It is important though to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession.
Talk about chutzpah when this is what he has unleashed upon us (and this doesn’t count if healthcare destruction passes).
Cross-posted at CMNJ.
The decision by Attorney General Eric Holder to try Gitmo terrorists in U.S. civilian courts is bad enough. But now we are learning that the AG has a clear conflict of interest regarding this issue and clearly should have recused himself from any involvement in the decision.
What is the issue? Holder’s former law firm, Covington & Burling, represents sixteen Gitmo terrorists. From the firm’s web site:
Guantanamo Bay Detainees
- We represent sixteen men detained at the United States Naval Station at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Most of the men have been detained for approximately seven years. None have been charged with any crimes, and none have been accorded the protections of the Geneva Convention. In Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008), where we were co-counsel for eleven of the detainees, the Supreme Court held that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus extends to detainees held at Guantánamo Bay. Following that decision, we have been preparing for habeas corpus hearings to be held in federal district court Washington, DC, for eleven of our clients.
- The firm has been involved in the Guantánamo related litigation for the last five years. In addition to the on-going habeas corpus proceedings, our efforts have included: bringing cases for review of enemy combatant classification decisions in the D.C. Circuit under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005; challenging the destruction of CIA torture tapes in federal court; filing amicus briefs and coordinating the amicus effort in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006); filing amicus briefs in support of Supreme Court review in Moussaoui v. United States, 382 F.3d 483 (4th Cir.), cert denied, 544 U.S. 931 (2005); challenging the government’s practice of redacting information from documents given to security-cleared habeas counsel; and challenging the abusive medical and living conditions that the detainees experience at Guantánamo.
It should also be noted that Holder has a history of going to bat for terrorists. When he was Deputy AG in the Clinton Administration he was directly involved in the pardons of FALN terrorists which caused an uproar in the waning days of Clinton’s term in office.
And just to provide some further context, when the Enron scandal broke during the Bush years, for AG John Ashcroft recused himself because when he ran for senate he had received campaign contributions from Enron execs. Ashcroft also recused himself over the Valerie Plame matter because he had allegedly been briefed about the FBI’s questioning of Karl Rove about the incident.
Yet in this case Holder’s former law firm stands to directly gain from these proceedings and Holder neither discloses such facts nor recuses himself? Senate Republicans now need to step up, voice their objection and threaten to investigate this matter. Holder’s actions are completely unethical and he needs to be held accountable.
Cross-posted at CMNJ.
According to Politico, Democrats are becoming increasingly alarmed about their standing with independents. In the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial elections, Republicans Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie both won independents by roughly a 2:1 margin.
Independents now also have an extremely unfavorable view of this Congress. A Gallup poll shows their approval of the Pelosi-Reid Congress at an abysmal 14%. As I reported last week, only 45% of independents want their representative re-elected. Additionally, according to a CBS poll, Barack Obama’s approval among independents has dropped precipitously since April – from 63% then to 45% now.
All of this obviously bodes quite well for Republicans in 2010.
Here is the story from Politico:
Mounting evidence that independent voters have soured on the Democrats is prompting a debate among party officials about what rhetorical and substantive changes are needed to halt the damage.
Following serious setbacks with independents in off-year elections earlier this month, White House officials attributed the defeats to local factors and said President Barack Obama sees no need to reposition his own image or the Democratic message.
Since then, however, a flurry of new polls makes clear that Democrats are facing deeper problems with independents—the swing voters who swung dramatically toward the party in 2006 and 2008 but who now are registering deep unease with the amount of spending and debt called for under Obama’s agenda in an era of one-party rule in Washington.
A Gallup Poll released last week offered a disturbing glimpse about the state of play: just 14 percent of independents approve of the job Congress is doing, the lowest figure all year. In just the past few days alone, surveys have shown Democratic incumbents trailing Republicans among independent voters by double-digit margins in competitive statewide contests in places as varied as Connecticut, Ohio and Iowa.
Obama’s own popularity among independents has fallen significantly, too. A CBS News poll Tuesday showed the president’s approval rating among unaligned voters falling to 45 percent — down from 63 percent in April.
You can read the rest of the story here.
Also, while I am on the subject of independents, here is an interesting article from Zogby explaining the difference between independents and moderates.
Cross-posted at CMNJ.
In 2006, Obama says Khalid Sheikh Mohammad will get a military trial. Hmmm, just what has changed?
(h/t Gateway Pundit)
Cross-posted at CMNJ!
WASHINGTON — Self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be sent to New York to face trial in a civilian federal court, an Obama administration official said Friday.
The official said Attorney General Eric Holder plans to announce the decision later in the morning.
The official is not authorized to discuss the decision before the announcement, so spoke on condition of anonymity.
Bringing such notorious suspects to U.S. soil to face trial is a key step in President Barack Obama’s plan to close the terror suspect detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Obama initially planned to close the detention center by Jan. 22, but the administration is no longer expected to meet that deadline.
The New York case may also force the court system to confront a host of difficult legal issues surrounding counter-terrorism programs begun after the 2001 attacks, including the harsh interrogation techniques once used on some of the suspects while in CIA custody. The most severe method — waterboarding, or simulated drowning — was used on Mohammed 183 times in 2003, before the practice was banned.
In an op-ed that ran in the Wall Street Journal (which I highly recommend reading), former AG Michael Mukasey explains the problems and dangers of trying terrorists in our civilian courts.
It makes the location of the trial a target. The defendants might not be charged with the death penalty. Soldiers might be forced to leave the battlefield and come to court to testify. Sensitive information used by intelligence agencies will be disclosed – including names of suspected terrorists as well as our methods of acquiring intelligence – compromising our ability to prevent terrorist acts in the future.
The bottom line is this administration is putting ideology ahead of common sense and the security of the American people. It is an absolute outrage.
By the way, 54 Democrats in the Senate also condoned this. You can see their votes on the relevant amendment here.
And here’s what Obama himself said back in March.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: “Now, Do These Folks Deserve Miranda Rights? Do They Deserve To Be Treated Like A Shoplifter Down The Block? Of Course Not.” (CBS’ “60 Minutes,” 3/22/09)
[UPDATE] You can also find a petition to the President here. You will also see a letter to the President from the 9/11 Families for America. (h/t Michelle Malkin)
Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!
Benjamin Sherman is another brave American hero who gave up his life for his country. While on a mission in Afghanistan he lost his life when trying to save a comrade who had fallen into a river. Sherman jumped in to save his fellow soldier only for both of them to be swept away.
In an interview with WCBV-Boston, Sherman’s grief-stricken mother and sister talked of their lost son and brother – describing the kind of person and soldier he was and how he would do anything for his country and his brothers-in-arms.
But at the end of the interview, Sherman’s mother had some words for President Obama.
“It is time,” she said. “It is time to make a decision. This has gone on too long. They either need to come home or we need to end it.”
You can watch the video of the interview here.
Of course, if this were George W. Bush in office the lamestream media would have been showing this video ad nauseum in order to undermine the President. They would have tried to make Mrs. Sherman the next Cindy Sheehan. But now that Obama is in office, there is no such effort.
Hypocrisy aside, no matter where you stand on the Afghanistan question Obama’s ‘dithering’ on this matter has indeed gone on far too long. It has been two months – two months! -since General McChrystal ’s request for more troops. The men and women we send into battle deserve far, far better. And not one more family should have to experience the grief the Sherman family because their President can’t figure out whether the battle is worth fighting any longer. In fact, the indecision is simply unconscionable and beneath the office. It is time for the President to show some leadership on this issue and prove himself even the least bit worthy of the title Commander-in-Chief.
My thoughts and prayers go out to the Sherman family, especially his wife and his unborn child who will never know him.
Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!
A year in politics may be an eternity. As each day passes, and more and more of the radical Obama/Reid/Pelosi agenda is laid before us, the wait until being able to turn the lever next November will certainly feel like it.
But just what are the prospects for a Republican takeover of Congress next year? If the Pew Research findings released yesterday are any barometer, one would have to say pretty good. In fact, the anti-incumbent sentiment uncovered by Pew Research is worse than about any time in their two decades of polling. The current climate is similar to 1994 and 2006, which should give Republicans reason for optimism. According to Pew:
The mood of America is glum. Two-thirds of the public is dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country. Fully nine-in-ten say that national economic conditions are only fair or poor, and nearly two-thirds describe their own finances that way – the most since the summer of 1992. An increasing proportion of Americans say that the war in Afghanistan is not going well, and a plurality continues to oppose the health care reform proposals in Congress.
Despite the public’s grim mood, overall opinion of Barack Obama has not soured – his job approval rating of 51% is largely unchanged since July, although his approval rating on Afghanistan has declined. But opinions about congressional incumbents are another matter.
About half (52%) of registered voters would like to see their own representative re-elected next year, while 34% say that most members of Congress should be re-elected. Both measures are among the most negative in two decades of Pew Research surveys. Other low points were during the 1994 and 2006 election cycles, when the party in power suffered large losses in midterm elections.
Support for congressional incumbents is particularly low among political independents. Only 42% of independent voters want to see their own representative re-elected and just 25% would like to see most members of Congress re-elected. Both measures are near all-time lows in Pew Research surveys.
Here are some key findings from Pew’s polling:
% Who Want To See Their Representative Re-Elected
% Who Want To See Most Representatives Re-Elected
Pew’s research also shows that Republicans are far more enthusiastic about voting next year:
…voters who plan to support Republicans next year are more enthusiastic than those who plan to vote for a Democrat. Fully 58% of those who plan to vote for a Republican next year say they are very enthusiastic about voting, compared with 42% of those who plan to vote for a Democrat. More than half (56%) of independent voters who support a Republican in their district are very enthusiastic about voting; by contrast, just 32% of independents who plan to vote for a Democrat express high levels of enthusiasm.
And the biggest problems for Democrats is how they are bleeding independents (as was the case in last week’s NJ election which saw Christie win this key group 2:1)
Public frustration with Congress may have serious electoral implications for incumbents in the 2010 midterm elections. Only about a third (34%) of registered voters say they think most members of Congress should be re-elected next year, which is on par with ratings during the 1994 and 2006 elections. Meanwhile, just 52% of voters say they want to see their own member re-elected, approaching levels in early October 2006 (50%) and 1994 (49%).
In November 1994, 68% of Democrats and 55% of Republicans favored the re-election of their own member of Congress, which is comparable to the current figures (64% of Democrats, 50% of Republicans). But today, just 42% of independents want to see their own representative re-elected, compared with 52% of independents on the eve of the 1994 midterm elections.
Partisan feelings about incumbents were the reverse in 2006, when the GOP held majorities in the House and Senate. In November 2006, 69% of Republicans, 52% of Democrats and 45% of independents wanted to see their own member of Congress re-elected.
As with all polls, this is just one snapshot in time. But barring a 180 degree turn by the Democrats in Washington, as well as in the economy, 2010 is shaping up to be a bloodbath for blue nation.
Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!
[UPDATE] RE: Stupak Amendment – The Stupak Amendment will supposedly contain legislation preventing funding of abortion to make it more palatable to pro-life Dems. As such, we should be putting pressure on our Republican reps to vote AGAINST this amendment. It’s a dangerous move but will make it harder for the overall bill to pass. Act accordingly! [UPDATE] Michelle Malkin:
Rep. Stupak: Health care has the votes whether anti-abortion amendment passes or fails. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) told reporters that regardless of the outcome of the vote on his amendment, which would severely restrict coverage of reproductive health issues, the House health care bill is headed for passage. He is whipping support for the amendment and estimates he has 225 votes. If he’s right, the amendment will pass, and he predicted enough pro-life Democrats will vote yes on the final bill to put it over the top. But if it fails, he said, enough pro-lifers will have been satisfied to have had their vote on the floor that they’ll turn around and support the final bill anyway.
[UPDATE] More info on the undecideds: Politico
The President just met with Pelosi and other Dem House leaders. They are trying to twist arms to get the last votes. We need to pressure them to stop. Personally, I just got through to Rothman’s office and told them to make sure he votes NO or suffer the consequences next year.
Here are the key Representatives to call:
Call 202-224-3121 or go here to get the direct dial number of your Congressman.
Red State has more on the key Congressmen/women. But this is the 11th hour in the House. Call NOW to make your voice heard.
Organizing for America (www.barackobama.com) is actually having a video contest on healthcare reform. Here is one of the finalists.
Utterly shameful! (h/t Michelle Malkin)
Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!
The Obama Administration apparently is hell bent on controlling the media and stifling dissent at every turn. If it isn’t fighting a war with Fox News – the only war the administration is willing to fight I might add – it is threatening to bring back the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ to, ultimately, kill talk radio. Now, the next target in their crosshairs is the Internet.
On Thursday, the FCC will be voting on so-called ‘Net Neutrality’ rules. As is typical of the left, they couch their anti-freedom, un-American agenda in innocent sounding phrases. But ‘Net Neutrality’ is anything but. It is just another effort by this administration to erode our first amendment rights and attempt to silence opposing voices; in this case, by taking steps that would set the stage for government takeover of the Internet.
Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity explains how this will work – and what you and I can do to try and stop it:
As important as all the fights are that we’re in right now, perhaps the biggest of all is the fight over whether the government will take over the Internet. That’s because as long as the Internet is free, we can use it to communicate, educate, and organize. Tea parties, townhalls, and AFP events would be very difficult to organize if government owned and controlled the Internet and chose to interfere with it. That’s what’s at stake this week as the Federal Communications Commission decides on Thursday whether to move forward with so-called “net neutrality” regulations.
The net neutrality movement is an outgrowth of the larger so-called media reform project of radical left-wing activists like Robert McChesney who seek to destroy private control of the country’s communications systems.
I discussed McChesney and the so-called media reform movement last night on the Glenn Beck show, and you can watch that clip here. I’ll be on with Glenn again tonight to discuss net neutrality specifically.
As the Internet Freedom Coalition shows on our Net Neutrality Scare Ticket it has now been nearly 7 years since the November 19, 2002 letter that started the net neutrality scare, without a single significant incident of the kind of egregious behavior by evil phone and cable companies we’re told require government intervention. It’s a solution in search of a problem.
Net neutrality sounds simple–force phone and cable companies to treat every bit of information the same way–until you realize that modern networks are incredibly complex, with millions of lines of code in every router. Making sure services like VoIP, video conferencing, and telemedicine (not to mention the next great thing that hasn’t been invented yet) get priority may be necessary to make the Internet work. But the government is working to do just the opposite.
These networks cost billions of dollars to build and maintain, and if there is uncertainty whether there will be a good return on that investment, private investment will dry up. And then government will step in, spending billions of our tax dollars on a government-owned and controlled Internet.
That’s their plan.
The push for a Washington takeover of the Internet is coming from the White House. It includes Susan Crawford, the so-called Internet Czar, who told The Wall Street Journal in April that the $7.2 billion of stimulus money for broadband she is helping spend is a “down payment on future government investments in the Internet.” She went on to say: “We should do a better job as a nation of making sure fast, affordable broadband is as ubiquitous as electricity, water, snail mail or any other public utility.”
It comes right from the top. President Obama himself said on the campaign trail: “I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to Net Neutrality.”
The FCC will vote Thursday on what it calls a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Net Neutrality. If it passes, it will start a public comment period and I’ll be emailing you again with instructions on how to file comments. But for the next couple days, we need to make our case against the FCC even taking that first step down the road to a Washington takeover of the Internet.
Here’s what you can do to help: The FCC created a website at www.OpenInternet.gov where you can comment on government regulating the Internet under so-called net neutrality rules. The left has been flooding it with comments. Please take a moment to head over to www.OpenInternet.gov and click on “Join the Discussion” to make your voice heard for keeping the Internet in private hands.
Honestly, I don’t know what else is left for this administration to attack. They don’t like the free market. They don’t like the free press. And they don’t like free speech. To wit, it’s hard to conclude anything other than, this administration doesn’t like freedom much at all.
Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!
