What is it about the far left that they never learn from their mistakes (nor do they admit them, for that matter). And what is about the right that they are unable to point out any of this to the nation.
The biggest scandal of our lifetime is the subprime crisis that led to our economic meltdown - and from which we have yet to recover. I have maintained for years now that there should have been a miles long line of bankers, bond rating agency managers, Wall St. types, Fannie and Freddie managers and others who should have been prosecuted over our economic meltdown. When these people colluded to bundle and then rate subprime bonds with a AAA rating, that was pure fraud. Yet there has not been a single related criminal prosecution brought under the Obama administration. That itself is a scandal.
Worse, Fannie and Freddie, the two institutions at the heart of our meltdown, have not been privatized. To the contrary, under Obama, they are now not merely true government wards, but they are right back in the middle of the housing market - insuring 90% of all new mortgages. Worse yet, they are not merely back in the middle of the sub-prime market, they own it entirely - which is to say it is backed by the full faith and credit of every taxpayer in the nation.
Then to top it all off, over the past several days, both houses of Congress have released the results of ethics investigations holding no one in Congress liable for their acceptance of below market rate mortgages from Countrywide - a private mortgage company joined at the hip with Fannie and Freddie and that lobbied to keep the subprime lending going full speed ahead - at least until the company itself went bankrupt.
All aspects of this scandal are being swept under the rug, with no effort being made to diagnose the problems, nor to hold those liable where appropriate. As John Fund writes at NRO:
In Star Wars, Obi-Wan Kenobi used an old Jedi mind trick on Stormtroopers to deflect them from their real quarry: “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.” It worked.
It looks as if another mind trick, well known in the Congress — delay and deflection — will now work to make Americans forget one of the biggest scandals of our time: the housing collapse that triggered the 2008 financial meltdown we are still suffering from. We shouldn’t just gaze over the fiscal cliff everyone else is scrutinizing; we should also examine the droids who helped set in motion our current economic mess.
To cure the problems, you first have to diagnose them - and that has yet to happen in America. Under Obama administration, it never will.
Two interesting issues in the news recently. One. should a Turkish pop singer with HIV who knowingly had unprotected sex with others and without informing them of her illness be sent to jail? Two, should the treatment for a genetic malformation which, while making surgery unnecessary, also reduces the possiblity that the female infant will grow up to become a lesbian be allowed? Should gay rights trump parental rights and the best interests of the child?
A singer from German girl band No Angels has admitted to having unprotected sex with several partners without warning them she was HIV-positive.
Nadja Benaissa, 28, was speaking at the opening of her trial in the German city of Darmstadt. . . .
She faces a charge of grievous bodily harm for allegedly infecting one man.
She has also been charged with attempted bodily harm for allegedly having sex with two other men who were not infected.
The charges carry a prison sentence ranging from six months to 10 years.
The issue of whether someone with HIV or AIDS is duty bound, morally and legally, to warn their partners of their infection prior to engaging in sex of any sort, let alone unprotected sex, would seemingly be a no-brainer. Indeed, for the protection of society at large, not merely should there be punishment for such acts, it should be severe indeed. It is a criminally reckless act that portends to destroy innocent people's lives and spread HIV throughout society.
Amazingly, some groups see it otherwise. Earlier this year, the International Planned Parenthood took the position that "each person has a right to a 'fun, happy and sexually fulfilling lives' and that, within the penumbra of that right, those with AIDS or HIV have a right to engage in sex without informing their partner that they are infected. And it would seem that is the tack being taken by at least some AIDS "activists." Back to the case of Ms. Nadja Benaissa, this also from the BBC:
Aids campaigners have been critical of the authorities' handling of Ms Benaissa's case, and warned against a rush to criminalise the transmission of HIV, the BBC's Tristana Moore reports from Berlin.
Edwin Bernard, a writer and advocate specialising in HIV prosecutions, believes that prosecutions and laws on HIV transmission may do more harm than good in terms of reducing the spread of infections.
He told BBC World Service that studies in the US had found that they have had no real impact on new infections.
When the 24 US states which have disclosure laws were compared with those that do not, there was no impact on the rate of transmission or the level of unprotected sex people engage in, he said.
"By singling out HIV, it really promotes fear and stigma," Mr Bernard added.
"Many of these cases, and in particular the media reporting of these cases, perpetuate an awful lot of myths about how HIV is transmitted, as well as things like the life expectancy, which is pretty close to normal now in the developed world."
The campaigner noted that prosecutions were relatively rare compared with the number of HIV transmissions that happen each year.
He estimated that there had been at least 600 prosecutions in more than 40 countries with prison sentences handed down in most cases, ranging from a few months to life.
Very few people, he said, had been prosecuted for intentionally transmitting HIV sexually.
This really is insanity, it seems to me. They are advocating that a person with HIV/AIDS who knowingly engage in sex without telling their partners should be allowed to freely continue that conduct because: they might be stigmatized; it promotes fear, and; with extensive treatment it is not now an automatic death sentence. Hey, its the new common cold. Right?
Oh, and do note, the Obama DOJ is taking a similar position. They are advocating that people with HIV and AIDS be taken out of a special holding facility in South Carolina prisons where they receive daily treatment. The DOJ wants South Carolina to disperse these individuals throughout the general prison population.
Each year in the United States, perhaps a few dozen pregnant women learn they are carrying a fetus at risk for a rare disorder known as congenital adrenal hyperplasia. The condition causes an accumulation of male hormones and can, in females, lead to genitals so masculinized that it can be difficult at birth to determine the baby's gender.
A hormonal treatment to prevent ambiguous genitalia can now be offered to women who may be carrying such infants. It's not without health risks, but to its critics those are of small consequence compared with this notable side effect: The treatment might reduce the likelihood that a female with the condition will be homosexual. Further, it seems to increase the chances that she will have what are considered more feminine behavioral traits.
That such a treatment would ever be considered, even to prevent genital abnormalities, has outraged gay and lesbian groups, troubled some doctors and fueled bioethicists' debate about the nature of human sexuality.
The treatment is a step toward "engineering in the womb for sexual orientation," said Alice Dreger, a professor of clinical medical humanities and bioethics at Northwestern University and an outspoken opponent of the treatment.
The ability to chemically steer a child's sexual orientation has become increasingly possible in recent years, with evidence building that homosexuality has biological roots and with advances in the treatment of babies in utero. Prenatal treatment for congenital adrenal hyperplasia is the first to test — unintentionally or not — that potential.
The hormonal treatment "theoretically can influence postnatal behavior, not just genital differentiation," said Ken Zucker, psychologist in chief of the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, who studies gender identity. "Some people refer to girls with CAH as experiments of nature because you've got this condition and you can take advantage of studying it."
Complicating the situation is the fact that the daily hormone pill does nothing to treat or cure the underlying condition, caused in this case by a defective enzyme in the adrenal gland.
Dreger and critics — which include the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Advocates for Informed Choice (an organization that works to protect the rights of people with intersex conditions), and some pediatric endocrinologists and parents of children with the condition — say far too little is known about the safety of the hormone, the steroid dexamethasone, when used prenatally. They say it should be used sparingly, in closely monitored clinical trials, or not at all. They're even more concerned that some doctors might tell parents that a reduced chance of homosexuality is one of the therapy's benefits. . . .
Congenital adrenal hyperplasia, caused by a defect in an enzyme called 21-hydroxylase, affects about 1 in 15,000 infants, and almost all newborns are screened for it. Undetected, the abnormality can make both male and female infants critically ill within a few weeks of birth because of an associated salt loss through the urine. The defective enzyme also causes a deficiency of the hormone cortisol, which can affect heart function, and an increase in androgens produced by the adrenal glands. . . .
Is anyone else offended by the fact that gay rights groups are weighing in on this medical treatment to advance their own special interests? One, this treatment may prove beneficial to the child. Two, the people who should determine whether to go forward with this treatment seems to me to be solely an issue of parental rights. Lastly, since reducing the tendency towards homosexuality is not an option, but a side effect of this treatment, is there any moral or ethical reason for withholding this information from the parents - besides the facts that it upsets gay rights activists? Should gay rights ever trump parental rights? Those are questions for you. Feel free to weigh in.
This is utterly outragous. The progressive's newest human right is one you won't within the text of the Constitution. According to International Planned Parenthood, each person has a right to a "fun, happy and sexually fulfilling lives" and that, within the penumbra of that right, those with AIDS or HIV have a right to engage in sex without informing their partner that they are infected. This from CNS News:
In a guide for young people published by the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the organization says it opposes laws that make it a crime for people not to tell sexual partners they have HIV. The IPPF's “Healthy, Happy and Hot” guide also tells young people who have the virus that they have a right to “fun, happy and sexually fulfilling lives.” . . .
“Some countries have laws that say people living with HIV must tell their sexual partner(s) about their status before having sex, even if they use condoms or only engage in sexual activity with a low risk of giving HIV to someone else,” the guide states. “These laws violate the rights of people living with HIV by forcing them to disclose or face the possibility of criminal charges.”
Under the heading “Sexual Pleasure and Well-Being,” the guide declares that it is a human right and not a criminal issue as to whether a person decides if or when to disclose their HIV status, even if they engage in sexual activities.
“You know best when it is safe for you to disclose your status,” the guide states. “There are many reasons that people do not share their HIV status. They may not want people to know they are living with HIV because of the stigma and discrimination within their community.”
The guide continues: “They may worry that people will find out something else they have kept secret, like that they are using injecting drugs or, having sex outside of marriage or having sex with people of the same gender. People in long-term relationships who find out they are living with HIV sometime fear that their partner will react violently or end the relationship.”
“Young people living with HIV have the right to sexual pleasure,” the guide states under the heading “Sexual Pleasure; Have Fun Explore and Be Yourself.” . . .
I wrote in a post here that when morality becomes unmoored from the Judeo-Christian ethics, then the left is able to invent all sorts of new "rights" based on whatever they choose to define as the greater good. This is a prime example. In this case, the left is elevating the desires of infected individuals above all others, disregarding an innocent partner's right to make an informed choice as to whether or to refuse sex in order to prevent possible transmission of a fatal virus. No person has a "right" to endanger the life of another for their own personal pleasure - unless, of course, you are making up your own morality as you go along.
Democrat Rep. Eric Masa has gone nuclear on Congress and the Obama administration. Already having announced his resignation from Congress effective at 5 p.m. today, Massa claims, with some apparent justification, that he is being railroaded out of Congress by the House leadership and Rahm Emanuel because of his refusal to vote "yes" on Obamacare. This from Massa's radio interview on Sunday:
“On New Year’s Eve, I went to a staff party. It was actually a wedding for a staff member of mine; there were over 250 people there. I was with my wife. And in fact we had a great time. She got the stomach flu,” he said.
Massa explained that he then danced first with the bride, who was not identified, and then with a bridesmaid. He said multiple cameras recorded the incident.
“I said goodnight to the bridesmaid,” Massa continued. “I sat down at the table where my whole staff was, all of them by the way bachelors.”
“One of them looked at me and as they would do after, I don’t know, 15 gin and tonics, and goodness only knows how many bottles of champagne, a staff member made an intonation to me that maybe I should be chasing after the bridesmaid and his points were clear and his words were far more colorful than that,” Massa said. “And I grabbed the staff member sitting next to me and said, ‘Well, what I really ought to be doing is fracking you.’ And then [I] tossled the guy’s hair and left, went to my room, because I knew the party was getting to a point where it wasn’t right for me to be there. Now was that inappropriate of me? Absolutely. Am I guilty? Yes.”
[Massa] accused Dems of a setup. Massa voted against health care legislation in Nov., and he has not been a reliable vote for Dem leadership. That, he said, has put a target on his back.
"When I voted against the cap and trade bill, the phone rang and it was the chief of staff to the president of the United States of America, Rahm Emanuel, and he started swearing at me in terms and words that I hadn't heard since that crossing the line ceremony on the USS New Jersey in 1983," Massa said. "And I gave it right back to him, in terms and words that I know are physically impossible."
"If Rahm Emanuel wants to come after me, maybe he ought to hold himself to the same standards I'm holding myself to and he should resign," Massa said.
Massa slammed House Maj. Leader StenyHoyer for discussing a House ethics committee inquiry, accusing Hoyer of lying in an effort to eliminate an opponent of health care. Hoyer said last week he heard in early Feb. about allegations against Massa, and that he told Massa's office to report the allegations to the ethics committee.
"StenyHoyer has never said a single word to me at all, never, not once," Massa said. "Never before in the history of the House of Representatives has a sitting leader of the Democratic Party discussed allegations of House investigations publicly, before findings of fact. Ever."
"I was set up for this from the very, very beginning," he added. "The leadership of the Democratic Party have become exactly what they said they were running against."
Massa bemoaned the state of the nation's politics, which he said is perpetuated by the constant need for money to run for re-election. And, he said, he has been made an example by Dem leadership.
"There is not a single member of the Democratic freshman class [that] is going to vote against this health care bill now that they've got me," he said. "Eric Massa's probably not going to go back to Congress, because the only way I would go back there would be as an independent. A pox on both parties."
- And Massa had some particularly harsh words for Rahm Emanuel, whom he described as "the son of the devil's spawn." You can hear his riff on Emanuel here.
It is not possible, based on what we know today, to dismiss Massa's complaint that he is being railroaded. Ethics in this Democratic congress is an absolute joke. The House Ethics Committee credits the defense of the various Congressman despite all evidence to the contrary. To wit - within the past two weeks, we have been treated to Charlie Rangel being given a slap on the wrists for taking a Carribean vacation paid for by lobbyists when the rules were clear that such is an ethics violation. Rangel's defense, accepted by the Ethics Committee, was that he never received the multiple communications from his staff, by e-mail and letter, informing him of the rule. If only we applied that same degree of deference to incredulous defenses in our criminal courts, we could solve the problem of prison overcrowding immediately.
But it gets better. The same ethics committee cleared seven Congressmen, including Jim Moran and Jack Murtha, of trading pork for campaign contributions despite a series of e-mails and letters that directly spell out what was going on. Indeed, there seems little difference between the evidence used to convict Duke Cunningham and the evidence that most of the seven Congressman were trading pork for campaign contributions. The only substantive difference appears to be that the House Ethics Committee gave preference to the flat denials from the Congressman.
And since when did the Democrat Party become incensed with inappropriate conduct relating solely to sex - whether homosexual or heterosexual (and in the case of Ted Kennedy, throw in homicide). As to the heterosexual scandal, the poster boy is Bill Clinton, though JFK doing Marilyn Monroe in the oval office comes a close second. As to homosexual scandal, in 1990 Barney Frank had one of his gay pick ups running a gay prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment. Barney is still in office. In 1983, Democrat Rep. Gerry Studds received only a censure for bending over a few of the young male paiges. He too continued in office. Even if Massa's comment was more than a mere joke, the history of Democrats is that they don't care. So, it would seem Massa may have some legitimate complaint that he is being railroaded.
The Democrats have achieved what amounts to complete power in America. And the far left wing of the Democratic Party, led by Obama, are skirting if not violating the law in order to get their way. Numerous acts of intimidation and abuse of power are showing up everywhere you look. That includes at least two egregious acts that have come to light just this day - the intimidation of a witnesses and Obama's unilateral decision to fire the Inspector General (IG) for Americorps who had recently investigated and received a judgment against a major Obama supporter.
In the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies, we have seen extortion and strong arming from Obama and his "car czar" to trample on statutory and constitutional rights of secured creditors. With the nations major banks, we have seen the Obama administration refuse to allow repayment of loans and then use their control to influence bank decisions as regards Chrysler and GM. Even now, though allowing repayment, the government is maintaining warrants that they could exercise at any time to take over the effective ownership of every major banking institution in America. We have seen the White House take direct control of the 2010 census and insert the deeply corrupt ACORN into the counting process. We have seen the Obama DOJ make the inexplicable decision not to prosecute voter intimidation by the New Black Panthers. And we have the Obama DOJ ignoring a recent Supreme Court case and making decisions that can only further promote voter fraud.
In the House, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats repeatedly refused to allow ethics investigations of numerous Democratic lawmakers who are reeking with the stench of corruption. Indeed, even the NYT editorial board is starting to choke on that one. Tax fraud Charlie Rangel and "friend of Angelo" Chris Dodd still not only retain their seats in Congress, but their chairmanships. And we have the left protecting ACORN at every turn, cancelling hearings to investigate their corruption and insuring that all attempts to block robust funding of ACORN on the taxpayer's dime are rebuffed.
And today, there is more. First up are charges of witness intimidation. Democratic Rep. Ed Markey, co-author of the Waxman Cap and Trade bill, sent a letter to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission asking FERC to investigate MidAmerican Energy Holdings on the same day that company’s CEO was set to testify before the energy panel on the dangers of a carbon cap and trade system. In another instance, health care lobbyists were warned by two senior democratic staffers not to meet with the Republican leadership to discuss the proposed health care plan. As they reportedly said, doing so would be a "hostile act."
But by far the worst act is Obama's unilateral decision to fire Gerald Walpin, the Inspector General of AmeriCorps. An inspector generals job is to investigate for waste, fraud or abuse of federal funds. Walpin had recently investigated Kevin Johnson, an Obama supporter, and the nonprofit St. HOPE Academy that Johnson headed. Walpin found six instances of funds being diverted or wrongly used, none of which were disputed by Johnson. Walpin handed his findings over to the DOJ. The DOJ then found sufficient cause to order St. Hope to repay about half of nearly $847,000 in federal grants they had received from AmeriCorps. On the heels of that, not only did Obama act to fire Walpin, but Obama failed to comply with an act he voted for last year meant to protect Inspector Generals from political pressure. That law requires Obama to allow allow thirty days to pass after informing Congress of the intent to fire an IG, and to provide specific reasons for the firing. Obama did neither. Byron York has the definitive postings on this one. He also adds that this situation with Walpin may be the tip of the iceberg, stating that a "number of inspectors general around the government have been expressing concerns to Congress recently about threats to their independence."
On a final note, not included in the bill of particulars above are the highly questionable procedural games that the Democratic majority is playing in Congress. Major bills are not being written in committee. Instead, they are being written in secret by the far left wing of the Democratic party then pushed out with calls for an immediate vote. Nancy Pelosi virtually wrote the porkulus bill behind closed doors, and then referred to Republican complaints about the lack of bipartisanship in drafting the bill as mere "process arguments." And it is not just Republicans. The NYT reported last month "[f]orty-five House Democrats in the party’s moderate-to-conservative wing have protested the secretive process by which party leaders in their chamber are developing legislation to remake the health care system." Then there is Obama's proposal for ramming socialized medicine legislation through by grossly misusing the "budget reconciliation" procedure in the Senate.
Obama and the far left are drunk with power and vastly overreaching. Indeed, any number of Obama's acts to date would have, had they been done by Bush, resulted in substantive calls for impeachment. There is a reason Dafydd ab Hugh of Big Lizards tagged Obama as "Lucky Lefty." But with a press corps that more resembles a smitten school girl - indeed, so much so that one of the editors of the left wing SF Examiner is complaining - utterly none of these tyrannical acts designed to skirt law and democracy are being followed up by the MSM. This is not the hope and change Obama promised - but it is the reality his background clearly foreshadowed.
In response to Sarah Palin's speech last night, the Obama camp has downloaded its opposition research, which is vastly more spin than substance. Indeed, some of the attacks on Palin are ridiculous - from an alleged flip flop on her positions on energy to a claim that she has taken money from babies and cripples. If this is the best they've got, there is trouble in the left's utopian world.
You can find the entire list here. Its lengthy and a lot of it is spinning out of control. For example:
Palin said last night, "Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems - as if we all didn't know that already. But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all." The Obama camp notes that Palin said once before that we can drill our way out of the current mess. "Asked by Invester’s Business Daily "Some politicians and presidential candidates say we can't drill our way out of our energy problem and that drilling in ANWR will have no effect. What's your best guess of the impact on prices?" Palin responded, "I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can't drill our way out of our problem or that more supply won't ultimately affect prices. Of course it will affect prices. Energy being a global market, it's impossible to venture a guess on (specific) prices." [Investor’s Business Daily, 7/11/08]"
To give you an idea of how weak this opposition research is, that is the lead point. Actually, I am pretty sure she pushed alternatives and we know she is responsible for a natural gas pipeline. Regardless, while this may be a got’cha, the bottom line is anyone who believes we are not courting disaster by failing to start exploiting all of our resources and doing so now, in addition to pushing alternatives, is either grossly misguided or moves in the same circles as the leftist elite. The cost of energy goes directly to the economic health of Middle America, and while $4 a gallon for gas is fine by Obama, it is putting the absolute screws to the majority of Americans. If the left wants to make that their lead, let's have at it.
Another attack is to claim Gov. Palin kicks babies and steals crutches from Tiny Tim. The Obama Camp give a laundry list of funding for "crucial education, health care and senior" programs that Gov. Palin "opposed." The reality is that all the things that they list were on the budget of the outgoing Governor. Yes, she tossed that. The Weekly Standard tells the whole story:
What's gone unmentioned is that the Palin signed into law a dramatic reform of the state's education financing system that equalizes aid to rural and urban districts, while significantly increasing funding for special needs students. From the publication Education Week:
Gov. Sarah Palin and state lawmakers have gone ahead with an overhaul of Alaska’s school funding system that supporters predict will provide much-needed financial help to rural schools and those serving students with disabilities.
The plan, enacted in the recently concluded session of the legislature, is based on recommendations issued by a legislative task force last year. It will phase in a greater flow of money to districts outside of Anchorage, Alaska’s largest city, over the next five years.
Advocates for rural and remote schools have lobbied for years for more funding, in particular noting the higher fuel, transportation, and other costs associated with providing education in communities scattered across the vast state.
A second part of the measure raises spending for students with special needs to $73,840 in fiscal 2011, from the current $26,900 per student in fiscal 2008, according to the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development (emphasis added).
So the Netroots and CNN allege that Palin cut special needs funding by 62 percent, by crediting her with the budget proposed by a political opponent. And the truth is that rather than a 62 percent cut, she's actually increasing special needs funding by 175 percent.
If this opposition research and the talking points are looking a bit thin, wait, it gets thinner.
One of the major acts that Mayor Palin undertook in Wasilla was to propose the building of a $14 million sports center to be funded through a half percent sales tax increase. The ultimate decision makers on this were the citizens themselves in the penultimate form of democracy - a referendum. Yet the Obama Camp would have you believe that because the people of Wasilla decided that this would be a good idea, this amounts to Mayor Palin being a hypocrite on taxes and spending. As they write it, she massively increased the long term debt of the town and imposed a draconian tax increase.
Other swipes get even more remote. One of her appointees had, five years previously, been a lobbyist. At times, she had rubbed elbows with some of the same Alaska Republicans she later attacked. One Republican wished her ethics reform bill had been stronger. She actually reached across the aisle to get that passed. And of course troopergate gets mentioned prominently – without any of the context explained.
I do not have enough information to evaluate some of their charges – that she in fact has asked for quite a bit of pork as a Mayor. I do note the curious wording of the charge that Alaska has been seeking pork while she is the Governor. No kidding. Gov. Palin has no input into what Alaska’s Congressional delegation, the worst porkers in Congress, ask for on behalf of Alaska.
The last real laugher that I’ll include here is a charge that "Palin is Close to the Oil Industry." Now, as Governor, Sarah Palin is famous for tearing up the sweetheart deals that the oil industry had negotiated with the corrupt Republicans she had bounced from office. So one wonders how the Obama Camp can possibly justify this accusation:
Sierra Club Director Carl Pope Said "No One is Closer to the Oil Industry Than Governor Palin." "No one is closer to the oil industry than Governor Palin," said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club in comments reflecting the views of a cross section of environmental activists. They cite her eagerness to embrace expanded offshore oil development, her lawsuit against further protection of polar bears so as not to hinder oil drilling in Alaska's ice-filled waters and her ardent support to allow oil companies into the Alaska wildlife refuge. [Associated Press, August 30, 2008] . . .
Well, there you go. If the Sierra Club Director says it, that’s good enough for an Obama talking point.
I think the left is in trouble. In the absence of substance, they are obviously aiming to baffle us with bull patties about Sarah Palin from now til November. They have 90% of the media waiting to assist. We will see the outcome.
If you do not know the history of Troopergate, you can read up on this convuluted story at JoshuaPundit. The ethical question is whether Gov. Palin attempted to improperly influence her subordinates to get her out of control ex-brother in law fired from his job as a State Trooper. The matter is being investigated by a commission that is to issue its report on October 31. There have been two developments today and a crytstal clear breach of ethics.
One, Gov. Palin released an affidavit that has been filed in the case. The affidavit sets out the facts of the case. Having read the document, and assuming that the facts set out therein are true, then she has nothing to worry about. Indeed, the affidavit references statements from the other primary actors involved that completely exonerate the Governor. One person from her office did overstep his bounds in a phone call, but that person has indicated that he did so on his own. Apparently, Gov. Palin learned about that phone call after this investigation had already begun.
The commission investigation into this ethics complaint is another matter entirely. This is an ongoing investigation. As such, I can assure you that commenting on the state of the investigation is a serious ethical breach. Yet that is precisely what the person in charge of the investigation, Democratic State Senator David French, has done in an interview with ABC. It is just outrageous and, if ever there was a clear breach of ethics, we are seeing it here:
"The Governor first issued a blanket denial but now she's had to back down and that's a problem," said French. "She has a credibility problem," he said.
. . . French says the McCain campaign failed to contact any of the Senators involved in the investigation during the vetting process of Gov. Palin.
"If they had done their job they never would have picked her," said French. "Now they may have to deal with an October surprise," he said, referring to the scheduled release Oct. 31 of the committee's final report.
. . . The report is a preliminary step prior to any effort to impeach the Governor, said French.
"That will be for the legislature to decide," he said.
If this investigation results in a finding implicating the Governor in improper acts, so be it. We will learn that on Oct. 31, once all witnesses have been interviewed and findings made. But given French's comments above and his speculation on the findings of the investigation, he should be stripped of his position and be subjected to an ethics complaint himself. This truly is outrageous.
Energy is at the top of issues facting America today. There are two competing visions of how to approach this problem. As the Washington Post asks today, why not debate the issue and have a vote on it? Wouldn't that be both the democratic and ethical way to handle this problem in a democracy? But then again, who ever accused our current crop of far left Democrats holding the reigns of power of either embracing democracy or placing ethical concerns over partisan ones. ____________________________________________________
This from the Washington Post:
WHY NOT have a vote on offshore drilling? There's a serious debate to be had over whether Congress should lift the ban on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf that has been in place since 1981. Unfortunately, you won't be hearing it in the House of Representatives -- certainly, you won't find lawmakers voting on it -- anytime soon.
Instead of dealing with the issue on the merits, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a staunch opponent of offshore drilling, has simply decreed that she will not allow a drilling vote to take place on the House floor. Why not? "What the president would like to do is to have validation for his failed policy," she said yesterday when asked that very question. "What we're saying is, 'Exhaust other remedies, Mr. President.' . . . It is the economic life of America's families, and to suggest that drilling offshore is going to make a difference to them paycheck to paycheck now is a frivolous contention. The president has even admitted that. So what we're saying is, 'What can we do that is constructive?' "
If there is an explanation buried in there about why that makes offshore drilling off-limits for a vote, we missed it. Ms. Pelosi is correct that drilling is no panacea for the nation's energy woes. The short-term effect of lifting the moratorium, if there were any, would be minimal. That doesn't mean the country shouldn't consider expanded drilling as one of many alternatives. There are legitimate concerns about the environmental impact of such drilling -- environmental concerns that, we would note, exist in other regions whose oil Americans are perfectly happy to consume. But have technological improvements made such drilling less risky? Why not have that debate?
When they took the majority, House Democrats proclaimed that "bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives." Why not on drilling?
. . . If drilling opponents really have the better of this argument, why are they so worried about letting it come to a vote?
A round-up of interesting posts from around the web, all below the fold.
Art: Marathon, Carl Rottman, 1648 ______________________________________________________
Likelihood of Success: Ron Coleman ponders the massacre of students in Israel. I do not agree with his conclusion, but it is thoughtful, moral, and thus must be accorded great respect.
Soccer Dad: Retaliation for the massacre needs to be swift, far ranging and brutal. "[P]eace is impossible with Palestinian leaders for whom reconciliation is a one-way process."
Yourish: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ironic Surrealism: Heh. You might be a Taliban if . . . . (my favorite: "You wipe your butt with your bare left hand, but consider bacon ‘unclean.’")
Soob: The intersection of evolutionary psychology, polygamy and Muslim suicide bombers.
The Fulham Reactionary: How clueless is the chattering class in the UK? Perhaps you can discuss it while pondering the solution to racism as part of an interracial gathering for coffee and biscuits with the UK’s Culture Minister.
Sheik Yer’Mami: The latest in jihad news, including al Qaeda plants in London’s police force, hanging homosexuals in Iran, and UK’s odious Home Secretary banning Jews to appease the Islamists.
No Oil For Pacifists: Solid arguments for the efficacy of telecom immunity provisions in FISA.
Where there's smoke, there is the New York Times, a lighter, some dried bull patties for fuel and the Republican nominee for President. The NYT has done the mother of all hit pieces on McCain, implying an extra-marital affair 8 years ago, doing special favors for lobbyists, and raising the Keating 5 scandal from 20 years ago. They end by using a quote from McCain to imply that he is a "hypocrite."
The NYT page 1 lead today is an incredibly long 58 paragraph story entitled "For McCain, Self-Confidence On Ethics Poses Its Own Risks." It is an unusual title. But by using that title, the NYT is digging in the dirt a mile below the surface to find every fact that they can spin to make John McCain look like something other than a "straight talker." It is the mother of all hit pieces. This is not reporting, its agenda journalism. Do read it here.
The NYT insinuates that McCain had an affair with Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist, eight years ago. The NYT has uncovered nothing that could be called evidence under any possible definition of that word. McCain denies it. Iseman denies. No one the NYT interviews asserts that there was an affair. At no point do McCain or Iseman ask the NYT reporters to define the words such as "affair," "sexual relations" or even "is." The NYT does not establish any time when McCain and Iseman were even alone together. The sited sources the NYT dredges up that even suggest an appearance of impropriety are anonymous. Yet the NYT spends the bulk of their 58 paragraphs dredging up every fact they can to suggest otherwise.
The NYT replays the facts of the Keating 5 scandal from 20 years ago in which McCain played a minor role and for which he received a reprimand. Those facts are well known and in the public record. They are hardly front page news today. In fact, I would think the facts rank ever so slightly below drug use.
There is no indication whatsoever that, post Keating 5, McCain has ever done any favors for lobbyists in situations where his own views of what was best for the nation differed from the act being asked for by the lobbyist. Yet despite that, the NYT examines every personal tie that McCain has to every lobbyist, implying without citation to a single instance that McCain acted inappropriately. The NYT tells us that there are lobbyists working for McCain. Yet, once you get very near the 58th paragraph, the NYT finally tells us that McCain has often gone against the desires of lobbyists with whom he had any sort of relationship. Smoke by the cubic mile, innuendo by the dump truck full, facts in support thereof - zero.
You have to love this bit of hyper partisan reporting. After bringing up the Keating 5, allegations of an affair with a lobbyist, and allegations of favoritism to lobbyists in general, the NYT writes:
With his nomination this year all but certain, though, he is reminding voters again of his record of reform. His campaign has already begun comparing his credentials with those of Senator Barack Obama, a Democratic contender who has made lobbying and ethics rules a centerpiece of his own pitch to voters.
Credentials? To call what Obama has "credentials" stretches the meaning of the term beyond recognition. Obama has no credentials for the job of presidency. What Obama has is some small record - and I can't wait to see the details of that comparison.
So far, in the past year, we have Obama voting against our national security to support the tort bar in their attempt to strip the immunity provisions from the FISA reform bill, we have him voting against a free trade pact with South Korea in support of the Unions, we have him voting for the Unions to strip employees of their right to decide whether to unionize by secret ballot. And that is the tip of the iceberg. What about the near 100 million in earmarks Obama has asked for this year. Do any of those earmarks feed into campaign donors? When one looks at the differential between Obama's rhetoric and his reality, it becomes no difficult feat to imagine his photo in Webster's under the entry for "hypocrisy." What pure and unmitigated bullshit this is.
The rule in writing a story designed to influence your audience is to close with the strongest line you have - the one you want your listeners to most remember. So how does the NYT, after 58 paragraphs of smoke but no fire, end their article - with a mea culpa to its readers for printing this tabloid trash? Of course not.
"Any hint that I might have acted to reward a supporter,” [McCain] wrote, “would be taken as an egregious act of hypocrisy."
And there is no question whatsoever that the timing is significant. The NYT regularly holds their bombshells so that they will land at precisely the time to do the most damage. How many confidential leaks, held in some cases up to a year, have we seen published on the eve of major votes - or on the eve of the 2004 election. The vast majority of the "facts" reported in this piece are between 8 and 20 years old. This 58 paragraph piece of trash was timed to insure that it does not derail McCain's bid for the nomination, but to completely delegitimize him before he can begin to attack Obama. What utter low life scum slither through the halls of the NYT? Their stock value cannot reach $1 a share quick enough for me.
Update2: Here is the video of John McCain's response to the NYT hit piece in a news conference today:
Update 3: From the Politico - "Aides to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) have released a remarkable 1,500-word document outlining what his campaign calls 'some of the facts that were provided to The New York Times but did not end up in the story.'" See the full text here.
Update1: TNR has the backstory on the NYT hitpiece as well as some observations of their own:
Beyond its revelations, however, what's most remarkable about the article is that it appeared in the paper at all: The new information it reveals focuses on the private matters of the candidate, and relies entirely on the anecdotal evidence of McCain's former staffers to justify the piece--both personal and anecdotal elements unusual in the Gray Lady. The story is filled with awkward journalistic moves--the piece contains a collection of decade-old stories about McCain and Iseman appearing at functions together and concerns voiced by McCain's aides that the Senator shouldn't be seen in public with Iseman--and departs from the Times' usual authoritative voice. At one point, the piece suggestively states: "In 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, 'Why is she always around?'" In the absence of concrete, printable proof that McCain and Iseman were an item, the piece delicately steps around purported romance and instead reports on the debate within the McCain campaign about the alleged affair.
And now John McCain has responded to this story at a press conference he called in Toledo. Here is the story from Fox News:
With his wife, Cindy, standing by his side, John McCain lashed out Thursday at a report in The New York Times that revisits the Republican presidential candidate’s relationship with a female lobbyist, and rebuked the paper for spreading false rumors.
The Times article described how campaign aides kept him and lobbyist Vicki Iseman apart during the 2000 election for fear they were giving the impression they were having an affair. It noted how McCain wrote to government regulators on behalf of a client of the lobbyist while he was chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.
McCain called a press conference in Toledo, Ohio, to slam the paper for embellishing his committee activities on Iseman’s behalf.
“I’m very disappointed in The New York Times piece. It’s not true,” he said.
. . . The article, published in Thursday’s edition of the Times but released the day before on its Web site, rehashes rumors spread during McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign.
. . . McCain, 71, and Iseman, 40, long ago denied ever having a romantic relationship, . . .
The Arizona senator said his campaign had been repeatedly contacted by the newspaper about the story.
“For months The New York Times has submitted questions and we have answered them fully and exhaustively, and unfortunately many of those answers were not included in the rather long piece in the New York Times,” he said.
McCain lamented that “this whole story is based on anonymous sources,” saying that could encompass any of the more than 100 aides he’s had contact with through the Commerce Committee.
The newspaper quoted anonymous aides as saying they had urged McCain and Iseman to stay away from each other prior to his failed presidential campaign in 2000. In its own follow-up story, The Washington Post quoted longtime aide John Weaver, who split with McCain last year, as saying he met with lobbyist Iseman and urged her to steer clear of McCain.
Weaver told the Times he arranged the meeting before the 2000 campaign after “a discussion among the campaign leadership” about Iseman.
Speaking with FOX News, Weaver said he met with Iseman at Union Station in either 1999 or 2000, he can’t remember which year, for about five minutes. The nature of the conversation was not about romantic involvement, but instead about how she was going around telling people how much enormous influence she had on McCain.
As a campaign professional, he said he didn’t want anyone saying they had influence over McCain so he met with her and told her to quit boasting, especially since McCain was making lobbying legislation at the time. Weaver said the conversation with Iseman and other related topics were well vetted by The Boston Globe during the New Hampshire primary in 2000.
But McCain said he was unaware of any such conversation, and denied that his aides ever tried to talk to him about his interactions with Iseman.
. . . Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign manager in 2000, told FOX News on Thursday that the campaign never had deep concerns about the relationship with Iseman or allegations of illicit favors for her client.
“I never had a single instance where this was a major issue in our campaign or any kind of an issue. And the idea that a decade later they have somehow uncovered some kind of a mystery is ridiculous,” Davis said.
Campaign spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker likened the report to a “kind of gutter politics.”
“There is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career,” she said.
Davis said the newspaper “didn’t say that there was anything improper here. They just tried to imply it. They didn’t say he had done anything for this lobbyist or this lobbying firm but they tried to imply it. If they are going to go this kind of route, why don’t they tell us where they got the information?”
. . . The McCain stories also allege that the Arizona senator wrote letters and pushed legislation involving television station ownership that would have benefited Iseman’s clients.
In late 1999, McCain twice wrote letters to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Florida-based Paxson Communications — which had paid Iseman as its lobbyist — urging quick consideration of a proposal to buy a television station license in Pittsburgh. At the time, Paxson’s chief executive, Lowell W. “Bud” Paxson, also was a major contributor to McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign.
McCain did not urge the FCC commissioners to approve the proposal, but he asked for speedy consideration of the deal, which was pending from two years earlier. In an unusual response, then-FCC Chairman William Kennard complained that McCain’s request “comes at a sensitive time in the deliberative process” and “could have procedural and substantive impacts on the commission’s deliberations and, thus, on the due process rights of the parties.”
McCain addressed the letters Thursday, saying: “I said I’m not telling you how to make a decision; I’m just telling you that you should move forward and make a decision on this issue. I believe that was appropriate.”
Operation Iron Harvest is going on in Northern Iraq to push al Qaeda out of their final footholds. The Washington Post reports that the operation has resulted in 60 insurgents killed and over 200 captured during the past week. The NYT apparently missed the briefing.
The NYT is a case study in the failure of journalistic ethics and yellow journalism. Their latest the other day was a lead story clearly meant "to convince Americans that combat experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan are turning troops into murderers when they come home." True, returning vets committed or are charged with 121 murders in the United States since our current wars began. But, as Ralph Peters points out – but the Times does not – in context that means our soldiers "are five times less likely to commit a murder than their demographic peers."
And according to the NYT in an editorial yesterday, Iraq and the surge are no longer of importance to the general election. The Weekly Standard sees it a bit differently. "As the surge in Iraq has succeeded, the presidential campaign of John McCain has risen from the ashes. This is no coincidence, and the message is simple and unmistakable. The surge is now a powerful force in American politics. In the jargon of the 2008 presidential race, it's a game-changer."
The Iraqi Minister of Defense sees a security need for U.S. troops in Iraq for about another decade. He estimates that Iraq "will be able to take full control of the internal affairs of the country" by 2012. "[R]egarding protection from any external threats, our calculation appears that we are not going to be able to answer to any external threats until 2018 to 2020." The Defense Minister made these statements as the U.S. and Iraq negotiate U.S. troop presence in the country following the end of the UN mandate.
Bringing much needed sanity to the tort bar’s the search for deep pockets irrespective of responsibility is the Supreme Court with its 5-3 decision in Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta. The court held that third party actors and business associates of the corporate entity that committed fraud cannot be held liable for the fraud if investors did not rely on their statements in making an investment decision. Read the entire decision here.
The spectre of Islamic radicalism in Pakistan is very much a Frankenstein’s monster. Radicalism was nurtured in Pakistan by Pakistan’s ISI and funded by Saudi Arabia to produce militants useful in pressuring India and controlling Afghanistan. But those radicals have long since cut the imbelical cord, and the ISI itself is suspect.
In the People’s Republic of California, the state plans to take control of the thermostats. One is both amazed at the incredible hubris of the left and the amount of damage and mischief their schemes of centralized control for the greater good of mankind inevitably portent.
Posts
