November 8th) that mentioned the meeting although those two stories have since been scrubbed from the connecttristates.com website.

There was also mention of contact between Barack Obama and Rod Blagojevich in the Chicago Tribune. That story has not been scrubbed as of this writing and can be found here:

Governor Mum On Obama Seat
Monique Garcia and Rick Pearson
Chicago Tribune
October 30, 2008

And just in case this story gets scrubbed as well, here is the screen shot of the relevent text:



So, why am I taking the time and effort to expose all of this? Because of the reasons being given for these reports and statements being retracted.

KHQA issued the following statement:

"KHQA TV wishes to offer clarification regarding a story that appeared last month on our website ConnectTristates.com. The story, which discussed the appointment of a replacement for President Elect Obama in the U.S. Senate, became the subject of much discussion on talk radio and on blog sites Wednesday. The story housed in our website archive was on the morning of November 5, 2008. It suggested that a meeting was scheduled later that day between President Elect Obama and Illinois Governor Blagojevich. KHQA has no knowledge that any meeting ever took place. Governor Blagojevich did appear at a news conference in Chicago on that date."

Now, look carefully at what you just read. "KHQA has no knowledge that any meeting ever took place." And yet, they allowed two news stories to run for over a month leading their readers to believe that such a meeting did take place. It wasn't until after Barack Obama's name came up in connection with Blagojevich that KHQA decided that they weren't able to confirm anything. Prior to that, they had no problem at all running a story they had no confirmation on.

And the same thing with David Axelrod. It wasn't until after Barack Obama's name came up in connection with Blagojevich that Obama or Axelrod himself tried to "correct" the record. Prior to that, they were perfectly okay with allowing the story to stand as is.

Of course, that leaves us with the Chicago Tribune from which we read:

"I just don’t want to jinx him and I don’t like the karma of me thinking that far ahead," Blagojevich said of Obama’s prospects in Tuesday’s election. The governor added, "We have had some discussions about a process which we’ll share … if all goes well."

We'll see if this article gets scrubbed too. But clearly, if the Obama camp wanted to get the story straight from the get-go, they would not have waited this long to make all of these retractions.

That is why we should keep this in mind about the Ministry of Truth:

[The Party] cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the party must seem eternally right and strong.

And Orwell's words:

"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth."

John Fund: Obama Was Mute On Illinois Corruption; Who Is The "Specifically Named Individual?"

I am not sure if Patrick Fitzgerald meant for it to happen, but as more people research the criminal complaint against Rod Blagojevich, more tidbits of information come out, many of which were unexpected and quite possibly deeply embarrassing to those who would like to appear as if they weren't involved in anything.

John Fund doesn't directly say this, but his column in the Wall Street Journal sets up the scenario for just such a story. From his column:

This week Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was arrested on charges that he conspired to sell Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat, among other misdeeds. At first the president-elect tried to distance himself from the issue: "It is a sad day for Illinois. Beyond that, I don't think it's appropriate for me to comment." But it quickly became clear that Mr. Obama would have to say more, and yesterday he called for Mr. Blagojevich to resign and for a special election to fill the vacant Senate seat. What remains to be seen is whether this episode will put an end to what Chicago Tribune political columnist John Kass calls the national media's "almost willful" fantasy that Mr. Obama and Chicago's political culture have little to do with each other. Mr. Kass notes that the media devoted a lot more time and energy to investigating the inner workings of Sarah Palin's Wasilla, Alaska, than it has looking at Mr. Obama's Chicago connections.

We all knew that the leftist-leaning media was in the tank for Obama. What the media didn't know was how badly it would all explode on them if something like the Blagojevich scandal came up. Now, the media looks at least as silly as Blagojevich does since they can no longer claim to be the "watchdogs of government." If I had watchdogs who were so incompetent as to miss this, I'd have them put down and get new watchdogs. If the media had done their job during the 2008 campaign, we'd have known about the corruption in Illinois long before any of this happened.

More:

Mr. Obama has an ambiguous reputation among those trying to clean up Illinois politics. "We have a sick political culture, and that's the environment Barack Obama came from," Jay Stewart, executive director of the Chicago Better Government Association, told ABC News months ago. Though Mr. Obama did support ethics reforms as a state senator, Mr. Stewart noted that he's "been noticeably silent on the issue of corruption here in his home state including, at this point, mostly Democratic politicians."

Yes, it is that Democratic Culture of Corruption that the Democrats refuse to clean up. The hypocrisy of the Dem party is staggering.

But this also sets up a new story that comes from the criminal complaint filed by the FBI against Rod Blagojevich. Section 101 of the complaint states:

b. ROD BLAGOJEVICH asked what he can get from the President-elect for the Senate seat. ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that Governor General Counsel believes the President-elect can get ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife on paid corporate boards in exchange for naming the President-elect’s pick to the Senate. Governor General Counsel asked, “can [the President-elect] help in the private sector. . . where it wouldn’t be tied to him? . . . I mean, so it wouldn’t necessarily look like one for the other.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife suggested during the call that she is qualified to sit on corporate boards and has a background in real estate and appraisals. ROD BLAGOJEVICH asked whether there is something that could be done with his wife’s “series 7" license in terms of working out a deal for the Senate seat. ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that he is “struggling” financially and does “not want to be Governor for the next two years.” c. ROD BLAGOJEVICH said that the consultants (Advisor B and another consultant are believed to be on the call at that time) are telling him that he has to “suck it up” for two years and do nothing and give this “motherf*cker [the President-elect] his senator. F*ck him. For nothing? F*ck him.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH states that he will put “[Senate Candidate 4]” in the Senate “before I just give f*cking [Senate Candidate 1] a f*cking Senate seat and I don’t get anything.” (Senate Candidate 4 is a Deputy Governor of the State of Illinois). ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that he needs to find a way to take the “financial stress” off of his family and that his wife is as qualified or more qualified than another specifically named individual to sit on corporate boards. According to ROD BLAGOJEVICH, “the immediate challenge [is] how do we take some of the financial pressure off of our family.” Later in the phone call, ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that absent getting something back, ROD BLAGOJEVICH will not pick Senate Candidate 1. HARRIS re-stated ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s thoughts that they should ask the President-elect for something for ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s financial security as well as maintain his political viability. HARRIS said they could work out a three-way deal with SEIU and the President-elect where SEIU could help the President-elect with ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s appointment of Senate Candidate 1 to the vacant Senate seat, ROD BLAGOJEVICH would obtain a position as the National Director of the Change to Win campaign, and SEIU would get something favorable from the President-elect in the future.

Well, who are these people?

Senate Candidate #1 is Valerie Jarrett, an Obama advisor who also served as Daley’s Chief of Staff. Jarrett is very close to the Obamas.

Senate Candidate #4 is either Dean Martinez, Bob Greenlee or Louanner Peters, all of whom are Deputy Governors of Illinois.

Who is the "specifically named individual?" That answer comes from Truthteller at No Quarter Blog.

It is Michelle Obama, the soon-to-be First Lady of the United States of America.

No Quarter notes that Michelle "was appointed to to the Board of TreeHouse Foods, a WAL-MART vendor, on June 25, 2005, even though she did not have experience in the private sector previous to the appointment." A link to that news story is here:

Michelle Obama's Ties To Wal-Mart Cut
Lynn Sweet
Chicago Sun-Times
May 23, 2007

Those ties were cut in 1987 due to Wal-Mart's ongoing conflict with organized labor and the Obama campaign didn't want the conflict of interest. But even so, Michelle got quite a bit of cash out of the deal. According to the above article, compensation was "$51,200 from TreeHouse in 2006. She leaves the board with an option to buy 2,266 TreeHouse shares at a strike price of $29.65. Shares closed at $28.10 Tuesday."

So, why is this relevent? No Quarter quotes Section 87 of the criminal complaint:

87. By law, after the President-elect’s resignation of his position as a U.S. Senator, which was effective on November 16, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH has sole authority to appoint his replacement for the two years remaining of the President-elect’s Senate term. See 10 ILCS 5/25-8. During the course of this investigation, agents have intercepted a series of communications regarding the efforts of ROD BLAGOJEVICH, JOHN HARRIS, and others to misuse this power to obtain personal gain, including financial gain, for ROD BLAGOJEVICH and his family. In particular, ROD BLAGOJEVICH has been intercepted conspiring to trade the senate seat for particular positions that the President-elect has the power to appoint (e.g. the Secretary of Health and Human Services). ROD BLAGOJEVICH has also been intercepted conspiring to sell the Senate seat in exchange for his wife’s placement on paid corporate boards or ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s placement at a private foundation in a significant position with a substantial salary. ROD BLAGOJEVICH has also been intercepted conspiring to sell the Senate seat in exchange for millions of dollars in funding for a non-profit organization that he would start and that would employ him at a substantial salary after he left the governorship.

No Quarter goes on to say:

Blagojevich, in other words, assumed Obama would appoint his wife to a Board for the political favor of selecting Valerie Jarrett for the Senate seat. Blagojevich is not a stupid man. Indeed, he only assumed Obama would participate in this “pay to play” scheme, for he knows Obama is acutely aware how the game is played in Illinois and in Chicago. This explains why Blagojevich mentions Michelle Obama and her lack of qualifications to serve on the Board of TreeHouse Foods when he discusses how Obama could appoint Mrs. Blagojevich to a Board for the political favor of appointing Jarrett to the US Senate seat. Michelle, after all, was appointed to sit on the Board of TreeHouse foods AFTER Obama was elected to the US Senate. Moreover, Michelle Obama’s salary at The University of Chicago nearly TRIPLED after her husband gained the power to submit earmark requests on her employer’s behalf. Just appoint the spouse to a Board and increase his or her salary if you need a political favor from an Illinois politician. That is how the “play to pay” game is played.

Now, this in no way says that Michelle Obama is involved in the Blagojevich scandal. But it does show how scandals like this can bring certain facts and information to light that the people involved do not necessarily want brought out. Michelle Obama's high-paid employment at jobs for which she had no experience is a prime example of such information.

I am sure that Barack Obama would have preferred that this remain covered and hence his desire to remain "mute," because now it puts his wife and her business affairs into a spotlight that cannot be turned off. If something comes up from Michelle's past to haunt them, it is not something that either one of them can claim they had no knowledge of.

You can access the two articles on-line here:

John Fund: Obama Was Mute On Illinois Corruption
John Fund
The Wall Street Journal
December 11, 2008

House Approves Automaker Bailout, Sends Measure To Senate. Time To Tell The Senate "No!"

Well, the House has approved the ill-fated bailout of Detroit, mostly along party lines. It is clear that the Dems are serious about paying back the big unions for their support in the election and that they want the American taxpayer to foot the bill for it.

The only good thing I can say about this is that my own Representative, Frank Wolf (R-VA) actually voted against this bill. Maybe because of the letters he recieved from people like me or maybe because he has looked back at the dismal failure of the Wall Street bailout and thought better of doing the same thing again.

Now, we have to stop the measure from passing in the Senate. According to Bloomberg:

The House approved a $14 billion loan package intended to prevent a collapse of domestic automakers that would threaten millions of U.S. jobs. The 237-170 vote sends the measure to the Senate, where opposition is growing. ... Some Republicans said the measure would waste taxpayer money without saving the companies from collapse. The bailout “won’t save a single job,” said Representative David Dreier, a California Republican. ... In the Senate, Republicans said the bill lacked the 60 votes needed to overcome delaying tactics threatened by some members. Democrats have a 50-49 edge in the Senate.

It's time to get going and write your Senators. Ask them to vote "Nay" on the automaker bailout. It is destined to fail as surely as the Wall Street bailout failed.

Besides, given that Congress has been running massive deficits and cannot balance a budget, can we really trust them to prevent the Big Three from going into bankruptcy? I am not the smartest man in the world, but even I know better than that.

You can access Congressional email directories on-line here:

Congressional Email Directory

Just click on your state and you will be taken a page with contact links for your Congressional delegation.

Here is a sample of what you can email to your Senator. Feel free to copy and paste it:

Dear Senator, I am writing this email to ask you to vote "Nay" on the automaker bailout bill which recently passed the House of Representatives (H.R. 7321). This bill is destined to be a dismal failure just as the $700 billion Wall Street bailout was a failure and huge waste of taxpayers money. It is already bad enough that our children and grandchildren are going to have to pay for these bailout failures. We need to stop this foolishness now before we begin saddling a debt on our great-grandchildren as well. The best thing to do for Detroit is to let them go into Chapter 11. That way, they can reorganize and retool. This will allow them to modernize as the foreign carmakers have done and Detroit can become competitive again. Right now, the Big Three have manpower costs such that they must pay over $70 an hour to build a car whereas other automakers can do the same job for $35 to $45 an hour. Bailing out Detroit will only prolong the inevitable and waste billions of taxpayer dollars in the process. As a final note, you should realize that hundreds of thousands of small businesses across the United States are in danger of failing, but no one is proposing to bail any of them out. Please apply that same standard to Detroit. Thank you.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

House Approves Automaker Bailout, Sends It To Senate
John Hughes
Bloomberg.com
December 10, 2008

Obama Met With Blagojevich On November 5th And Senate Candidate #5 Is Jesse Jackson Jr.

God I love the Internet! How quickly and easily information comes out about the hot topics of the day! Here we are, just one day after Rod Blagojevich got arrested for his Chicago-style corruption, we've got an ID on one of the players.

We also have information that Barack Obama was indeed "in contact" with Blagojevich about who would take the vacated Senate seat.

According to a November 5th story by Carol Sowers of KHQA Channel 7:

Now that Barack Obama will be moving to the White House, his seat in the U.S. Senate representing Illinois will have to be filled. That's one of Obama's first priorities today. He's meeting with Governor Rod Blagojevich this afternoon in Chicago to discuss it. Illinois law states that the governor chooses that replacement. There's already been speculation about his selection...from Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. of Chicago's south side who co-chaired Obama's presidential campaign, to recently-retired state senate president Emil Jones, to the governor himself.

So, Obama's comment about not being in contact with Blagojevich doesn't seem entirely truthful anymore and it is becoming clear that David Axelrod did not "mis-speak" during an interview with ABC about Obama having talked with Blagojevich.

And we know who Candidate #5 is. Jesse Jackson Jr., one of Obama's earliest supporters. Candidate #5 does not look good in the criminal complaint filed against Blagojevich by Patrick Fitzgerald.

“In a recorded conversation on October 31, 2008, Rod Blagojevich described an earlier approach by an associate of Senate Candidate Five as follows: ‘We were approached “pay to play.” That, you know, he’d raise me 500 grand. An emissary came. Then the other guy would raise a million, if I made him (Senate Candidate 5) a senator.”

According to the affidavit, it looks like Senate Candidate #5 was willing to pay $1 million for the Senate seat and Blagojevich was seriously considering it.

You can access both complete articles on-line here:

Ill. Governor Meeting With Obama Today (Story has been removed)
Carol Sowers
KHQA
November 5, 2008

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. Is 'Senate Candidate 5' In Blagojevich Criminal Complaint
Chris Fusco, Tim Novak and Natasha Korecki
Chicago Sun-Times
December 10, 2008

UPDATE: Apparently, the Carol Sowers story from connectristates.com has been removed. However, the story was linked by several other websites inculding the politico.com, Gateway Pundit and others. Here is a screenshot of the webpage before it got pulled:



Here is the Press Release from the Illinois Government News Network that confirms the November 5th meeting:

Governor Blagojevich Congratulates President-elect Obama and Discusses U.S. Senate Seat
To fill President-Elect Barack Obama’s Senate seat, Governor will use deliberate process to select suitable replacement
IGNN
November 5, 2008

So, Who's Corrupt Now?

It isn't just pundits on the right who are asking this question and pointing out the obvious. Even the leftist-leaning MSNBC has now acknowledged that the Blagojevich scandal may have opened up some flood gates that cannot be easily closed.

In a "First thoughts" editorial, Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Carrie Dann look at some major points of the issue:

*** So who’s corrupt now? Since his election last month, Obama and his team have masterfully choreographed every cabinet announcement, press conference, and meeting for maximum effect -- until yesterday, that is. On a day when the agenda was a meeting with Al Gore on energy and climate change, all hell broke lose after Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) was arrested for allegedly offering Obama's Senate seat for some kind of payment in return. It didn't tell us anything new about Blagojevich (he had been straddling the ethical line for some time), or Illinois politics (Blago could become the state's fourth governor in 40 years to go to prison), or even Obama (who is in no way implicated in the government's report). But it does begin to advance a GOP argument that the Democrats -- who campaigned against a Republican "culture of corruption" -- are no longer so innocent themselves. Are the ethical and legal issues that have recently dogged some Democrats (William Jefferson, Tim Mahoney, Charlie Rangel) beginning to approach what we saw in the last few years from Republicans (Larry Craig, Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, Bob Ney, Don Sherwood, Ted Stevens, etc.)? And while the term “culture of corruption” gets thrown around a lot, the fact is that a state possibly having four governors go to prison in 40 years is most definitely a culture of corruption. ... *** The impact on Obama: As for the scandal’s impact on Obama, no doubt that it will be embarrassing for him and his incoming administration, even though the president-elect isn’t implicated here (in fact, the affidavit makes it crystal clear that Obama and his team weren’t willing to play ball). We’re probably going to see a top Obama aide -- Rahm Emanuel, Valerie Jarrett? -- on tape with Blagojevich. And that shouldn’t be too surprising (after all, why wouldn’t you return your governor’s phone calls in this post-election period?) But Obama also didn’t help himself with his initial comment yesterday on the matter. Unlike other Illinois Democrats, he didn’t condemn Blagojevich’s actions, if true. Instead, he said he was “saddened and sobered” by the news, adding that it wasn’t appropriate to comment on the issue. But then he later did comment, saying, "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening.” Yet that contradicted an interview last month by Obama adviser David Axelrod, who said that Obama had spoken with Blagojevich about the vacancy. Axelrod issued a statement last night saying that he was “mistaken” in that interview. Team Obama's initial response yesterday to the scandal seemed par for the course: During his two years on the campaign trail, Obama often swung and missed on his initial statement regarding a controversy -- Bitter-gate and Jeremiah Wright come immediately to mind -- before finding a better response 24 to 48 hours later. ... *** Why didn’t Dems do something earlier? Republicans have themselves a talking point they will constantly throw in Obama's face (and Rahm's and Axe's), simply because they are all Chicago pols. This means Obama will always have to look more transparent than usual and, well, less Chicago-y. The one criticism, by the way, that really could stick to the entire Illinois Democratic political establishment: passivity. It was a running joke for years that Blago had a corrupt side, so why didn't more Democrats step up. Sure, politics is politics, and sometimes you have stand by folks who you THINK are corrupt but you can't prove it since no one wants to sound like Joe McCarthy. Still, the passivity here is something that will likely tug at many Illinois Democrats. Could they have done something sooner?

MSNBC, an outfit that tried everything in its power to hide vital information about Barack Obama during the campaign, is being forced into reporting the contradictions of people like David Axelrod. Even now they are trying to shield Obama and in this editorial made the claim that "the affidavit makes it crystal clear that Obama and his team weren’t willing to play ball." That's not entirely true. There were several references in the affidavit that suggest Obama aids were in some sort of negotiation with Blagojevich. Section 107 notes specifically that an option involving "Change to Win" would not have Obama's "fingerprints" all over it. If there were no involvement by the Obama team, why would anyone be worrying about "fingerprints" of Obama's involvement?

Those are the three major points so far. I am sure that as more information comes to light and we learn the names of people like "Advisor A" and so forth, that the major points will change or simply be magnified into larger issues.

But the part about "Obama will always have to look more transparent than usual and, well, less Chicago-y" is absolutely true. He is under a microscope now, moreso than ever.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

First Thoughts: So Who's Corrupt Now?
Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Carrie Dann
MSNBC.com
December 10, 2008

Michelle Malkin: The Democratic Culture Of Corruption

You knew someone was going to say it. You knew someone was going to point out that the Democrats, despite their promise in 2006 of cleaning up the "culture of corruption," have engaged in every bit as much corruption as they claim the Republicans have, maybe even moreso now that the Illinois Senate Seat scandal has broken. But, because of the hypocrisy that seems to be inherent in the Democrat party, nobody would admit to the wrongdoing or nor take any steps to clean up their own house.

And now, Rod Balgojevich has led those chickens home to roost. Michelle Malkin, writing for Townhall, gives us some great insight on the matter:

Democrats and the media can no longer rest on the old rationalization that Blago is an exception to the "we're cleaner than thou" rule. 2008 was the year of Democratic Reps. William "Cold Cash" Jefferson, Charlie "Sweetheart Deals" Rangel, and former Detroit Mayor Kwame "Text Me" Kilpatrick. It was the year Democratic Massachusetts State Senator Dianne Wilkerson got caught stuffing bribes from an FBI informant down her shirt. It was the year 12 Democratic leaders and staffers in Pennsylvania's state Capitol were stung in a massive corruption scandal involving cash, sex and abuse of public office. And it was the year of multimillion-dollar embezzlement scandals at Democratic satellite offices of ACORN and the SEIU. The Democrats have met the culture of corruption, and it looks like it ain't just elephants among the jackasses soiling public office.

The Dems need to shut up about corruption in other people's houses until they clean up thier own. And given the wonderful start to the Obama Administration, they had better do it soon.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The Democratic Culture Of Corruption
Michelle Malkin
TownHall.com
December 10, 2008

Congress Finally Acknowledges Some Of The True Culprits Of The Credit Crisis

Former Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives were scheduled to be questioned about their roles in the sub-prime credit crash. Names like Leland Brendsel, Daniel Mudd and Franklin Raines as well as Richard Syron are being mentioned.

These are the people who should have been hauled before Congress back in September-October when the House and Senate were discussing the failed bailout of Wall Street. Maybe now we can get some real answers to the problem and Congress will see that the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act needs to be repealed if we really want to clean up the entire mess.

From CNN:

“The companies made irresponsible investments, costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars,” said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., committee chairman. “Their own risk managers warned time after time of the dangers of investing in subprime market, but those risks were ignored.” The companies have drawn criticism from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle for taking on too much risk, exacerbating the credit crisis when the housing market declined. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., during his recent failed presidential bid, said Fannie and Freddie were the “catalyst - the match that started this forest fire.” The publicly traded but federally backed companies together control or guarantee about $5 trillion in mortgage loans. They purchase large amounts of home loans, bundle them together and divide them into securities that can be sold to investors.

I'm gald to see that people like Franklin Raines (who made over $90 million in personal income off of these high risk, sub-prime loans) are finally being brought before the cameras so that the American people can see who profited by this whole thing and why.

You can access the original blog entry on-line here:

Fannie, Freddie Ignored Warning Signs
David Goldman
CNNMoney.com
December 9, 2008

Obama Claims: "I Had No Contact With Blagojevich Over Vacated Senate Seat"

There was a short news blurb about this. It obviously came from a press release. However, this may turn out to be Obama's first "untruth" of his administration. Why would I say this? Read the following excerpt from the criminal complaint against Blagojevich:

107. On November 12, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with Advisor B. ROD BLAGOJEVICH discussed with Advisor B his idea for a 501(c)(4) organization. Advisor B stated that he likes the idea, but liked the Change to Win option better because, according to Advisor B, from the President-elect’s perspective, there would be fewer “fingerprints” on the President-elect’s involvement with Change to Win because Change to Win already has an existing stream of revenue and, therefore, “you won’t have stories in four years that they bought you off.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH said that he likes the 501(c)(4) idea because he knows it will be there in two years when he is no longer Governor, whereas Change to Win might not be.

Why would anyone be concerned about the President-elect's "fingerprints" if there were no involvement to worry about? We need to know who Advisor B is and exactly how much Obama knew about this whole thing.

Further, David Alexrod gave an interview in which he was asked "who the Governor might pick to take Obama’s senate seat." According to The Hill:

Despite Obama's insistence that he has had no contact with Blagojevich about who might fill his open Senate seat, ABC News reported Tuesday that in late November, Obama senior adviser David Axelrod said he knew Obama had "talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names, many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them."

Clearly, Obama was in some sort of contact with Blagojevich. We must know those names and how deeply Obama was involved.

You can access the Fox News blurb on-line here:

Obama: I Had No Contact With Blagojevich Over Vacated Senate Seat
FoxNews.com
December 9, 2008

You can access the story from The Hill on-line here:

RNC: Obama's statement on Blagojevich 'insufficient'
Sam Youngman
The Hill
December 9, 2008

And the criminal complaint is available on-line here:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, and JOHN HARRIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION
December 2008