Impeachable Offense Trial Overseen by Eric Holder’s Crony?
Brian Fitzpatrick, WorldNetDaily
Fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin is asking that his lawsuit challenging his abrupt and apparently illegal dismissal by the Obama administration be reinstated – and he wants a new judge assigned to the case.
A Washington Times editorial published Sept. 1 suggests that District Judge Richard W. Roberts has not presided over Walpin’s case with professional impartiality.
The editorial details extensive personal and professional ties between Roberts and Obama Attorney General Eric Holder, the boss of the Department of Justice lawyers defending the administration against Walpin’s suit.
According to the Times, Roberts and Holder have been close personal friends for decades.
Roberts worked for Holder in the Department of Justice during the Clinton administration, and Holder helped Roberts ascend to the federal bench in 1998.
White House Special Counsel Norman L. Eisen removed Walpin from his office as inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Services in June 2009.
The dismissal came several months after Walpin submitted two reports that proved highly embarrassing to the Obama administration.
The more prominent report found that Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson, a Obama supporter, had misused more than $800,000 in federal grant money while running a Sacramento charter school, St. HOPE Academy. The government subsequently suspended Johnson’s eligibility for receiving federal funding.
Obama’s attorney fired Walpin without providing Congress the written explanation and the 30 days notice required by the Inspector General Reform Act – a law co-sponsored by then-Sen. Obama to protect inspectors general from political interference and retaliation. Walpin sued to be reinstated.
Obama’s Taliban Bailout
Kevin “Coach” Collins, Coach Is Right
A spokeswoman for the Treasury Department insists “No American taxpayer funds will be used to support [a] Kabul Bank.” Let’s hope this is one promise from these people we can count on because there will be serious consequences if Obama reverses himself.
The banks in Afghanistan must be controlled by the United States or our allies so they do not fall under the influence of the Taliban who will use sharia law to run them instead of accepted banking principles. Under sharia the terrorist Taliban will pull out 2.5% of every dollar handled by Afghanistan’s banks.
What Shari’a banks would look like
Shari’a banks run on the principles of Islam in every single aspect of their activities.
These banks would; charge no interest; avoid any speculative transactions; introduce and collect the Islamic tax called zakat and; discourage any production of tangible assets offensive to Islamic values.
In its purest state Islam is a huge redistribution scheme under which the zakat serves as a way to extract money from faithful Muslims to create the image of being a charitable religion. There is no choice for adherent Muslims when it comes to paying their zakat. Its monitory nature means a zakat can not justifiably be called an act of charity. Since zakat is 2.5% of a Muslim’s annual wages, lots of dollars would pass through Islamist bankers’ hands which would turn them into paymasters of terror.
The men who would be Afghanistan’s banking advisory board….
Liberal Pastors: Talk of Obama’s Religion Should be “Suppressed”
Dr. Paul Kengor, The Center for Vision and Values
I got the email in late afternoon. “In a major liberal initiative to curtail discussion of President Obama’s religious identity,” the email began, “over 70 Christian leaders and denominational heads have signed a letter saying that questions about the religious philosophy of the president of the United States should be ignored and suppressed by the major media.”
This couldn’t be correct. No doubt another internet hoax by the vast right-wing conspiracy. I wasn’t taking the bait.
Rather than hit delete, however, I took a moment to open the hyperlink. Lo and behold, the letter (click here), signed by over 70 self-described “Christian pastors and leaders,” proclaimed:
[W]e are deeply troubled by the recent questioning of President Obama’s faith…. [T]he personal faith of our leaders should not be up for public debate…. Therefore, we urge public officials, faith leaders, and the media to offer no further support or airtime to those who misrepresent and call into question the president’s Christian faith.
Likewise remarkable was the letter’s appeal to political neutrality. “This is not a political issue,” the pastors insisted.
The letter was posted at the website of Eleison Group, whose president, Burns Strider, offers faith-based political advice to Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. Signers include Jim Wallis, who is synonymous with faith and politics, widely known for his group Sojourners and bestseller God’s Politics.
Most striking is the letter’s stunning demand that the media offer no airtime to anyone questioning the president’s faith, even as this president has arguably the most unconventional faith profile of any president in history, understandably creating confusion among the public.
No airtime? Obviously, such a demand presents a host of thorny considerations, beginning, of course, with the First Amendment.
Conduct Unbecoming: 8 Questions About New Obama Blockbuster
The Daily Caller
Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson is the author of the new book, Conduct Unbecoming: How Barack Obama is Destroying the Military and Endangering Our Security, to be released on Sept. 7.
During his 20 years on active duty, the former lieutenant colonel participated in combat operations in Grenada, Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, and Bosnia, and as senior military aide to President Bill Clinton, was responsible for the “Nuclear Football.” Since retiring from the Air Force in 2001, Patterson has authored two New York Times bestsellers, Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America’s National Security and Reckless Disregard: How Liberal Democrats Undercut Our Military, Endanger Our Soldiers, and Jeopardize Our Security.
Patterson recently agreed to answer eight questions from The Daily Caller about his new book:
1) Why did you decide to write this book?
I wrote my first book, Dereliction of Duty, detailing my experiences working as a military aide at the side of President Bill Clinton as a warning from a commissioned military officer to his nation. I was an eyewitness to the contempt the Clintons had for the military, his indifference to national security issues except insofar as they served his own political and personal purposes and his failures to accept his responsibilities as our commander in chief. As I outlined in Dereliction of Duty, I lay the blame for the attacks of September 11, 2001 fully at the feet of Bill Clinton, and I felt an obligation to tell that story.
Now, I see history repeating itself in the presidency of Barack Obama. Only this time the misconduct and the dereliction of duty of Obama and his administration could lead to far worse devastation than we suffered in the wake of Clinton and 9/11. I wrote my new book – Conduct Unbecoming: How Barack Obama is Destroying the Military and Endangering Our Security – because I’ve seen this all before only this time it’s worse, much worse. Our nation and our military deserve so much more, so much better. I believe Obama’s foreign policy record so far and his agenda for the future are extremely deleterious to our national security, and need to be reversed in the elections of November 2010 and 2012.
2) Did you expect President Obama to do better on national security matters than you believe he has to date?
I certainly hoped he would be better then he has been to date. From my perspective as a military analyst, it seems that a unifying theme of Democrat Presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, is a consistent underestimating of foreign policy dangers. Obama appears to believe that by the sheer force of his own personality and his serial apologies for the behavior of his predecessor he can encourage our enemies to drop their hostility towards us. So far, that doesn’t seem to be working and he seems to be failing miserably. In fact, if anything, his performance to date seems to have only increased our enemies’ contempt for us as is seen in the dismissive reactions of Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.
I also hoped he would be a strong commander in chief, a leader worthy of our military, and one that not only empathized with our servicemen and women but actually understood them. Quite frankly, to this point he doesn’t seem to have a clue as to what it means to lead the nation or our armed forces during wartime. In fact, he is only the second American president in the last sixty years not to have served in the armed forces, the other being Bill Clinton, and it shows. He’s a politician, a “community organizer,” who now commands the greatest and most powerful military in the world and he seems very uncomfortable with that responsibility.
As someone who used to train Air Force officers, I would judge him, from his public record, as someone unqualified to command even a squadron of a few hundred airmen – that is if he’d ever considered serving his nation as an Air Force officer, which of course, he never did. He’s in way over his head and it shows. When the airmen and the privates in the trenches can see it, and they do, he has some serious leadership challenges that, so far, he has failed to meet.
3) Your book discusses how President Obama and his administration have failed to appropriately identify the enemy America is fighting. How so and how do you think this has affected our global fight against Islamist extremism?
You can’t win a war if you’re unwilling or unable to identify the enemy. We have a president that, during the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, wanted to kick the “ass” of British Petroleum but doesn’t want to kick the ass of an ideological enemy sworn to defeat us, which murders innocents and suppresses human rights around the globe. Obama has a thin skin. He has shown a tendency to lash out angrily at his opponents — Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Tea Partiers, BP, Republicans, “fat cats” on Wall Street, and the state of Arizona, to name a few. But when it comes to identifying America’s real enemies — the ones fighting and killing Americans every day — he just can’t muster an interest in the fight.
When Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan shot forty-three fellow soldiers, killing thirteen and wounding thirty, at Fort Hood, Texas while shouting “Allahu Akbar,” Obama could only surmise that it was a “senseless act of violence.” The Department of Defense’s 86-page report following the massacre did not contain a single reference to “Islam,” “Muslim,” “Sharia,” or “Koran” although Major Hasan had a history of making anti-American statements based on his radical Islamic beliefs and is a known follower of Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, himself an American terrorist inciting jihad from his hole in Yemen.
The Pentagon’s 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, the 128-page report that lays out America’s future military strategy and the force structure necessary to fight the nation’s wars, contains not a single mention of “Islam,” “Islamic,” or “Islamist.” Similarly, the Obama administration’s official National Security Strategy released in May, 2010 targets “climate change” as a national security priority, while making no references to radical Islamic terrorism.
How can you win a war when you are unwilling to identify the enemy? The simple answer is: you can’t.
Ex-Car Czar: Obama “Out to Get” GM
Chris Stirewalt, Fox News
Key points from the article and excerpts:
- When Obama was told of the plan to pay GM CEO Rick Wagoner a $7.1 million severance package after Obama ordered that he be sacked, Rattner writes: “Suddenly I felt that I was indeed in the presence of a community organizer…”
- Rattner describes presidential political adviser David Axelrod coming to car meetings armed with poll data to support the takeover and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel identify Congressmen in whose districts large Chrysler facilities were located.
- “[Obama's economic team] veered dangerously close to having the government take control of the two most troubled banks, Bank of America and Citigroup.”
- “If his team had linked arms with the outgoing administration, as President Bush’s advisers had proposed, billions of dollars could well have been saved.”
Obama’s Back Door Reparations
Kevin “Coach” Collins, Coach Is Right
There are certain things Barack Obama can do and there are other things even he can’t do overtly that is.
There is every reason to believe that at least some sizable portion of the 95% of Blacks who voted for Obama did so in hopes that a Black president would jab his hand into America’s pocket and pull up a wad of money to be turned over to the decedents of slaves. This has been a dream of Black America at least since the 1890’s when it was fought and defeated by the Union veterans who felt they had given former slaves enough on the Civil War’s battle fields, and who could disagree.
The Union dead statistics were a horrendous 75 combat dead a day every day for four straight years. When deaths from disease and injuries are added the number climbs to 115 per day.
Now Black America has “its” president and many Black Americans want the reparations they feel they are “due.”
Pigford v. Glickman
The sneaky plan Obama has for delivering “reparations” to “aggrieved” descendants of slaves involves having the Federal government roll over in a class action suit designed to “compensate” Black farmers. The case is Pigford v. Glickman (PvG).
Obama extended the sign up period to join the plaintiffs and what do you know? Five times the number of Black farmers who are actually Black farmers have joined the fun.
The gibberish of this case says that between 1983 and 1997 Black farmers were discriminated against by the government in its farm loan program. The original settlement called for each plaintiff who proved his case to get $50,000.
Obama’s Birthplace Might Be an “Embarrassment,” Lakin’s Judge Says
Thom Redmond, WorldNetDaily.
A career officer in the U.S. Army acting as a judge in the prosecution of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin today ruled that the military is no place for Barak Obama’s presidential eligibility to be evaluated.
Army Col. Denise R. Lind today ruled in a hearing regarding the evidence to be allowed in the scheduled October court-martial of Lakin that he will be denied access to any of Obama’s records as well as any testimony from those who may have access to the records.
With her decision, Lind mirrored a number of federal judges who have ruled on civil lawsuits over Obama’s eligibility. They have without exception denied the plaintiffs’ access to any requested documentation regarding the president’s eligibility.
Lind ruled that it was “not relevant” for the military to be considering such claims, that the laws allegedly violated by Lakin were legitimate on their face and that the chain of command led up to the Pentagon, and that should have been sufficient for Lakin.
Paul Rolf Jensen, Lakin’s civilian attorney, said the case would continue. But he said the courts now have denied his client the opportunity to present his defense.
Jensen had argued that under U.S.C. Rule 46, a defendant put on court martial has the right to call any and all witnesses and obtain any evidence in his or her defense.
Lind, who took 40 minutes to read her decision to the court, disagreed.
She said opening up such evidence could be an “embarrassment” to the president, and it’s up to Congress to call for impeachment of a sitting president.
The NAACP is Watching You
Matthew Boyle, Daily Caller
The NAACP partnered with Media Matters, Think Progress and New Left Media to launch teapartytracker.org, a website that will specifically publish and monitor “racism and other forms of extremism within the Tea Party movement.”
Media Matters and Think Progress representatives said their content and reporting haven’t changed and that the NAACP approached their organizations seeking only to republish select content they’ve produced. The NAACP’s new teapartytracker.org is aimed specifically at highlighting “racism” in the Tea Party.
New Left Media, the duo of Chase Whiteside and Erick Stoll who use a “Trojan trick” to get interviews with Tea Partiers, is also a partner organization on the new site.
As for what Media Matters, New Left Media, Think Progress and the NAACP plan to do with teapartytracker.org, Think Progress editor Faiz Shakir and Media Matters Vice President for Research and Communications Ari Rabin-Havt said the NAACP contacted them about sharing content related to the Tea Party.
Shakir said the website isn’t meant to attack the Tea Party, only to “hold it accountable.”
“When they display intolerance and the kinds of racial signs that we’ve seen and the kinds of angry rhetoric, there’s nobody pushing back on that rhetoric or to check the record or fact-check it,” Shakir said. “I think it [the website] should be viewed in light of the NAACP being opposed to the intolerant elements of the Tea Party.”
Is the “Birther” Movement Dead?
Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily
Barack Obama’s many friends in the media establishment are getting increasingly desperate in light of a string of public opinion polls all showing one thing clearly – Americans do not believe his birth story.
There have been some creative attempts to put a positive spin on the fact that only 42 percent of Americans think Obama is telling the truth about his nativity – but none so creative as this one from the New York Daily News. In the annals of news people being in the tank for Obama, this up there with the tingles on Chris Matthews’ leg.
The headline on the Michael Sheridan story said it all: "Could the ‘birther’ movement be dead?"
Talk about wishful thinking!
"Could the ‘birther’ movement be fading away?" asked the lead of the story.
What could possibly lead anyone to believe such a hypothesis in light of the remarkable polls showing the "birthers" have won – despite the 100 percent, lockstep ridicule hurled at it from the media establishment?
No Obama birth certificate among passport documents
By Jerome R. Corsi, World Net Daily
Passport documents for Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro recently released by the State Department did not include any birth-certificate documentation for Barack Obama, despite a memorandum in the file claiming he was born in Honolulu.
The released documents indicate Dunham’s husband, Lolo Soetoro, petitioned the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the State Department in 1967 to obtain a waiver to return to the United States to rejoin his wife and her infant son, Barack Obama Jr.
A WND timeline drawn from the State Department’s July 29 Freedom of Information Act release of passport documents indicates Lolo Soetoro returned to Indonesia July 20, 1966, after completing his studies at the University of Hawaii. Soetoro was required to complete a mandatory two-year residence requirement in Indonesia before he could be granted a visa to return to the U.S.
In an apparent attempt to establish the nationality of Barack Obama Jr., a person named Mix submitted a poorly typed and difficult-to-decipher memo to the file, dated Sept. 14, 1967, without identifying any official position he or she may have held with State Department at that time.
