Contempt for the People

Iain Murray suggests a new Constitutional amendment. I have been having very similar thoughts lately, as have, it appears, several of his other readers.

The news that President Obama's much vaunted transparency promises have already gone the way of all flesh comes as no surprise to me. The farce on the House floor yesterday was a good example of why they couldn't survive. For those who missed it (and Andy's post doesn't quite convey the whole story of the farrago), Rep. Mike Pence started the debate yesterday morning by pointing out that the House leadership had dropped a 300-page amendment to the already 1200-ish page Waxman-Markey energy tax bill at 3:09 in the morning. Clearly, debate started before anyone had had a chance to read it properly, but the House leadership just didn't care. Then, mid-afternoon, Reps. Louie Goehmert (who did a splendid job all round) and Energy & Commerce Ranking Member Joe Barton (who clearly couldn't believe what was going on) raised a series of Parliamentary Inquiries as to whether there was a copy of the amended bill anywhere in the House for members to read. Chairman Markey was dismissive, saying there was a copy on the wesbite, which, Rep. Barton pointed out, was not much help to members on the floor of the House actually, you know, debating the bill. Eventually the Chair, who was very fair throughout the afternoon, admitted that the Clerk was in the process of integrating the amendment into the hard copy in the House. So for most of the day the House was debating a bill that didn't actually physically exist, never mind having had a chance to read, digest, and consider it.

Let me just state this as simply as I can: This is a gross abuse of the Parliamentary process and represents nothing less than contempt for the people of the United States of America.

This isn't the first time something like this has happened this year. As I suggested during the Stimulus idiocy, a simple constitutional amendment might help:

Before voting on any Bill, a Senator or Representative shall certify to the President of the Senate or Speaker of the House respectively that they have read the Bill in full.

One reader had similar ideas, suggesting (link may be broken):

“No bill shall be deemed to have passed the House of Representatives or the Senate unless such bill shall have received a majority of yeay votes from the membership of each House; yeay votes shall only be counted from members who swear under penalty of perjury that they have read the entirety of the text of each bill.”

Another reader agreed, saying,

I say "Amen". Some would complain that this would slow Congress down, allowing only for a few bills to be passed per session. To which I say "Amen", yet again. It's like putting money in the bank and making even more with compounding interest. One good things leads to more good things with this. Excellent idea, Iain. Where do we get the process started?

Good question. On the principle that social media is the future of political campaigning, I've set up a website for Read The Bill, which is currently just a skeleton, although I'll copy these posts there. I also think a pledge by lawmakers that they will read a bill and not vote for any rule to allow debate on a bill they haven't read might be a useful idea, and that might be a good way to start. Ideas are welcome — head over there and sign up. Let's see if we can reach critical mass.

I add here that this is a purely personal idea, not affiliated with CEI or National Review (unless they want to come on board) and is intended as a completely nonpartisan initiative. I cannot believe that liberals of good faith are happy with the idea that our Congress is routinely voting on bills they haven't read. So I hope some liberals will come on board and will help promote the idea as well. This is an initiative on behalf of the people, so let's see what the people say, and where they lead us.

We are now officially a banana republic

Pelosi Won't Give Public a Week to Review Text of Health-Care Bill Before House Votes on It

Monday, June 29, 2009By Marie Magleby and Monica Gabriel
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
(CNSNews.com) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) will not give the public a week to review the final text of a health-care reform bill before it is voted on later this year.Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) has also declined to commit to giving the public a week to read and consider the final health-care bill.At her press briefing on Thursday, Pelosi was asked whether the health-care bill would be handled differently than the stimulus bill, which came up in February. The 1,071-page final text of that bill was posted on the House Appropriations Committee’s Web site late on a Thursday night and then voted on the next day.“When the stimulus bill came out earlier this year, members and citizens had less than two days to review the final version that came out of the conference committee before it was voted on,” CNSNews.com asked Pelosi on Thursday. “Will you commit to giving Americans at least a week to review the full conference version of the health care bill before it is voted on? And also will you commit to submitting the final version to the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] so that they can report the cost to the public?”Pelosi would not commit to giving the public a week to review the bill, and did not respond to the question of having the CBO report on the cost of the final bill.“Well, we will abide by the regular order. You heard the question,” she said. “It was about having the health care bill out there a week in advance. We will have the regular order in terms of the appropriate amount of time, 48 hours in advance for amendments before you file the bill, another day before you can take up the bill.“But this bill is something that has been unfolding before the American people for a long time now. The areas of controversy are well known,” said Pelosi.“The issue of a public option is probably the most significant debate that we will have in the House on the legislation, as I see it now. But the bill will come forth under the regular order, and that's why the three chairmen put out the draft now,” she said. “They put out some principles earlier on. The President put out his principles. We had a month before the Memorial Day break for everyone to see what was happening there to take ideas from our members.“So it was in the public domain, but not as a bill,” said Pelosi, continuing to respond to the question of whether she would give the public a week to review the final bill. “Now they have put out this draft which has been well received, and I'm very proud of the work. It's a well managed approach to how we go forward. And when we are ready with a draft then we will put that forth, but as I say, it will be under the regular order.”The three House committees working on the health-care plan have released what they call a “discussion draft” of the legislation. It is 850 pages long.The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has produced its own 615-page draft that is missing key sections, including the section that would explain the “public option”—or government-run health insurance organization.After the House and Senate actually pass bills, the two versions of the legislation will go to a House-Senate conference committee where they will be reconciled and where entirely new provisions can be added. The final version of the bill that emerges from this conference committee will be voted on by both houses, and if passed, sent to the president for his signature before it can become law.This final bill is likely to be well over 1,000 pages long and will include mandates and regulations that could permanently transform the U.S. health care system.Like Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also said last week that he would not commit to giving the public a week to review the final text of the health-care bill.“We are going to follow the rules and do the best we can so that the new rules we have for transparency will be effective,” Reid said at his own Thursday news briefing when asked about giving the public a week to read the final health-care bill.“We have been putting things online. We’re doing so much more than we did just a year or two ago, so I think there’s no secrets, we try to be as upfront as we can, give everyone as much opportunity as we can to move forward,” he said.House and Senate rules differ slightly, but basically the House allows a vote three calendar days after the conference committee’s report is posted and the Senate allows a vote after 48 hours.House Rule XIII, section 4. (a)(1), says: “. . . it shall not be in order to consider in the House a measure or matter reported by a committee until the third calendar day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except when the House is in session on such a day) on which each report of a committee on that measure or matter has been available to Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner.”Senate rules allow a voted 48 hours after the conference committee version of the bill has been posted.Senate Rule XXVIII, Section 9. (a)(1) says: “It shall not be in order to vote on the adoption of a report of a committee of conference unless such report has been available to Members and to the general public for at least 48 hours before such vote.”In February, lawmakers had less than 48 hours to review the final conference report on the economic stimulus bill before voting for it.President Obama is pushing for both houses of Congress to vote on health-care legislation before they take a recess in August. He wants the bill on his desk by October. Republicans argue that such a sweeping reform should not be rushed. “This is much more serious than the rushed and ill-conceived stimulus legislation,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said last week. “If we fail to do this the right way in order to simply check the health reform box, we will all suffer the consequences for the rest of our lives.”

Disgraceful

COLUMBIA TENURES AN ISRAEL-BASHER

JOSEPH Massad's schol arly contribution during his decade as a faculty member of Columbia University's Middle East Studies Department may be summed up as follows: Israel is racist, and homosexuality is an insidious Western invention.
Yet that was enough for Columbia, which officially -- if quietly -- awarded Massad tenure earlier this month.
Columbia's process for reviewing tenure candidates is as rigorous as any Ivy League school's. Ordinarily, an academic of Massad's caliber would be bounced from Morningside Heights. And in fact, the system did work -- it denied Massad tenure two years ago.
But now the school's academic standards have succumbed to ideological tensions and campus politics -- in what appears to be a remarkable manipulation of the tenure process and a breach of fiduciary trust.
First, a little background on Massad.
A Christian secularist of Palestinian-Arab descent, Massad has dedicated his academic career primarily to encouraging the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. Criticism of Israel is far from unusual in his field, but Massad goes much further, taking arguments to bizarre ends. "The ultimate achievement of Israel," he writes, is "the transformation of the Jew into the anti-Semite, and the Palestinian into the Jew." In a book, he rails against the "Zionist theft of Palestinian Arab food (e.g., hummus, falafel)."
In a recent work, "Desiring Arabs," Massad claimed to expose yet another plot against the Muslim world -- the "Gay International." He describes how a vast conspiracy of gay activists descended on Arab countries and endangered the lives of "practitioners of same-sex contact" by transforming them into "subjects who identify as 'homosexual' and 'gay.' "
Nor is Massad fond of the women's rights movement, or "colonial feminism," as he calls it. He bristles at the attention paid to the Muslim practice of honor killings, which he likens to "crimes of passion," accusing women's groups of ignoring "rampant Western misogyny."
He specializes in reductio ad hitlerum. "If Germans spent the day on the beach when the Nazis invaded Poland in 1939, and Americans cheered in bars and at home the fireworks light show the US military put up over Baghdad while slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in 1991 and in 2003, Israeli Jews insisted on having front row seats on hills overlooking Gaza for a live show, cracking open champagne bottles and cheering the murder and maiming of thousands of civilians, more than half of whom were women and children," he wrote in a February essay, referring to the Gaza War.
Four years ago, it seemed as if Massad would be on his way out of the Broadway gates. A university probe backed up students' complaints that he disparaged Jewish students who disagreed with him. In one instance, while lecturing near campus, he responded to an Israeli student who asked a question by demanding to know how many Palestinians he had killed.
But faculty members opted instead to lionize Massad as a supposed martyr of academic freedom. A crucial ally for him was Dean of Arts and Sciences Nicholas Dirks, whose wife taught a class with Massad.
In 2007, months after Massad completed his latest book, a committee rejected his tenure application. Tenure candidates rarely get a second shot at Columbia, but Dirks intervened and pushed for a second committee, sources say.
Oddly, the professor who led the first review of Massad refused to serve again. Even odder, the administration justified the do-over by claiming that Massad had switched his field of specialty from political science to cultural studies.
After the second committee approved Massad, President Lee Bollinger and Provost Alan Brinkley took extraordinary measures to protect the secrecy of Massad's tenure case and guard against an outcry from Jewish alumni and donors.
The last step in the process was the trustees. The administration refused to share with the trustees any list of who was on the two tenure committees. The board was also kept in the dark as to why Massad failed the first review. Bollinger and Brinkley also refused to discuss in detail why Massad was permitted another shot.
Instead, the administration -- apparently more interested in managing public relations than dealing with the substance of the underlying problem -- simply provided the trustees with a set of talking points with "helpful facts" about the university's Jewish student center.
When I tried contacting trustee Esta Stecher, a senior administration official alerted the board about my inquiries and reminded the trustees that the university doesn't comment on tenure cases.
In the end, Columbia's board of trustees approved Massad's tenure appointment before ever getting answers.
Which raises the question: Just what does a trustee do? Are they merely fund-raisers? Do they view the title as a ceremonial honor? What's the point?
As for Bollinger, one wonders how he allowed his faculty to undermine his authority and the university's reputation.
The promotion of Massad isn't a victory for academic freedom but a cheapening of it. The freedom extended to a Columbia faculty member isn't the same as the rights of a soapbox crank. Protecting free inquiry and valuing scholarship are not mutually exclusive goals, but together define the university ideal.
If the trustees and Bollinger haven't figured that out, Massad's enduring presence at Columbia will help remind them.

Some reasons California is broke...

Group Shines Light on Hefty Government Pensions
Focus on Highly Paid Retirees Is Aimed at Cutting Future Public Benefits, but Critics Say Most Payouts Are Far Smaller


Legislators' cars cost taxpayers $3.2 million in three years

Love Saddam, loves the Mullahs, hates the west

Galloway stirs up a new storm with TV defence of regime

The Stoning of Soraya M
An Understated Stoning
Daniel Greenfield Bio

By Daniel Greenfield Sunday, June 28, 2009
The reviews of “The Stoning of Soraya M.”, a movie that tells the true story of a woman being stoned to death in fundamentalist Iran, are in… and the critics seem to have a common complaint, that the movie is just too outraged by the whole stoning business
At the Boston Globe, critic Wesley Morris complains that “The Stoning of Soraya M.” is ”less a movie than a blunt instrument, a bit of political parable, a bit more outrage, and nary a scrap of real drama or finesse.”
In other words there just isn’t enough finesse to the whole blunt stoning business. It lacks the kind of nuance that a John Kerry or Barack Obama could bring to the story of a woman being stoned to death.
At Slant Magazine, Nick Schager posits that the movie, ”...requires a defter hand than that shown by Nowrasteh, who—aside from a nicely surrealistic aside involving a travelling carnival troupe—resorts to such overblown histrionics (wailing music, kneeling characters beseeching the heavens, Saturday Morning serial-evil villains, an embarrassing “triumphant” coda)”
Yes sadly there just aren’t enough surrealistic asides, instead there are evil villains, regional music and kneeling characters praying. Which continues the theme of “there’s just not enough nuance”.
At the Village Voice, Vadim Rizov dismisses it as a movie for those people ”ambivalent about whether stoning women to death is a cruel punishment or not… self-congratulatory fare for people who feel more ‘politically conscious’ when reminded that women in the Islamic world can have it rough”. Because naturally the only justification for a movie dealing with the consequence of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran is for people who are “ambivalent” about it. Meanwhile good progressives who are already know about it and have dismissed the issue in favor of more vital stuff, like agitating for Leonard Peltier, can sneer at anyone who still cares about it for not being truly “politically conscious” like them.
Scott Tobias at the Onion A.V. Club however discards with all the ducking and weaving of the previous reviews to say what they really mean;
It takes zero political courage to speak out against the obvious barbarism of public stonings or the oppressive patriarchy of sharia law , but the film whips out the megaphone anyway, eager to extrapolate the martyrdom of an innocent woman into a broader condemnation of the Muslim world.
Get that? It takes zero political courage to speak out against Sharia law. Which the growing death toll in Tehran testifies to. Now though it takes zero political courage for Hollywood to attack the War on Terror, the Onion A.V. Club praised ”In The Valley of Elah”, Uncovered: The War on Iraq, War. Inc, Body of War, Stop Loss and just about any half-assed rant against the Bush Administration hammering the same message into the ground. By contrast with Phil Donahue’s propaganda piece or an MTV movie against the war, “The Stoning of Soraya M.” clearly lacks “political courage.”
Except of course the slams from left wing movie critics demonstrate the exact opposite, that it takes far more political courage to create a movie condemning the murder of countless women in Iran… than it does to trot out another self-congratulatory Hollywood movie or documentary based on a mostly fictional article in a trendy magazine some producer read while waiting for his dentist’s appointment.
The arrogance of a white liberal film critic condemning an Iranian-American filmmaker for lacking political courage by making a movie protesting against the abuse of women in Iran is truly stunning. So stunning that I suspect Tobias would never get it. In his narrow leftist little world the only Iranians who have political courage are those who denounce George W. Bush.
Tobias complains that the movie extrapolates this to the entire Muslim world, which of course naturally takes even less political courage, what with criticizing Islam being a criminal offense in much of the Muslim world. He follows this up with a series of by the book leftist smears that remind you that the progressive left so often trades in dogmatic ideological condemnations for actual original thought, that no content remains.
“The Stoning Of Soraya M. has a neocon’s sense of good and evil, which could politely be called “moral clarity,” but is more accurately described as narrow, tone-deaf, and thoroughly banal.”
This is a variation on the complaint that “The Stoning of Soraya M.” isn’t nuanced or subtle enough, it has a sense of good and evil, rather than being broadminded and sophisticated enough about stoning women to death.
How would one go about making a broadminded and sophisticated take on stoning a woman to death. I suspect that it would involve her husband working for the CIA and the oil companies, and the entire movie turning on the revelation that it was American colonialist involvement in the region that was responsible for her suffering. Plug in a guest starring role for George Clooney as a slimy oil executive and CIA agent, it would be a lock for next year’s Oscars.
Now that would be true “political courage”.
With a more shrill outlet at his disposal, Tobias takes the offensive with a preemptive attack of “neo-con”, which follows up his earlier claim that the movie is an attack on the entire Muslim world. Which of course means that supporting it makes you a genocidal warmonger just like George W. Bush.
Tobias finishes this off with, “There’s no denying the dramatic force of the killing—just as no right-thinking person would endorse the odious practice, or the outrageous miscarriage of justice that leads to it. But Nowrasteh constantly overplays his hand, not realizing that some horrors speak for themselves.”
But of course how exactly do horrors speak for themselves anyway? And isn’t ”some horrors speak for themselves” really just a subtle way of saying, ”shut the hell up about those horrors already, because these aren’t the horrors we’re interested in.”
All this call for nuance, for an understated stoning, was absent when it came to the shrillest anti-war movies and documentaries. Which was par for the course when it came to lambasting the Bush Administration. But when it comes to “The Stoning of Soraya M.”, it’s suddenly a time for nuance, for subtlety, for being broadminded and sophisticated about it. It’s not a time to be blunt about what happens to women like her under Islamic law.
Tobias claims that ”no right-thinking person would endorse the practice” and yet by attacking a movie on the subject matter alone, as Tobias, Morris and Rizov do… that is exactly the message being sent. They may not endorse stoning a woman to death, but they endorse a politically enforced silence on the topic, a whitewashing by default.
It isn’t murder, it isn’t an outrage, it’s “the practice.” What better way to render a gruesome act into neutral colors than to describe it as “the practice.”
And it is of course precisely reactions like this that justify The Stoning of Soraya M’s so called heavy-handedness, and its forcible outrage. Because the truth of the matter is not nuanced or sophisticated or deft. It isn’t sipped over cocktails or reduced to a neutral formula. It isn’t “the practice”, it’s blood, bone and flesh being spilled, broken and torn.
It’s a good rule of thumb that people want to see blunt depictions and and an uncompromising stand on the things that outrage them, and want to see finesse, nuance and deftness on the things whose blunt depiction make them too uncomfortable and conflict with their politics.
It’s why progressives wallow in endless depictions of Bush’s decision making and the hunt for WMD’s, because it diverts them from having to deal with the reality of Saddam’s brutality and the extent to which their anti-war activism was complicit in it. And remains complicit in dictatorships all over the world.
It’s why the reality of Islamic law is such an uncomfortable subject that it has to be finessed by claiming that only the naive and the unsophisticated need to see a movie about it. The progressives have condemned it. Finished, now let’s move on. But no, the killing continues and we can’t move on.
So if “The Stoning of Soraya M.” can remind morally deadened progressives of the blunt reality of the “practice” they would rather deftly finesse, so much the better.

From Powerline blog

"Global warming zealots are a bit like Iran's mullahs. They are fanatically devoted to a series of false propositions. Unable to win an open scientific debate, they consistently resort to bullying and brute force to suppress their opposition. Once again, we see the Obama administration taking the lead in this regard, putting political ideology above scientific truth and demanding that all others do likewise."

Why the pass for Muslim inhumanity?

“And Iran, Iran So Far Away, I Couldn’t Get Away,” Sung by Barack Obama

Spot on...

'I CAN'T BELIEVE I'M SITTING NEXT TO A REPUBLICAN!'
By HARRY STEIN
June 28, 2009 --
The phone messages and e-mails from fellow conservatives started coming early on election night 2008 and continued well into the next day. Some were anguished, some merely fatalistic. But all featured at least a dollop of gallows humor.
As the dimensions of the disaster became apparent, my friend Cary announced he might have to skip work.
"For how long?" I asked.
"I'm thinking a year."
Who could blame him? Obama may be our worst nightmare, front man for every species of noxious, left-wing activism going, but at least he generally makes open-minded noises. In Manhattan offices like Cary's, the Chosen One's acolytes often don't even bother pretending to be civil toward those on the other side of the political spectrum.
Conservatives come in all stripes, but those of us who live in New York tend to share certain characteristics, Starting with independent judgment, a fair amount of backbone and, yes, the capacity to laugh at (if not necessarily with) those around us. How else to deal with all the stuff that would otherwise put a crimp in your day -- the sweet old lady in the elevator snarling about "those goddamn Republicans," the street lectures from 20-year-old environmental zealots, or the random leftist idiot at a dinner party waxing self-righteous and quoting George Soros?
The fact is, conservatives living and working among the liberals, among them but not of them, are not unlike field reporters for "Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom"; we know them better than they know themselves. Since there is an approved left-of-center position on every subject -- just check out The New York Times or NPR -- We know in advance how they'll react to every controversy, every utterance by a public figure; we anticipate, politically and public policy-wise, their sighs, their frowns, their ups, their downs.
Yet, as we are frequently reminded, they know us hardly at all. What they think they know is this: Conservatives are greedy and hard-hearted -- when we're not busy being racist, sexist and homophobic. We're not merely wrong. We are evil.
Living contentedly among liberals, then, requires a fair degree of finesse. My own little town, Hastings-on-Hudson, is in most ways as attractive as the name suggests, a leafy suburban enclave for the most part populated with kind-hearted and generous souls. But a word of warning: Don't get into politics. To say Hastings is liberal is like saying Saudi Arabia is Muslim. We are a more bucolic version of the Upper West Side -- the very area from which many of my neighbors decamped in settling here. Almost all of them vote Democratic for the same reason they watch their diet and floss their teeth -- it's what smart, responsible, healthy, forward-thinking people do.
This is to say that when at a neighborhood gathering, if one of these people suddenly learns that your views deviate from everyone else's on the war, affirmative action, big government, feminism, the reliability of the Times, (or hell, fill in the blank), his or her face will register stunned surprise and deep confusion. You can almost see the wheels turning within and hear the electronic drone: Does not compute. After all, in most ways, you seem reasonable; your knuckles don't drag the ground. Yet, the things coming out of your mouth sound so wrong -- almost conservative!
How to survive with your sanity and good cheer intact? First, for intellectual sustenance and emotional succor, we conservatives learn to seek out our own kind. This is not always easy, since many of us tend to lay pretty low. Still, like communists of old, we have ways of sniffing one another out. For instance, at a social gathering, as soon as the talk inevitably turns to the manifold glories of Obama, I always look around to see who else is staying silent. Bingo -- a soulmate!
Sometimes such a being will simply appear out of the proverbial blue. Not long ago on, I was stopped at a traffic light when She emerged from a shop hauling some trash out to the curb, a heavy-set, middle-aged bottle blonde wearing a "Freedom is NOT Free" T-shirt.
"You're pretty brave to be wearing that around here!" I called out as the light changed.
"Hey," she shouted after, "I don't give half a fñ-ñ-ñ- what anyone thinks!"
Not exactly my style, but in these parts right-wingers can't be choosers. I returned to Main Street later that day, hoping to find the woman and get her story, but no one had seen her or seemed to know who she was. It was like trying to hunt down the elusive One-Armed Man in "The Fugitive," and after a while I began to wonder if she might have been a figment of my desperate conservative imagination.
Something else some of us like to do, just for kicks, is stir up ideological mischief at dinner parties. Given the depth of liberal hypocrisy on certain issues, this is easier than it might sound, and occasionally even provokes actual thought in one's prey. My favorite tale in this regard comes from a friend who lives in Park Slope. She reports creating level-red discomfort, when the talk on a recent evening turned to gay marriage. Everyone was for it, of course, including my friend. "But wouldn't it bother you if your own children were gay?" she added, all innocent curiosity. "After all, isn't it natural to want your kids to mirror your experience? To have a traditional marriage and raise children in the traditional way? I can't think of anything that would make them more foreign."
She reports that, hearing this, the liberals around the table "got very flustered -- because of course they feel exactly the same way. There was a long silence, and then someone said: 'I would be much more upset if my kids were Republican,' and that let everyone off the hook. But afterward, one liberal friend came and whispered in my ear 'I would be really devastated.' "
Indeed, if one keeps things polite in such situations, those on the other side are all but helpless, robbed of their chief weapon: Insults. For many liberals in these parts, dismissive contempt toward the other side is a reflex. So, for the enterprising conservative, pointing out, "that's not an argument, that's name-calling" is enough to stop them dead in their tracks. After lifetimes spent casually referring to those on the right as "haters" or "fascists," they are truly unaware there is anything wrong with it. While afterward they'll continue to believe you are a fascist, and say so behind your back, at least you'll have a momentary triumph.
For conservatives in places like New York, that's about the best that can be hoped for. As a species, adamant liberals are not exactly known for graciousness. Even in the wake of their triumph last November, many seem Constitutionally unable to stop bashing Bush, Cheney or Palin. And talk about gloating. Having in many cases defiantly left on their Kerry-Edwards stickers through Bush's second term, can anyone doubt that, even if unemployment reaches 20%, their Obama stickers will still be in place on the Volvo when it gets towed off to that great recycling heap?
Of course, that's just another difference between us and them -- we tend toward optimism and good grace. Rotten as times seems now for conservatives, we face life as it is and press on, plucky as colonial Brits in those old movies on TCM. Just a day after the election, one friend remarked that he'd already taken the McCain sticker off his car, adding that Obama was our president now, and he was willing to give him a chance. "Still," he added, smiling, "I kept on the one for the New York Rifle & Pistol Association -- just in case anyone thinks I've gone soft."
Harry Stein is the author of 'I Can't Believe I'm Sitting Next to a Republican: A Survival Guide for Conservatives Marooned Among the Angry, Smug and Terminally Self-Righteous" (Encounter Books), out now.Home

I am including here the remarks of a commenter to the article for emphasis:

larnerjg wrote:
Funny - Not that democrats are perfectly polite, but this sort of arrogance and self-righteous ignorance reminds me of nothing so much as the average Republican. Remember that you guys are responsible for creating Rush Limbaugh and George W. Bush and Sarah Palin and Ken Starr and D. Cheney (hey, the Post's profanity filter won't let me write his first name, I've just discovered) -- to take just a few names at random -- and have never put any distance between yourself and them. Until that changes, I think that rather than call Democrats arrogant and hateful, you ought to look in the mirror.By the way, while I lean left, as a thinking person I always reserve the right to have political opinions from all across the spectrum; and I know many other people on the left who would say the same. But right-wingers tend to go all the way on every issue, from deregulation to Israel; they buy the whole conservative package. That, to me, is evidence of an interest in ideology rather than facts.

How tolerant. If we give up our beliefs he's willing to consider us acceptable. I'm certain he's clueless about the ramifications of his posting. It's the leftist demonetization mentality at work. I'm certain he has never listened to or read anything by the people he mentions. He just knows in his heart they are evil.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Rep. Barney Frank says that unless Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac relax their recent tightening of mortgage standards on new condominiums, the economic recovery could be threatened.

That would be the same Barney Frank who famously boasted that the two federal agencies -- which lost billions by making improvident loans -- were "fundamentally sound financially and [can] withstand . . . disaster scenarios."
Then came the disasters.
But to Barney Frank, Fannie and Freddie are essentially taxpayer-funded social-service agencies whose mission is to turn all Americans into homeowners -- whether or not they can afford it.
Fannie and Freddie recently announced that they would no longer guarantee mortgages on condos where fewer than 70% of the units have been sold; the previous threshold was 51%.
The agencies also said they'd no longer guarantee mortgages in buildings where 15% or more of the owners are behind in their condo dues or where more than 10% of the units are held by a single owner.
And they've raised fees on buyers whose down payment is less than the standard 25%.
The tightened standards are intended to limit the exposure of the two agencies -- which purchase or guarantee most US mortgages -- in buildings with potential financial problems.
Obviously, this means that some condo owners may find it more difficult to sell their units -- because buyers will find it more difficult to get mortgages.
Enter Barney Frank -- backed by New York's own Rep. Anthony Weiner, who aspires someday to be mayor.
The congressional pair terms the standards "too onerous" and wants them rolled back to the same levels used by the Federal Housing Administration.
Here we go again.
Frank, it should be noted, declared last fall that "we'll have to raise taxes, ultimately" to pay for all the increased government benefits he's also demanded in order to alleviate the crisis his bad advice helped create.
To say that Barney Frank has a bad track record here is putting it mildly.
Problem is, he's also chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, so his "suggestions" have political muscle behind them.
But following Barney Frank's advice is a prescription for disaster.

Opposition, criticism: not permitted. It's the left's way

Thousands march in Venezuela over anti-Chavez TV

Do you see a repeating pattern here?

Honduras president arrested, local media report


"Zelaya, a leftist elected in 2005, has found himself pitted against the other branches of government and military leaders over the issue of Sunday's planned referendum. It would ask voters to place a measure on November's ballot allowing the formation of a constitutional assembly that could modify the nation's charter to allow the president to run for another term.
Zelaya, whose four-year term ends in January 2010, cannot run for re-election under current law."

Leftists are like termites, Once they're in you can never get rid of them.

Mid-term elections seen weakening Argentine leader

Who will stand for western values

Jacob LaksinA Study in DefeatBruce Bawer calls out Western apologists for radical Islam.
26 June 2009
Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom, by Bruce Bawer (Doubleday, 352 pp., $24.95)
With the release of his new book, Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom, the American writer and critic Bruce Bawer (some of whose work has appeared in City Journal) may have committed a crime in his adoptive Norway. In 2005, Norway’s politically correct parliament passed the so-called Discrimination Act, a law that, among other curbs on free speech, criminalized “utterances” that may be “insulting” to those of certain religious beliefs. Since Surrender is a searing indictment of Western opinion makers, especially in the media, for capitulating to the rise of radical Islam in Europe, and since Islamic extremists are bound to take issue with the author’s appeal for a sterner defense of Western freedoms, it’s a real possibility that Bawer could be prosecuted for what he has written.
That it has come to this in politically progressive Norway makes Surrender urgent reading. It also serves to bolster Bawer’s chief contention: that many in Europe, and to a lesser extent in the United States, are prepared to roll back essential civil liberties in order to pacify (or so they hope) Muslim radicals. Bawer embarks on a broad offensive, counting leading political, religious, and academic figures among the defeatists. Mainly, though, he directs his rhetorical fire at the press. In their eagerness to forfeit the free-speech rights on which they depend—whether through self-censorship or through craven reporting that casts avowed Islamists as “moderates”—journalists may present the most agonizing illustration of Bawer’s theme that, for too many in the West, surrender is indeed an option.
In Bawer’s telling, the white flag first waved in 1989. That year, Salman Rushdie’s novel, The Satanic Verses, earned him a fatwa from Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini. In his decree, Khomeini called on Muslims across the world to hunt down and kill Rushdie and anyone involved in the book’s publication “so that no one will dare to insult Islamic sanctities again.” The fatwa forced Rushdie into hiding and led to the murder of his Japanese translator. But while many writers rallied to Rushdie’s defense, some perversely blamed the novelist for provoking his own death sentence. Oxford historian Hugh Trevor-Roper sneered that he “would not shed a tear if some British Muslims, deploring Mr. Rushdie’s manners, were to waylay him in a dark street and seek to improve them.” At the time, he writes, Bawer dismissed the Trevor-Roper view as an anomaly. Surely, he reasoned, most civilized people would defend free speech against its Islamist despisers. He was wrong.
Fast-forward to November 2004. Dutch filmmaker and provocateur Theo Van Gogh has just been savagely murdered on an Amsterdam street by Islamist Mohammed Bouyeri. The Dutch-born son of Moroccan immigrants, Bouyeri killed Van Gogh for the offense of making Submission, a documentary-style film highlighting the mistreatment of women in Islamic societies. If Bouyeri had hoped to silence criticism of Islam, he succeeded: the response to this deadly act of censorship was more censorship. In the most depressingly ironic instance, shortly after Van Gogh’s death, Submission was withdrawn from a festival of censored films by its producer, Gijs van de Westelaken, who feared that it would incite Muslim violence. “Does this mean I’m yielding to terror?” asked Westelaken. He candidly answered his own question: “Yes.”
Similar scenes have played out across Europe. In January 2006, Vebjørn Selbekk, the editor of the small-circulation Christian journal Magazinet, became a public enemy in Norway when he reprinted the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed that had triggered an uproar in the Muslim world when they first appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in the fall of 2005. Selbekk did so in protest against what he saw as a culture of self-censorship among Western newspapers, most of which refused to publish the offending caricatures. For a time, he stood by his decision, even as everyone from his fellow editors to Norway’s foreign minister pressed him to apologize. Ultimately, Selbekk, too, gave in, lamenting that he had not understood “how wounding” his decision had been for Muslims.
Bawer also condemns the Western press for downplaying the abundant evidence of extremism in Muslim communities. Of the many examples he provides—Surrender is meticulously sourced, and Bawer includes a comprehensive list of notes and quotations—the most outrageous may be a May 2007 Pew Research Center poll on Muslim attitudes. One of the poll’s more widely publicized findings was that 80 percent of young American Muslims opposed suicide bombings, a statistic presented as proof that, as a Washington Post headline trumpeted, Muslims are “opposed to extremism.” Few in the establishment press deigned to notice the disconcerting fact that a double-digit percentage of Muslims in the U.S. supported suicide terrorism. It was a spectacular case of what journalists call burying the lead.
Bawer finds many such cases in the course of his thorough—and thoroughly disheartening—account. In Amsterdam, a series of violent attacks on gays—often in broad daylight—has destroyed the city’s reputation as one of the most tolerant in Europe. Muslim immigrants from Morocco have committed most of the attacks, but this fact is apparently too controversial to mention, leaving the press to grasp for any explanation save the obvious one. The German magazine Der Spiegel demonstrated perfectly the absurd lengths to which the press will go to evade inconvenient facts. In 2007, the magazine’s website ran a story on Amsterdam’s anti-gay violence that found any number of ways to account for the attacks—perhaps society had stigmatized the perpetrators, or they were “struggling with their own sexual identity.” That the violence could have something to do with the attackers’ Islam-inspired hostility to homosexuality never came up.
Evasiveness of this sort often coexists with another media sin: the tendency to define Muslim moderation down. Take the high-profile case of globetrotting celebrity Islamist Tariq Ramadan. Time and again, Ramadan has belied his media-made reputation as a “moderate.” For instance, he has refused to condemn outright the Islamic practice of stoning women for adultery, advocating only a “moratorium,” while at the same time defending the “right” (often forced) of Muslim women to wear the veil. But to Stéphanie Giry, an editor at Foreign Affairs, Ramadan is merely encouraging “modesty among Muslim women.” The writer Ian Buruma has been equally generous. In a New York Times Magazine profile of Ramadan, he noted approvingly that “unlike some Islamic activists, Ramadan has not expressed any hostility to Jews in general.” If this is now the standard of moderation, then Bawer is surely right to scoff that the term “moderate Muslim” has come to denote “someone who might not stone an adulteress to death himself, but who would defend to the death another Muslim’s right to do so.”
It has become unacceptable to point all of this out. If there is one thing the media like less than challenging Islamic radicals in print or pixels, it’s being called out on their cowardice. Thus Bawer decries the oft-heard admonition to marginalize extremists “on both sides,” a refrain that more often than not draws a moral equivalence between Islamic terrorists and extremists and those who speak out against them. Bawer may not be entirely disinterested here: already, the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet has denounced Surrender for perpetuating “foaming-at-the-mouth racist fantasies,” notwithstanding the reviewer’s notable failure to find evidence of either racism or fantasy in the book. But the fact that Bawer may have a score to settle with some of his more unscrupulous detractors hardly justifies their attempts to equate jihadism’s critics with its practitioners.
Surrender at times treads closely on the heels of Bawer’s 2006 book, While Europe Slept. The sections on Theo Van Gogh and the assassinated Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn, especially, read like summaries of his earlier work. On the other hand, given the prominent role that both men have played in the debate over extremist Islam, some repetition is inevitable, and perhaps necessary. Moreover, because Bawer pulls no punches—he spiritedly dismisses one writer for composing a “breathtakingly mendacious tissue of calumnies”—his book is a bracing and lively read.
And even his critics cannot accuse Bawer of exaggeration. If you think the book’s title overstates his case, listen to Columbia University’s Mark Lilla, who instructed his readers in 2007 “to recognize that coping [with Islam] is the order of the day, not defending high principle, and . . . our expectations should remain low. So long as a sizeable population believes in the truth of a comprehensive political theology, its full political reconciliation with modern liberal democracy cannot be expected.” Doubtless some see this as an admirable expression of pragmatism. Bawer rightly recognizes it, instead, as a declaration of defeat—and he, for one, is not about to give up the fight.
Jacob Laksin is a senior editor at Front Page Magazine. He is coauthor, with David Horowitz, of One-Party Classroom: How Radical Professors at America’s Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine Our Democracy.

The US media cannot admit to what the author sees

Bush was right after all
Ashok MalikIn diplomacy, messages are often not direct or straightforward. Sometimes lessons from one theatre have relevance for another. The belligerence of North Korean dictator Kim Jong II over the past few weeks is a sobering reminder of how things can go wrong if a paramount power decides to speak softly without waving a big stick.On May 25, Pyongyang tested a nuclear device. A North Korean ship is currently on the high seas, apparently carrying an illegal cargo of missiles and other weaponry to Burma. On July 4, Independence Day in the United States, Mr Kim has promised to fire a missile in the direction of Hawaii. The expected range of the Taepodong-2 is 6,500 km and Hawaii is just over 7,000 km from the launch site. Chances of the missile entering American waters/territory are small, but it will travel over Japan. On the whole, it will be the most serious infraction in the US’s Pacific region since Pearl Harbour.It is ironical the North Korean leader’s muscle-flexing has taken place only months after a new and supposedly conciliatory resident arrived at the White House. After all, US President Barack Obama’s team made effusive noises about the conduct of foreign policy that would be different from President George W Bush’s sledgehammer, “with us or against us”, approach.How did North Korea behave in the Bush years? As far back as 2002, Mr Bush named the Pyongyang regime as part of the “Axis of Evil”. In 2003, Pyongyang withdrew from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and in 2006 tested a nuclear device. The then American President pushed for economic sanctions and used China — the one country with influence on Mr Kim — to bring North Korea to the negotiating table.North Korea did not give up its clandestine mission. Nevertheless, it checked itself. There were no overt displays of aggression. Mr Kim agreed to shut down some nuclear facilities. He recognised that in Mr Bush he had an implacable foe, one who would hit back and hit back hard if provoked.Six months after the Republican President left Washington, DC, the North Korean megalomaniac has triggered an East Asian crisis. He has reneged on his promise to close nuclear installations and reverted to Bomb-making.What does this tell us about Mr Kim and about political adventurism in general? The North Koreans have indicated they don’t think much of the Obama crowd, they see America’s resolve as weakening. They have also paid a left-handed compliment to Mr Bush —acknowledging he put the fear of god into them.There are three implications to the crisis. First, it will give others ideas. Teheran has already more or less rebuffed Mr Obama’s offer of talks. In backing the wrong horse in the recent election — and misreading the mood of the Iranian people — the US State Department didn’t help its cause. Of course, domestic unrest in Iran is at its most potent in some 30 years and this will allow the Americans to claim the moral high ground. However, it will amount to a tactical rather than strategic advantage. In the larger reckoning, Mr Obama cannot talk his way out of trouble on the Iranian front.In the battle against Osama bin Laden and the international army of Islamists, Mr Obama has not backed down, but he has occasionally sent ambivalent signals. His speech in Cairo earlier this month pandered to the sort of negativism and overdone self-pity that is the staple of Al Qaeda apologists. Perhaps Mr Obama was only using the polite phrases to set the stage for stern decisions. That remains a prospect for the future. For the moment, the Cairo speech can only be seen in isolation, and can get very qualified applause.Second, Mr Obama is being put to test. He came into office with limited experience and with the reputation of being a foreign policy lightweight. To be fair, Mr Bush too had very little international exposure in January 2001, but was backed by a formidable Republican machine.In contrast, Mr Obama’s original foreign policy advisers — some of whom he has despatched to relatively inconsequential posts in the United Nations — were the liberal extreme of his country’s strategic affairs establishment. Mr Obama campaigned on a theme that promised to end wars, not take the US further into conflict, work within multilateral systems, be cautious rather than impulsive.All of that sounds nice — until one is faced with a first-rate, real-life crisis. If North Korea indeed gets a missile close enough to Hawaii, Mr Obama will encounter media frenzy. What will he do?In a sense, this could lead to a microcosmic examination of the theory which holds that, if a 9/11-style attack were to repeat itself in his presidency, Mr Obama will be obliged to strike back with greater lethality than Mr Bush. His political and personal background will make it difficult for him to do otherwise, lest the public see him as ‘weak’.Third, Afghanistan or Pakistan, North Korea or Iran, even India or China: The more Mr Obama tries to distance himself from the Bush template, the closer he moves towards it. Mr Obama’s broader strategy for the war on terrorism is no different from the one Mr Bush set out. His easy touch has not worked with North Korea and Iran and sooner or later tough measures will be called for to tackle two nuclear programmes that America and its allies — in two separate parts of Asia — see as non-negotiable. For all the early camaraderie with Beijing and neglect of New Delhi, recent interactions between the Obama team and Indian interlocutors suggest the honeymoon with China is going to be short-lived.Different global environments call for different modes of diplomacy. After 9/11, Mr Bush correctly calculated the world was headed for a Hobbesian interlude. Maverick actors — dictators like Kim, freelance commanders like bin Laden, mobster institutions like the Pakistani Army — would need to be treated with a mix of straight talk and unvarnished power projection. That realism was a critical element of the Bush doctrine. It remains the former President’s most abiding foreign policy legacy. Mr Obama can paint it in another colour, give it a new name; ultimately, he has to embrace it.

Let them hear from you...

Republicans who voted for Waxman-Markey climate bill
By: Matthew SheffieldManaging Editor06/26/09 7:39 PM EDT
The House just passed the sweeping carbon tax bill commonly known as Waxman-Markey by the thinnest of margins, 219-212. Right-leaning groups felt very strongly about the measure and pulled out all sorts of stops to get Republicans in line against it.
Those efforts, and those of the House GOP leadership, worked for the most part except for 8 Republicans, most of whom are likely to face significant pressure from the base for their vote. They are as follows:
Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Mike Castle, Mark Steven Kirk (Ill.), Leonard Lance (NJ), Frank LoBiondo (NJ), John McHugh (NY), Dave Reichert (Washington), Chris Smith (NJ).

Totalitarianism on the march: Iran, Venezuela and the US

Iran militia raids 'target homes'

Caracas mayor compares Venezuela's situation with Iran's
In a private meeting in the residence of his New York counterpart, Michael Bloomberg, Ledezma had the opportunity to explain the situation of ungovernability facing Caracas
During his visit to the United States, Caracas metropolitan mayor Antonio Ledezma said that the political crisis facing Iranians brings out into the open the "truths" that President Hugo Chávez Frías tries to conceal about the reality of Venezuela, which have led to violence, poverty and insecurity. "It is a way to expose the reality that hits the Venezuelan people. President Chávez says that Venezuela is a wonderland without poverty, corruption and with a full-fledged democracy. In fact, the situation is almost as serious as what is happening in Iran." In a private meeting in the residence of his New York counterpart, Michael Bloomberg, Ledezma had the opportunity to explain the situation of ungovernability hitting Caracas, the serious problems faced by the workers of the Metropolitan Mayor's office, said a press release. Ledezma assessed the experience of Mayor Bloomberg, who explained to him "how he has managed to reduce the crime rate in New York by 17 percent (…) We also talked about the programs for garbage collection and disposal of New York," Ledezma said. Bloomberg invited Ledezma to participate in a summit on "Job Creation and Workforce Development," at the Columbia University

Watch for the actions of Acorn, the unions (particularly the SEIU) and environmental/anti war groups. They will form the core of Obama's plain clothes militias.

Go figure...

U.S. sending arms aid to Somalia

How long before these weapons fall into Ilamist hands?

Remember when this was a cause celebre for global warming?

Legless frogs mystery solved

Matt Walker Editor, Earth News

Scientists think they have resolved one of the most controversial environmental issues of the past decade: the curious case of the missing frogs' legs.
Around the world, frogs are found with missing or misshaped limbs, a striking deformity that many researchers believe is caused by chemical pollution.
However, tests on frogs and toads have revealed a more natural, benign cause.
The deformed frogs are actually victims of the predatory habits of dragonfly nymphs, which eat the legs of tadpoles.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, researchers started getting reports of numerous wild frogs or toads being found with extra legs or arms, or with limbs that were partly formed or missing completely.
The cause of these deformities soon became a hotly contested issue.
Some researchers believed they might be caused naturally, by predators or parasites.
Others thought that was highly unlikely, fearing that chemical pollution, or UV-B radiation caused by the thinning of the ozone layer, was triggering the deformations.
Once they grab the tadpole, they use their front legs to turn it around, searching for the tender bits, in this case the hind limb buds, which they then snip off with their mandibles Biologist Stanley Sessions describes the dining habits of dragonfly nymphs
"Deformed frogs became one of the most contentious environmental issues of all time, with the parasite researchers on one side, and the 'chemical company' as I call them, on the other," says Stanley Sessions, an amphibian specialist and professor of biology at Hartwick College, in Oneonta, New York.
"There was a veritable media firestorm, with millions of dollars of grant money at stake."
After a long period of research, Sessions and other researchers established that many amphibians with extra limbs were actually infected by small parasitic flatworms called Riberoria trematodes.
These creatures burrow into the hindquarters of tadpoles where they physically rearrange the limb bud cells and thereby interfere with limb development.
"But that was not end of the story," says Sessions.
"Frogs with extra limbs may have been the most dramatic-looking deformities, but they are by far the least common deformities found," he explains.
"The most commonly found deformities are frogs or toads found with missing or truncated limbs, and although parasites occasionally cause limblessness in a frog, these deformities are almost never associated with the trematode species known to cause extra limbs."
Missing legs
The mystery of what causes frogs to have missing or deformed limbs remained unsolved until Sessions teamed up with colleague Brandon Ballengee of the University of Plymouth, UK. They report their findings in the Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution.
For a decade, Ballengee and Sessions have collaborated on a series of art and science projects that image amphibians' bodies to show the detail within, the most recent of which is funded by the Arts Catalyst organisation, based in London.
As part of this work, Ballengee and Richard Sunter, the official Recorder of Reptiles and Amphibians in Yorkshire, spent time during the summers of 2006 to 2008 surveying the occurrence of deformities in wild amphibians at three ponds in the county.
In all, they found that between 1.2% and 9.8% of tadpoles or metamorphosed toads at each location had hind limb deformities. Three had missing eyes.
"We were very surprised when we found so many metamorphic toads with abnormal limbs, as it was thought to be a North American phenomenon," says Ballengee.
While surveying, Ballengee also discovered a range of natural predators he suspected could be to blame, including stickleback fish, newts, diving beetles, water scorpions and predatory dragonfly nymphs.
So Ballengee and Sessions decide to test how each predator preyed upon the tadpoles, by placing them together in fish tanks in the lab.
None did, except three species of dragonfly nymph.
Crucially though, the nymphs rarely ate the tadpoles whole. More often than not, they would grab the tadpole and chew at a hind limb, often removing it altogether.
"Once they grab the tadpole, they use their front legs to turn it around, searching for the tender bits, in this case the hind limb buds, which they then snip off with their mandibles," says Sessions.
Stunted growth
Remarkably, many tadpoles survive this ordeal.
"Often the tadpole is released and is able to swim away to live for another day," says Sessions. "If it survives it metamorphoses into a toad with missing or deformed hind limbs, depending on the developmental stage of the tadpole."
If tadpoles are attacked when they are very young, they can often regenerate their leg completely, but this ability diminishes as they grow older.
The researchers confirmed this by surgically removing the hind limbs of some tadpoles and watching them grow. These tadpoles developed in an identical way to those whose limbs had been removed by dragonflies, confirming that losing a limb at a certain stage of a tadpole's development can lead to missing or deformed limbs in adulthood.
Adult amphibians with one one hind limb appear able to live for quite a long time, Sessions says, explaining why so many deformed frogs and toads are discovered.
Why do the dragonflies like to eat the hind legs only?
As toad tadpoles mature, they develop poison glands in their skin much earlier than those in their hind legs, which could make the hind legs a far more palatable meal.
The front legs of tadpoles also develop within the gill chamber, where they are protected.
Sessions is careful to say that he doesn't completely rule out chemicals as the cause of some missing limbs. But 'selective predation' by dragonfly nymphs is now by far the leading explanation, he says.
"Are parasites sufficient to cause extra limbs?," he asks. "Yes. Is selective predation by dragonfly nymphs sufficient to cause loss or reduction of limbs. Yes. Are chemical pollutants necessary to understand either of these phenomena? No."

Is this the kind of governance you expect?

Harry Reid Won't Commit to Giving Public a Week to Read Health-Care Bill Before Senate Votes on It

Now who do you think the "powers that be" are? BHO?

Conyers backs off probe of ACORN

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. has backed off his plan to investigate purported wrongdoing by the liberal activist group ACORN, saying ?powers that be? put the kibosh on the idea.
Mr. Conyers, Michigan Democrat, earlier bucked his party leaders by calling for hearings on accusations the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) has committed crimes ranging from voter fraud to a mob-style "protection" racket.
"The powers that be decided against it," Mr. Conyers told The Washington Times as he left the House chambers Wednesday.
The chairman declined to elaborate, shrugging off questions about who told him how to run his committee and give the Democrat-allied group a pass.
Conyers spokesman Jonathan Godfrey said late Thursday, several hours after the first request for comment, that the chairman had been referring to himself as "the powers that be."
Pittsburgh lawyer Heather Heidelbaugh, whose testimony about ACORN at a March 19 hearing on voting issues prompted Mr. Conyers to call for a probe, said she was perplexed by Mr. Conyers' explanation for his change of heart.
"If the chair of the Judiciary Committee cannot hold a hearing if he wants to, [then] who are the powers that he is beholden to?" she said. "Is it the leadership, is it the White House, is it contributors? Who is 'the power'?"
The comment spurred similar questions by House Republicans, who asked whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was involved in blocking the probe.
"Chairman Conyers has a responsibility to explain who is blocking this investigation, and why. Is it Speaker Pelosi? Others in the Democratic leadership? Who in Congress is covering up ACORN's corruption?" said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.
Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, ranking Republican on the Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, civil rights and civil liberties, said the chairman should be calling the shots.
}Mr. Conyers, who heard the allegations against ACORN, was sufficiently impressed to realize a future hearing was needed to thoroughly investigate the matter," he said. "It's unfortunate that people who didn't hear the testimony are making the decisions. The Democratic leadership should step up to disclose who instructed Mr. Conyers to drop his plan."
The office of Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, did not respond to questions about Mr. Conyers' comments.
Capitol Hill had bristled at the prospect of hearings because it threatened to rekindle criticism of the financial ties and close cooperation between President Obama's campaign and ACORN and its sister organizations Citizens Services Inc. and Project Vote.
The groups came under fire during the campaign after probes into suspected voter fraud in a series of presidential battleground states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Mexico and Nevada.
ACORN and its affiliates are currently the target of at least 14 lawsuits related to voter fraud in the 2008 election and a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act complaint filed by former ACORN members.
The group's leaders have consistently denied any wrongdoing and previously said they welcomed a congressional probe.
The group did not respond to questions about Mr. Conyers being convinced to drop those plans.
Ms. Heidelbaugh, who spearheaded an unsuccessful lawsuit last year to stop ACORN's Pennsylvania voter-registration drive, testified in March that the nonprofit group was violating tax, campaign-finance and other laws by, among other things, sharing with the Barack Obama campaign a list of the Democrat's maxed-out campaign donors so ACORN could use it to solicit them for a get-out-the-vote drive.
ACORN also provided liberal causes with protest-for-hire services and coerced donations from targets of demonstrations through a shakedown it called the "muscle for the money" program, said Ms. Heidelbaugh, a member of the executive board of the Republican National Lawyers Association.
Mr. Conyers, a fierce partisan known for his drive to continue investigating President George W. Bush's administration, had been an unlikely champion for opponents of ACORN.
Before calling for the probe, he frequently defended ACORN. In October, he condemned an FBI voter-fraud investigation targeting the group, questioning whether it was politically motivated to hamper a voter-registration likely to turn out supporters for Mr. Obama's candidacy.
But in March, Mr. Conyers dismissed the argument made by fellow Democrats that accusations of voter fraud and other crimes should be explored by prosecutors and decided in court, not by lawmakers in Congress.
"That's our jurisdiction, the Department of Justice," Mr. Conyers said in March. "That's what we handle voter fraud. Unless that's been taken out of my jurisdiction and I didn't know it."