Calls Grow For Geithner To Resign Or Be Fired

Calls Grow For Geithner To Resign Or Be Fired

March 18th, 2009 Posted By drillanwr.



Florida Republican Rep. Connie Mack called for Treasury Sec. Tim Geithner to lose his job Wednesday, becoming the first Capitol Hill lawmakers to call for his ouster over AIG’s using tens of millions of taxpayer dollars for executive bonuses.

“Quite simply, the Timothy Geithner experience has been a disaster. The Treasury Department is in disarray. Taxpayer dollars are being wasted. America’s economy hangs in the balance. America needs and deserves a treasury secretary who can truly lead us forward,” Mack said in a written statement.

He called on Geithner, the former New York Federal Reserve chief, either to resign or be fired, and said President Obama should nominate a new secretary with “the experience and leadership skills America deserves.”

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday that Obama has “complete confidence” in Geithner, as lawmakers began to question why the Treasury Department didn’t do more to prevent American International Group from paying $165 million in bonuses even after receiving more than $170 billion in federal bailout money.

Though the administration claims Geithner found out about the bonuses only last Tuesday, Mack suggested he was more involved.

“Before Timothy Geithner became secretary of the Treasury, he was working hand-in-hand with AIG and other financial institutions to provide them hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money as one of the key architects of the financial sector bailout,” he said. “I’ve had serious concerns about Secretary Geithner from the moment he was nominated. In the months since, he has shown us time and again why he was the wrong choice for this critical post.”

Geithner faced criticism during his nomination over personal tax problems but ultimately won confirmation

Guilty as Hell, Free as a Bird (for now)

Guilty as Hell, Free as a Bird (for now)

By James Simpson

Bill Ayers’ famous quip may come back to haunt him. There is no statute of limitations on murder charges.

On February 16, 1970, someone planted a bomb at San Francisco’s Park Police Station. It was placed in a window of the business office and timed to explode at shift change, when the maximum number of officers would be there, either finishing up or starting their work.


It was a powerful blast, throwing one officer in the station parking lot completely over his patrol car and sending shrapnel for over two city blocks. The bomb fortunately detonated a few minutes early so the destruction was less than it might have been. Still, nine were wounded, one — Officer Robert Fogarty — badly enough that he retired from the force on disability, and one, Sergeant Brian McDonnell, 45 year old married father of two, was killed.


On Thursday, March 12, 2009, Cliff Kincaid of America’s Survival Inc. held a press conference at the National Press Club, launching the Campaign for Justice for Victims of Weather Underground Terrorism, to focus public attention on evidence that may finally bring the alleged perpetrators to justice: Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.


He has a lot of support. In a letter to Mr. Kincaid’s group, the San Francisco’s Police Officer’s Association writes:


There are irrefutable and compelling reasons to believe that Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn, members of the terrorist group ‘Weather Underground’, are largely responsible for the bombing of Park Police Station and other police stations throughout the United States during their ‘tour of terror’ in the late 1960s and early 1970s.


This case has been reopened and evidence is being gathered. Meetings have been held among local and state authorities, including current and former law enforcement officials, to obtain justice. That is why the “Campaign for Justice for Victims of Terrorism” held this press conference. They want to bring pressure on Obama’s Justice Department, now headed by former Clinton Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, to release all of the evidence in their possession.


It’s true that some evidence in the past that could have been used against the Weather Underground was ruled inadmissible — because of the way it was collected, not because of its veracity. But there is much more that can and should be used. The belief is that it lies in the Justice Department or the FBI.


This is where a problem emerges. In addition to the outrageous pardons of fugitive criminal Marc Rich and 16 FALN terrorists, Holder provided key assistance to two Weather Underground members implicated in the Brinks Robbery murders, pardoning them quietly along with Rich — who of course got all the headlines.


Given the Attorney General’s apparent sympathy for terrorists, and Bill Ayers’ perceived status as President Obama’s friend and mentor, the Justice Department may be reluctant to provide all of the evidence in the Park Station bombing case unless they are forced to do so.


Under the Bush Administration, such a press conference would not have been necessary. After all, the federal authorities under Bush provided evidence and assistance that resulted in the 2007 arrests and indictments of members of the Black Liberation Army for the murder of another San Francisco policeman, John Young, in 1971. That case is now underway.


A process of evidence-gathering has been underway in the McDonnell case as well. But now that Obama and Holder are in power, that process could come to a screeching halt. That was the reason for the March 12 America’s Survival, Inc. news conference — to make sure that federal assistance doesn’t stop and that it accelerates. One hope is that FBI Director Robert Mueller, who is technically independent of Obama and Holder since his contract runs through 2011, can act on his own to obtain and make available all the evidence that is needed in this case.


Featured at the event were individuals with critical knowledge of both the bombing and the people involved. Larry Grathwohl, a former undercover FBI informant, is best remembered for his chilling 1980s testimony describing how Ayers told him that once the revolution succeeded they would have to murder 25 million Americans.


In his book, Bringing Down America – An FBI Informer with the Weathermen, Grathwohl describes a meeting where Ayers reveals Dohrn’s role in the bombing. It was in the context of a complaint that other Weathermen were slackers:


“Too many of you are relying on your leaders to do everything,” he said sternly. Then …he mentioned the park station bombing. “It was a success,” he said, “but it’s a shame when someone like Bernardine has to make all the plans, make the bomb, and then place it herself. She should have to do only the planning.”


This book repeated sworn testimony Grathwohl had provided before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee in 1974. His testimony has been consistent for decades — Ayers told him that Dohrn planted the bomb, and Ayers had detailed knowledge of its make-up and where it was placed. Such knowledge could have come only from the bomber, or from someone who assisted in building the bomb.


In its 2007-2008 biennial report, the California Department of Justice confirmed the case is open and added that the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. has been asked to analyze fingerprint evidence from the scene of the Park Station bombing.  Page 16 of the report reads:


In 2000, the SFPD reopened its investigation into the bombing of the Park Police Station and requested investigative assistance from the DOJ. The DOJ’s Bureau of Forensic Services was also assigned to identify a latent print collected from the original crime scene.


We don’t know at this point whose fingerprints those are. But we do know the FBI obtained the fingerprints of Ayers, his comrade Mark Rudd, and other Weather Underground members at a bomb factory in San Francisco (see final page of this PDF report).  


According to FBI sources, Grathwohl’s testimony was corroborated by another Weather Underground source, Karen Latimer, who apparently had second thoughts about her participation in the violent group’s activities and gave her story to the police. Unfortunately, Latimer died sometime later under questionable circumstances.


A bit earlier, in January of 1970, Grathwohl had listened as Ayers described to him plans for the bombing of two police stations in Detroit, Michigan. As he related to the FBI agents on the case:


Bill Ayers had debriefed me regarding every aspect of the plans we had developed before telling me I was being reassigned to Madison.  Bill’s two major requirements were that the bombs go off at the same time and that the greatest number of police officers would be killed or injured.  Both bombs were to contain fence staples or roofing nails to ensure this effect. Bill Ayers didn’t care if innocent people were also killed or injured. Bill had even gone so far as to tell us that the bomb at the 13th precinct should be placed on a window ledge. [As they later did at the park station bombing.]


Those bombs fortunately failed to detonate. Larry’s press conference statement can be viewed here.


Larry’s description of the bomb components, particularly the use of fence staples, got the attention of retired San Francisco police officer Jim Pera. Pera was one of the first on the scene the day of the bombing and described the scene:


The window to the business office and an interior window, where prisoners were processed for booking were blown out. The walls and furniture were pock marked by shrapnel. Barbed wire fence post staples, from the bomb, were scattered throughout the ground floor of the station. Blood was all over the floor, desks and walls and was heaviest where Sergeant Brian V. McDonnell  suffered mortal wounds to his neck, eyes, face and brain.


Pera also recovered a piece of evidence, a fence staple identical to the type described by Larry Grathwohl, as shown below.

fence staple

He went on to relate:


The station looked like a scene one might expect to see in a war, with wounded officers, blood, shattered windows, damaged walls, floors and ceilings, but then — it was a war. It was indeed an urban war and it was being conducted by subversive and murderous groups, such as the Weather Underground, whose doctrine advocated the overthrow of the U.S. government, by any means, including murder and assassination, with the goal of replacing it with communism, and by their allies in the Black Liberation Army, whose primary purpose was to kill police officers and destroy our system of government as we know it.

Jim Pera

Jim Pera was right on the money.  They were part of an international conspiracy. Cliff Kincaid, with the assistance of veteran Congressional investigator Herbert Romerstein, have done yeoman’s work in documenting the Weather Underground’s treasonous activities, including multiple trips made by Ayers and other Weathermen to Cuba and North Vietnam to meet with their communist handlers, some of them from the Cuban  intelligence service, the DGI, and even the Soviet KGB.  
Photo by Kevin Lamb
Ayers and Dohrn have not reformed at all since turning themselves in. In fact, Ayers in particular is now traveling often to the “new Cuba” — Venezuela.

As Kincaid relates, Ayers has visited Venezuela multiple times to give “education seminars” where he was hailed as:


… a former leader of a “revolutionary and anti-imperialist group” that “brought an armed struggle to the USA for more than 10 years from within the womb of the empire.” He returned to the U.S. after hailing “Presidente Chavez,” to resume his brainwashing activities at the University of Illinois at Chicago.


Not surprisingly, Ayers has described Chavez’s Venezuela in glowing terms. At the World Education Forum in Venezuela, he concluded his speech with the following gem:


…we, too, must build a project of radical imagination and fundamental change. Venezuela is poised to offer the world a new model of education- a humanizing and revolutionary model whose twin missions are enlightenment and liberation…. Viva Mission Sucre! Viva Presidente Chavez! Viva La Revolucion Bolivariana! Hasta La Victoria Siempre!


Ayers’ adopted son, Chesa Boudin (offspring of Weathermen Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, (the latter is still in prison) has worked extensively in Venezuela as “a foreign policy advisor to the Chavez government” – without registering as a foreign agent as required by the U.S. government — and is co-author of a propaganda book, The Venezuelan Revolution: 100 Questions and 100 Answers. As the book review describes it, the authors: “demonstrate considerable sympathy for Chavez and his efforts, and are ultimately dedicated to revealing Chavez as a legitimately elected patriot bent on social justice…” 

Chesa Boudin is seen as a key part of the emerging new “progressive” movement and the resurrected “new SDS (Students for a Democratic Society)” on college campuses. Meanwhile, Ayers and his cohorts have created the Movement for a Democratic Society (MDS), referred to by former Weatherman Mark Rudd as “the SDS old people’s auxiliary.” See p. 20 of this report by Kincaid and Trevor Loudon.
Meanwhile, in a related development, Kincaid reports that Rudd is planning to publish an autobiography, Underground; My Life with SDS and the Weathermen, that describes his activities in the group. In a pre-release copy of the book he admits complicity in the Fort Dix bomb plot:


“…A few nights before [the explosion], Terry [fellow Weatherman Terry Robbins] had told me what his group was planning. ‘We’re going to kill the pigs at a dance at Fort Dix,’ he said. It was to be an antipersonnel bomb made out of stolen dynamite with sixteen-penny nails for shrapnel. Noncommissioned officers and their wives and dates in New Jersey would pay for the American crimes in Vietnam… I assented to the Fort Dix plan when Terry told me about it. (Emphasis, mine.) I too wanted this country to have a taste of what it had been dishing out daily in Southeast Asia…”


The plot was never executed as the bomb exploded while under construction, killing Weathermen Terry Robbins, Diana Oughton and Ted Gold. This book is set to be published by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. Kincaid hopes that public furor over the Weathermen’s reign of mass murder will force Murdock to cancel the book, as he ultimately did with O.J. Simpson’s proposed “If I did it” murder book and TV special.


Sergeant McDonnell left a widow to fend for herself and two children. Those children were damaged for life, robbed of critical fatherly love, guidance and support for the rest of their lives. How, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, does that make them “equal?” How does that make them “liberated?” How does that make this world a better place? How could you, raised with silver spoons in your spoiled little mouths, never having had to work or support a family without the help of “Daddy”, claim to be the administrators of “equality” or “justice?” How on earth do you arrogate to yourselves the role of God?


In his concluding remarks, Jim Pera offered an emotional challenge to the approximately fifty journalists assembled:


“Before giving these two despicable people a forum, in your newspapers and periodicals, perhaps you should do a little bit of research, on their past and present activities. You will find that under those calm facades and intellectual masks, that Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, are vicious, cowardly terrorists.
Give up your political correctness, overcome your liberal bias and do some honest research into the background of these two criminals, Ayers and Dohrn. Uncover their past and reveal them to the public. The American people deserve nothing less.”


I couldn’t have said it better, and I hope Billy Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn finally get what they have coming to them.


It’s up to you, Mr. President. You said you found the actions of the Weather Underground despicable. As Cliff Kincaid said at his press conference, “prove it.” Tell your Attorney General to provide the evidence to bring the killers of Sgt. McDonnell to justice.

Page Printed from: at March 18, 2009 – 07:13:33 PM EDT

We Need Something Stronger than Steele

We Need Something Stronger than Steele

By Selwyn Duke

Most of us place politicians down at the level of used-car salesmen, personal injury lawyers and Hollywood actors.  In fact, they’re much like actors, only their acting is generally a bit better.  But we tend to miss the point about our leaders.  The problem with politicians is that they’re trying to please us.

Mind you, I don’t mean they’re trying to please those of us who read and render commentary. They don’t have to worry about us fringe types – we don’t really command many votes.  We’re like a pesky fly they can’t quite swat (although they’re trying to with measures such as the Fairness Doctrine).  My point is that if they were trying to please God, they would be godly men.  But as the great Alan Keyes has proven, that doesn’t tend to win elections.  So the successful ones try to please the masses, but this doesn’t make them massive men.  It makes them minor men.
A case in point is Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, who recently proved his Lilliputian status in a now notorious GQ interview, one showing that the best way to get a politician to change positions is to change his audience.  And the problem wasn’t confined to just what has drawn him the most criticism: Abortion.  But let’s start with that.  Here is the portion of the interview dealing with it:
Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.
You do?
Yeah. Absolutely.
That’s pretty clear, right?  Well, this is perhaps where Steele said to himself, “Oops!  Did I really say that?”  So, after opining that Roe v. Wade should be overturned for constitutional reasons, here is what transpired:
Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?
The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.”
Is this what you call a “save”?  Women have the choice to opt for abortion because they can vote along with the men in their states on the matter’s legality?  So now Steele can go to leftists and claim he has said that abortion is “absolutely” an “individual choice.”  He can talk to traditionalists and say that he has touted states’ right to settle the issue.  He’s pro-choice.  He’s pro-life.  He’s pro-states’ rights.  He’s pro-whatever you want him to be.  He’s for everything and against nothing.
Given how Steele has also stated that Republicans needed a hip-hop strategy, interviewer Lisa Depaulo also asked him about rap music.  And after saying he enjoyed P. Diddy quite a bit, he said,
“I guess I’m sorta old-school that way. Remember, I came of age with the DJ and all this other stuff, so I’m also loving Grandmaster Flash, and that’s not hip-hop, but… Um, you know, I like Chuck D. And I always thought Snoop Dogg was-he just reminded me of the fellas back home. So I’ve always thoroughly enjoyed him.”
But then Steele said he also liked “Bing Crosby, Sinatra, [and] Dean Martin.”  Hey, you wouldn’t want to offend any musically-inclined constituency.  And reiterating his old-school passions, he continued, “I’m a big Pack Rat.  I love the Pack Rats from the 1950s . . . .”  Depaulo corrected him and pointed out that the proper name was the “Rat Pack.”  He’s a great fan, though.
Now, since I guard my tongue, I’ll characterize hip-hop simply by saying it’s cultural trash.  Of course, if I were a hip-hop aficionado, I’d use a different word (I also wouldn’t know the term “aficionado”). I’ll also say that an affinity for hip-hop indicates greatly corrupted judgment and taste, and I’d like leaders who operate on a slightly higher cultural plane.  Then again, it’s also possible that Steele doesn’t really listen to the Pack Rats or the Rap Rodents and was just being a pandering possum.  Perhaps it’s like Hillary Clinton’s statement when running for the Senate in New York, “I’ve always been a Yankees fan.”  No, Hillary (and Steele), actually, you’ve always been a ceiling fan – you specialize in spin.
As for the GOP’s political fortunes, if your only concern is getting people in office with “R’s” after their names, slouching commensurately with the culture certainly helps.  But leave me out of it.  My primary concern is spreading Truth, not spreading R’s.  For if a political movement is to do any good at all, it must represent and extol virtue.  And, for such a movement to succeed, it has only one viable option: Address problems on a cultural level and raise people up morally so that they’ll be receptive to the message (this is why I’ve written so much about the culture).  Trying to present a package of virtue in a wrapping of vice won’t work.
Then Steele said, “And some call them [rappers] urban terrorists, which I think is an offensive term.”  Really?  I find it offensive that he thinks validly labeling cultural terrorists is offensive.  He went on to say,
“But you know, they miss the point of what hip-hop is. Hip-hop is about economic empowerment. You’re talking about a generation of men from, you know, P. Diddy to Russell Simmons and the like who have created empire from their talent.”
Uh, yes, so have the Mexican drug cartels.  So have Larry Flynt and Hugh Hefner (note that pornography is among the most lucrative of rackets).  These are empires of sin, and it’s no secret that vice sells better than virtue.  But is this to be congratulated?  Does it profit a nation to gain the world but to lose its soul, Mr. Steele?
Following up on this topic of “minority outreach,” there was this exchange,
Why do you think so few nonwhite Americans support the Republican Party right now?
Cause we have offered them nothing! And the impression we’ve created is that we don’t give a damn about them or we just outright don’t like them.”
Wrong.  The leftist media have given minorities this impression of the party of Lincoln and abolitionism while casting the party of George Wallace in a positive light.  Steele went on to say,
“I think the way we’ve talked about immigration, the way we’ve talked about some of the issues that are important to African-Americans, like affirmative action… I mean, you know, having an absolute holier-than-thou attitude about something that’s important to a particular community doesn’t engender confidence in your leadership by that community.”
So what is the strategy?  Are we supposed to say, “Look, we were wrong to be right, but here’s why we’re right”?  Are we supposed to embrace open-border policy and affirmative action?  Should we compromise our principles just a bit and offer them an affirmative fraction?
I’m also sick and tired of how conservatives have been cowed into being apologetic.  Who has this “holier-than-thou attitude,” Mr. Steele?  All I see are pandering Republicans such as you.
But this is another example of entertaining corruption.  Securing our borders is a matter of upholding the rule of law, maintaining cultural cohesiveness and public safety.  And opposing affirmative action stems from a desire to be fair and to avoid facilitating irresponsibility and mediocrity.  If people won’t accept this, the remedy is not to lower the principles but elevate the people and make them worthy of the principles.
Steele also played the race card in the interview, saying,
“There are people in this country right now who would look at Barack Obama and still refer to him as ‘boy.’ Period.”
Who would these people be, Mr. Steele?  When was the last time you actually experienced such a thing?  Now, if you mean that someone somewhere in this nation of 300 million people may be so inclined, perhaps, but insignificant fringes don’t warrant mention.  It has been estimated that we have about 100 active serial killers in the country, too, but it would be silly to speak of them as if they’re a political and cultural force.
The interview touched on education as well, and Steele made this comment,
“. . . there’s a black kid who just left a public-school system in which he’s using a ten-year-old book in a classroom that barely has lights, and he’s getting a poor education.”
Yes, he is getting a poor education, but it has nothing to do with lights or books.  It’s a function of a spirit of permissiveness, relativism and corruption that besets our whole culture, leaving schools and families bereft of Truth, love and discipline.
Steele is right about the problem of using a 10-year-old book, however.  Students would be better off using 60-year-old books.  Then they would be exposed to more Truth and less politically-correct social engineering.
If I were a standard commentator, I would now emphasize that Steele is a sub-standard politician.  But the truth is that he is quite standard.  He isn’t evil; he isn’t even Machiavellian.  He’s just an example of what political parties tend to produce: Men of our time.  But what we need are men of the timeless.  Only people who aren’t slaves of their age, and thus can penetrate the veneer of lies obscuring the Truth today, can transform the culture.
And “culture” is the word.  When I say “We Need Something Stronger than Steele,” the “we” doesn’t refer to Republicans, as salvation doesn’t lie in the political realm.  I don’t even mean conservatives.  I mean that we need spiritual and cultural revolutionaries.
As I’ve written before, unless we can take the cultural reins and stop the leftward drift, all is for naught, as the political just reflects the cultural.  And the liberals understand this.  They’ve altered the culture not through the Democrat Party as much as through academia, the media and entertainment.
But effecting such substantive change isn’t easy, and it explains why the chairman of the Republican Party would talk like a 1980s Democrat.  That is to say, politicians pander because it’s easier to change positions than hearts.

Page Printed from: at March 18, 2009 – 12:42:20 PM EDT

The Knock on the Door A sitting President of the United States is “organizing a political organization loyal to him

The Knock on the Door

By Lona Manning

A sitting President of the United States is “organizing a political organization loyal to him, bound by a pledge, outside the government and existing party apparatus. The historical precedents are ominous.”


What is so ominous about an organization? Americans, Alexis de Tocqueville famously observed, “constantly form associations…. If it is proposed to inculcate some truth or to foster some feeling by the encouragement of a great example, they form a society.”
Certainly, thousands of organizations seek to influence the political debate. There’s Newt Gingrich’s American Solutions or the left-wing People for the American Way, for instance.


Political parties are another example of an association, of course. Before, during and after political campaigns, the Democrats and Republicans promote their agendas. As legal entities, they have their own constitutions, their rules of business, their chairmen and officers. They have to be accountable to both the government and their members.


But there is a new organization on the political scene — “Organizing for America,” announced by President Barack Obama in late January but officially unfurled last weekend.


Obama describes OFA as a “grass-roots movement” but OFA is a “project” of the Democratic Natrional Committee.


As Politico reported, OFA will take the 10 million person database built up by the Obama campaign “to mobilize support for the president’s legislative agenda.”

Obama hand salute

A visit to the OFA website reveals that supporters are not simply asked to sign up, they are asked to take a pledge. A pledge to support — not the flag, not the constitution, not the country, not even the Democratic party, but Obama and his “bold plan.” OFA does not use the Democratic Party logo but the “O”-shaped logo of the Obama campaign in which the red white and blue of the flag are abstracted to soft pastel colors.


(Celebrities like Ashton Kuchner and Demi Moore did not wait until the official launch to “pledge to be of service” to Barack Obama, of course.)
You will not find any mention of OFA`s governing structure, their budget, their bylaws, or their officers at the OFA website. Donations to the website go to the DNC, but OFA is managed out of the White House. If you click on the comments button, you are taken to a link to the White House email.


Those who take the pledge are asked to “talk with people about the President’s plan” and to “ask them to sign their names to the pledge” in support of Obama’s policies.


So we have a Movement — this is their term, not mine — organized by, and loyal to, a sitting President. Pledge canvassers, armed with your name, will ask you to pledge loyalty to the President too. A president whose term has already become a permanent campaign, is signing up ground forces in a mass organization pledged to personal loyalty to their Leader.


Does anyone know of any historical precedents for this in the United States?


Did Mitch Stewart, youthful director of OFA, who asks Obama’s acolytes to organize “neighborhood by neighborhood”  study anything at school about Mao’s “Red Guards?


How about Fidel Castro’s “widespread system of neighborhood informers“?

Or Hugo Chavez’s use of “neighborhood committees“?

Did Stewart learn anything about democracy at all?


Do any of Obama’s pledged servants understand why a sitting president has no business creating and deploying his own supporters to help organize their neighbors? 


Keep in mind that these acolytes have renounced any thought of questioning the actual policies of the maximum leader. Whatever he says, they are for it. They have given their word.


And they are coming to have a talk with you.


As Thomas Lifson wrote, “This is not the way a democracy is supposed to operate.”

Page Printed from: at March 18, 2009 – 12:30:54 PM EDT