Hamas’ 54 Democratic Congressmen

Hamas’ 54 Democratic Congressmen

Keith Ellison, widely hailed as America’s first Muslim congressman, could more accurately be described as CAIR and Hamas’ man in Congress. Congressman Ellison has been a regular presence at CAIR fundraisers and at pro-Hamas rallies in the United States. As a former member of Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam, Ellison has enough anti-semitic and Islamist credentials to satisfy anyone, and had expressed openly anti-semitic beliefs in the past.

Since Ellison got his start with CAIR , his attempt to provide support for Hamas is completely unsurprising. Both Hamas and CAIR are projects of the Muslim Brotherhood, which also helped birth Al Queda. Organizations like CAIR do the same work in America that Hamas does in Israel. The difference is that CAIR does its work on a political level, while Hamas functions on both a political and a military level. Like CAIR, Ellison is careful to cloak his pro-Hamas agenda, which he does by mentioning that all violence is wrong and that Israelis probably shouldn’t be shelled– but the thrust of his agenda is to force Israel to open its border with Hamas.

The entire “Free Gaza” movement is a Hamas propaganda project that allows it to demand that Israel open its borders, without actually using the P word, for peace, since Hamas doesn’t even believe in phony peace negotiations. So Pro-Hamas activists, whether it’s former Saddam supporter, George Galloway’s Viva Palestina or their American flavors talk only about “The People of Gaza”, deemphasize Hamas and emphasize the supposed “suffering” within Gaza.

But the call for Israel to open its borders is nothing more than a way of making it easier for terrorists to strike. Ellison’s letter buries its real agenda in paragraphs of prose about how everyone will be better off, except somehow Hamas, if Israel complies with their demand… that Israel ease the movement of people in and out of Gaza. This of course is a fancy way of saying, “Let my Suicide Bombers go”.

None of this is up till now is shocking. But what Congressman Keith Ellison accomplished was to convince 53 other Democratic congressmen to join him in this venture. It is not particularly surprising to find the House’s most radical anti-Israel voices signing their names onto Ellison’s letter. It would be inconceivable if a letter aiding Hamas did not carry the signatures of Barbara Lee, Jim Moran or Jim McDermott, who helped Ellison spearhead the whole campaign. It is essentially inconceivable that any letter circulated in congress opposing Israel would not get their signature.

Jim Moran had managed to blame even the Iraq War on the Jews and McDermott was actually named CAIR’s Public Official of the Year. Neither is West Virginia Arab Congressman, Nick Rahall, who is the Democratic party’s version of Darrel Issa, who is tied to CAIR as well, and previously voted against Israel’s right to defend itself. Rahall is also the top recipient of CAIR donations. The likes of Diane Watson or Pete Stark aren’t complete surprises either. Pete Stark has a history of being both anti-Israel and unstable. Neither is Carolyn Kilpatrick, who voted against Israel’s right to defend itself, and against condemning terrorist attacks on Israel. Kilpatrick, like virtually every Democrat on the list, is also tied to CAIR.

Then there’s William Delahunt, who all but openly expressed the hope that a former Cheney aide would be targeted by Al Queda. John Conyers signing on to this while awaiting prison is no real shocker either. The man has all but endorsed Sharia law in America. Or John Dingell who like many Detroit politicians has gone whole hog with the Islamist Follow Traveler thing.

Congresswoman Betty McCollum has been waging her own private war on Israel, right down to issuing an imperial demand that Israeli Ambassador Oren attend the national conference of the far left anti-Israel group, J Street. McCollum famously belittled Hamas’ shelling of Israel as nothing more than a drug gang’s drive by shooting and repeated the discredited white phosphorous smear. Again, no more surprising than Chaka Fattah’s presence on the list.

Then there’s Eric Massa, a former Republican turned turncoat Democrat, Massa has been consistently loudly anti-war and to the left. Like virtually every congressman on this list, he’s pushed for a phony ceasefire, that would naturally be one sided. Considering his increasingly unhinged radicalism, and that he has an election coming up soon, Massa must be pretty confident that the nutroots can get him reelected.

It is of course no surprise that this list weighs heavily toward Minnesota and Michigan, where CAIR is strong. But it also includes twelve congressmen from California, 3 from New Jersey, 4 from New York and 6 from Massachusetts. These numbers are not mere statistics, they define the rising influence of the Muslim Brotherhood on American politics, state by state.

And it is instructive to note how many of the congressmen and congresswomen on the list are funded by CAIR money. Keith Ellison, John Conyers, Loretta Sanchez, Betty McCollum, Lois Capps, Bill Pascrell, Elijah Cummings, Bob Filner, Mike Honda, Barbara Lee, John Dingell, James Moran, Nick Rahall, Andre Carson, Mary Jo Kilroy, Carolyn Kilpatrick and Jim McDermott are among the top receivers of CAIR money in congress.

Of the top 11 CAIR moneygetters in congress, Nick Rahall, James Moran, Darrel Issa, John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, Jesse Jackson, Jr, John Dingell, Barbara Lee, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Shelia Jackson Lee and Jim McDerrmott– 7 out of 11 signed on to Ellison’s letter. That makes the Gaza letter a CAIR project. 5 on that list voted against condemning attacks on Israel.

And the letter is simply an opening shot as part of a broader campaign by the Muslim Brotherhood and its American proxies to attack Israel and promote its own Hamas wing. Its proxies can’t openly come out for Hamas, not in the United States anyway. Not from members of congress. But they can work toward a common goal. With this letter, Hamas’s masters in the Muslim Brotherhood demonstrated that they can use CAIR to gather 54 congressmen together to push its agenda. That is quite a leap for an organization that is the unindicted co-conspirator in funding Hamas terror It also demonstrates that Amerabia isn’t as far away as we have thought.

Update: The Full List of Congressmen who signed on to the letter, by State and District, and their current list of challengers in the upcoming elections

Arizona

* Raul Grijalva = AZ 7th Distict

California

* Lynn Woolsey – CA 6th District
* Lois Capps – CA 23rd District – Challenger John Davidson
* Sam Farr – CA 17th district
* Bob Filner – CA 51st district – challenger Nick Popaditch
* Barbara Lee – CA 9th District
* Loretta Sanchez – CA 47th District – challenger Van Tran
* Pete Stark – CA 13th District
* Michael Honda – CA 15th District
* Jackie Speier – CA 12th District
* Diane Watson – CA 33rd District
* George Miller – CA 7th District

Connecticut

* Jim Himes – 4th district – challenger Dan Debicella

Indiana

* Andre Carson – 7th district – challenger Carlos May and Marvin Bailey Scott

Iowa

* Bruce Braley – 1st district – challenger Rod Blum

Kentucky

* John Yarmuth – 3rd district – multiple challengers

Maryland

* Elijah Cummings – 7th district
* Donna Edwards – 4th district

Massachusetts

* Michael Capuano – 8th district
* William Delahunt – 10th district – multiple challengers
* Jim McGovern – 3rd district – challenger Marty Lamb
* John Tierney – 6th district – Challenger David Sukoff and Bill Hudak
* John Olver – 1st district – challenger Jeffrey Paul Donnelly
* Stephen Lynch – 9th district – challenger Vernon Harrison and Keith Lepor

Michigan

* John Conyers – 14th district
* John Dingell – 15th district
* Carolyn Kilpatrick – 13th district

Minnesota

* Keith Ellison – 5th district – challenger Barb Davis
* Betty McCollum – 4th district – challenger Ed Matthews
* James Oberstar – 8th district – multiple challengers

New Jersey

* Donald Payne – 10th district –
* Rush Holt – 12th district – challenger Mike Halfacre and Scott Sipprelle
* Bill Pascrell – 8th district – challenger Danielle Staub

New York

* Yvette Clarke – 11th district
* Maurice Hinchey – 22nd district – challenger George Philips
* Paul ‘taxin’ Tonko – 21st district – challenger Arthur Welser
* Eric Massa – 29th district – challenger Tom Reed (in a GOP district)

North Carolina

* David Price – 4th district – challengers George Hutchins, Lawson and Frank Roche

Ohio

* Mary Jo Kilroy – 15th district – challengers John Adams and Senator Stivers
* Marcy Kaptur – 9th district

Oregon

* Earl Blumenauer -3rd district
* Peter DeFazio – 4th district – challenger Sid Leiken

Pennsylvania

* Chaka Fattah – 2nd district
* Joe Sestak – 7th district – challenger Patrick Meehan and Dawn Steisland

Vermont

* Peter Welch – 1st district

Virginia

* Jim Moran – 8th district – challengers Matthew Berry , Mark Ellmore, J Patrick Murray

Washington

* Jim McDermott – 7th district
* Adam Smith – 9th district – challengers Dick Muri and James Postma
* Jay Inslee – 1st district – challenger James Watkins
* Brian Baird – 3rd district – challengers David Castillo, David Hedrick and Jon Russell

West Virginia

* Nick Rahall – 3rd district – challengers Lee Bias, Gary Gearheart and Conrad Lucas

Wisconsin

* Tammy Baldwin -2nd district – Tim Terenz
* Gwen Moore – 4th district – challenger Dan Sebring

Virginia

* Glenn Nye – 2nd district – challengers Ben Loyola, Ken Golden, Ed Maulbeck, Bert Misuzawa, Scott Rigell and Scott W Taylor

Advertisements

How Muslims Defeated the United States — This is an assessment of the war in Iraq by a U S soldier. It is a sobering view of Islam Please read

Published on The Brussels Journal (http://www.brusselsjournal.com)

How Muslims Defeated the United States

Created 2010-01-27 10:49
Today, I am posting an extraordinary letter from a soldier currently stationed in Iraq, a sometime penpal of mine to whom I sent my three-part series on the aftermath of the surge to elicit his opinion. Knowing how thoughtful he is, I expected a substantive response. Given his time constraints alone, I did not expect an essay of this scope and I decided, with his permission, to present it here. It is unlike any commentary I have read from Iraq; it is both coolly reasoned and deeply passionate, and certain to challenge and disturb readers across the political spectrum: PC-believing liberals, Iraq-as-success-believing conservatives, Islam-as-a-religion-of-peaceniks of both Left and Right.

 

So be it.

 

He writes:

I apologize for the delay in my response. I have been putting in long days … lately and I hadn’t had the time to put the thought and effort into writing this until now.

 

Your three-part column series wonderfully analyzes Iraq and reaches the correct strategic assessment that no one in power wants to acknowledge.

 

I have many things that I want to say but I do not wish to waste your time and I therefore put an executive summary at the beginning of this e-mail so you can skip the expanded version if you wish.

 

*****

 

You correctly assessed that we have not gained anything positive from our efforts in Iraq and that the nation is not our ally. (The same is true for Afghanistan.) I will go as far as saying that the Iraqis are our enemies—enemies better equipped to wage jihad against us than they have ever been. We will regret what we have done. We will regret that we created this officially Islamic nation. And we will regret that we created an officially Islamic Afghanistan. We will regret that we have placed ourselves in the service of Islam, waging jihad worldwide as we advance the Religion of Peace and eliminate Christians in the process. (So much for the accusation that the U.S. is on a “Crusade.”) It is a shame that so many people refuse to recognize how horrible Islam is, and that the U.S. made a fatal mistake when it refused to declare war against Afghanistan and Islam—when it refused victory by binding the greatest military force of all time.

 

*****

 

The Full Analysis:

 

Parts 1 and 2 of “The ‘Surge’ and ‘Success’” correctly identify that we have gained nothing positive for our efforts in Iraq while the Iraqis have betrayed us. I do not trust any Iraqi or Middle Easterner. I do not care if anyone calls me a “racist” or “bigot” anymore. Those words have lost their meaning. Do I think that every single Iraqi or Middle Easterner is bad? No. But I think it is difficult to tell. An Iraqi or Middle Easterner will smile to your face or be your best friend one moment, and cut your head off in the next. It is odd that so many people cannot comprehend this. It is even weirder that those who pride themselves on being “culturally aware” cannot grasp that Middle Eastern culture and thought, and Islamic behavior and thought are completely different than ours (than ours on the Right, at least). Perhaps this ignorance partially explains why the U.S. had no reaction when Maliki declared victory over the U.S. when we moved out of the major Iraqi cities. But even if it is a partial explanation it still is no excuse.

 

The Iranian War in Iraq is a travesty and has been since it started under Bush. I still cannot believe that a nation can war against us and murder Servicemen, and not pay the price of oblivion for it. Our nation sits back and apologizes, and defends itself constantly from accusations of an “illegal” and “unjust” war yet Iranians, other foreign terrorists, and even Iraqis go about murdering American troops without any consequence whatsoever. We should war back against them. But we won’t.

 

I remember when people said that we had brought on the September 11 attacks because “we created Bin Laden.” I never understood that. In fact, that we had helped the Afghanis defeat the Soviet Union should have been even more reason for us to kill Bin Laden and destroy Afghanistan. We had saved their lives and they repaid us for it by murdering us on our own soil. Yet our government refused its God-given duty to its people to mete out punishment and justice. History repeats with Iraq. The Iraqis lived under oppression for decades and when we liberated their nation they repaid our unimaginable mercy and sacrifice with betrayal. It is sickening.

 

Part 3 (“Victory” in Iraq? Really?) perfectly summarized where the U.S. is now in our “war” in Iraq. Once we made Iraq an officially Islamic country I knew that it would become among our worst enemies. (The same is true for Afghanistan.) I said years ago that the end result of our efforts will be that Iraq will be a rebuilt nation better prepared than ever to wage jihad against us. You cannot create an officially Islamic nation and expect anything less. Regrettably, our leaders and our nation cannot identify Islam for what it is: evil. And so we continue our suicidal practice. The Iraqi betrayal of the U.S. started sooner than I expected it but I expected it nonetheless. This is outrageous. Yet the situation is even more unjust than this.

 

Muslims have waged jihad against the West since their insane, pedophiliac founder started their cult; they have waged jihad against the U.S. since our inception. But what is worse about our policy of establishing officially Islamic nations and pouring money, technology, weapons, and training into them is that we have been labeled as “occupiers” being on a “Christian crusade to wipe out Islam.” Think about that. We have been demonized as “occupying Christian crusaders” (if only!) even as we have waged jihad in the service of Islam, helped Muslims spread Islam and wipe out Christians, and died for ungrateful Iraqis even as terrorists from all over the war invaded and occupied Iraq, and slaughtered and oppressed Iraqis. (And don’t even get me started on the fact that we—the United States of America—are truly being invaded and occupied by illegal aliens warring on us!)

 

I am woefully understating the situation when I say that the U.S. has no clue how to fight wars any longer. We have allowed our enemies to control this war and make it one of media and information—information warfare / information operations . We have chosen not to win by refusing to reject the enemies’ preferred warfare; we have chosen not to wage a kinetic warfare where we could easily defeat our enemies in months if not weeks with our superior technology, tactics, and Servicemen. And through it all we seem not the least bit embarrassed that a “coalition” of dozens of nations cannot beat a primitive bunch of troglodytes. I no longer can express my outrage about this or any of the myriad horrors which plague our once great land. Every day there is something new which is more perverse and inequitable than the last day’s wickedness. I sit here in Iraq and do all I can do to stomach the disastrous excuse that passes for “strategy” in this war—a strategy where our leaders openly say that the lives of our Islamic enemies are worth more than ours; a “strategy” where the Army Chief of Staff openly states that the “death of diversity” would be a larger tragedy than the slaughter of Soldiers (and get away with it with but a whisper of outcry from the American people). I pray that I get out of here alive so I can complete my Army contract and get away from this nonsense and betrayal.

 

Two final things.

 

First, I wonder how many people have considered how successful the September 11, 2001 Islamic attacks were. Think about what they accomplished. They thrust Islam to the center of the world; they undoubtedly caused more people to learn about Islam than would have prior to their attacks. And the attacks combined with the near non-response of the U.S. doubtlessly gained them converts. Furthermore, what response the United States did produce resulted in the establishment, enrichment, and training of the officially Islamic nations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the enrichment and training of countless other Muslim nations around the globe. Islam now stands better suited than ever to wage jihad across the world. The September 11 attacks also resulted in Muslims being portrayed as victims around the world (thanks to their leftist allies) and helped them (again, with an assist from their leftist allies) advance their jihad even as Muslims and leftists further vilified Christianity, America, and Western values. And finally the crowning achievement of the September 11 Islamic attacks: eight years after them the United States places as its leader a person whom can at best be described as an anti-American, racist, Islamic sympathizer (and who has the same name as an infamous Islamic dictator). This is stunning. It is bizarre. It is incomprehensible. Yet it is our nightmarish reality. The Islamic attacks on September 11, 2001 achieved success beyond the wildest dreams of the Religion of Peace cultists.

 

Finally, I would like you to know that I am willing to comment on other posts and articles that you publish, including some of your other posts that mention the debate that your three-part column on the Surge started. I am willing to comment for two reasons.

 

The first reason is that everyone on the Right needs to fight back against the Islamic War on the West and stop the jihad. And one of the ways to fight back is to speak out against it. The second reason is that I want to establish for posterity that I am firmly against this evil and every other evil. I will explain why this matters.

 

Leftists always rewrite history so as to demonize what is Right and so as to cover their real nature. They abhor the truth as much as the vilest of Muslims. And as a way to enable their rewriting of history they use political correctness to silence opponents; to vilify them so that they have no place in society. We have allowed leftists to use political correctness to emasculate us. In fact, political correctness is the leftist weapon of choice in paralyzing the Right and aiding their Islamic allies who also advance an anti-Christian, anti-Foundational America agenda. Political correctness is what prevents us from fighting back against the left, and what prevents us from fully fighting back against the jihad and ending the Islamic threat. Political correctness makes us acquiesce to the left so as to be “moderate” and “bipartisan.” Our capitulation to the left will doom us physically by allowing the Muslims and left to eliminate the last vestiges of the West and it will doom us historically as our enslaved descendants will look back and ask how we could have allowed the twin insanities of Islam and the left to control and destroy us when we easily could have defeated them both. Our descendants will condemn us for remaining idle in the face of evil . . . and the leftists of the future will use our submission and our descendants’ condemnation to manipulate history and blame us as the originators of the horrific agenda that they instituted. The future left will use our sinful surrender to pave the way for them to control and destroy civilization once more (all in the name of “progressivism” of course).

 

I do not want leftists to be able to do this. I do not want them to easily rewrite history in the future. I want to be a loud voice (wherever I may be) that opposes everything Islam and the left want. I want there to be no doubt that I, a Right-wing Christian, utterly reject them and their core beliefs. I want to make it all but impossible for future leftists to say that, “It was the Christian Right who enabled and supported the worldwide jihad (not to mention the global warming hoax, the sexual perverts, and the freedom hating communists)! It was the Christian Right who wanted them to take over and destroy the world!” I want to make it all but impossible for future leftists to say that atheists, humanists, and secularists (like Bruce Bawer, Christopher Hitchens, Tammy Bruce, and a few others) tried to oppose the Islamic War on the West but “could not convince the mentally inferior but numerically superior Right-wing Christians to join them!” I want to counteract the in-name-only Christians and conservatives who have bought into the “Religion of Peace” and leftist nonsense, and who will do untold additional amounts of damage to civilization and our good name with their cravenness and rejection of Truth. And that is why I am willing to comment on more of your posts.

 

I know I am in the minority with my beliefs but I do not care. I want to be like the 300—not just the ones who fought at Thermopylae—but the 300 who fought with Gideon against the Midianites. I want to stand for the Truth.

 

Keep up the good work.

 

Sincerely,

 

A US soldier in Iraq


Obama Defiant

Obama Defiant

Posted By Jacob Laksin On January 28, 2010 @ 2:01 am In FrontPage | 23 Comments

capt_photo_1264646697177-3-0

In a speech that signaled his intention to “start anew,” perhaps the most notable feature of President Obama’s first-ever State of the Union address [1] was how remarkably stale it sounded.

Against the backdrop of plummeting poll ratings and the election of a Republican Senator in Democrat-friendly Massachusetts – an unmistakable message about the broad unpopularity of the policies supported by the administration and its allies in the Democratic Congress – President Obama last night hewed to a partisan playbook that can only be described as business as usual. From economically ruinous “cap-and-trade” legislation, to the widely disliked health care “reform” package, to specious left-wing nostrums like “equal pay for equal work,” the president pledged to work for a sharply ideological agenda that would have pleased the Democratic base even as it would have disappointed those who took seriously his repeated appeals to bipartisanship.

Obama began with the confession that he has “never been more hopeful about America’s future than I am tonight.” America has a more skeptical view. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported this week that the current 10 percent unemployment rate is no closer to receding in the near term. Add to that a runaway national debt expected to triple to $22 trillion over the next decade, much of it caused by government spending, and it’s not surprising that Americans are dissatisfied with the administration’s stewardship of the economy.

The president did little to boost their confidence. Obama’s assurance that his administration’s policies – namely, the $787 billion stimulus package – have saved two million jobs from being lost is by definition impossible to corroborate. Easier to measure is the stimulus’s effect on hiring: Economists agree that it has created no jobs [2]. Unsurprisingly, in touting the economic benefits of stimulus spending, Obama cited only jobs in the public sector. Given how little the administration has done to encourage hiring in the private sector, the president’s self-serving claim to have averted an economic disaster and saved the country from a “second Depression” was difficult to credit.

No more credible was the president’s promise to trim the country’s swelling debt. In keeping with a proposal floated earlier in the week, Obama called for a freeze on some discretionary spending programs. That this spendthrift administration is prepared accept some fiscal belt-tightening is of course a welcome development. But critics have been quick to note that the proposed cuts will be the equivalent of a drop in the ocean – especially since the costliest government programs – including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security – would be unaffected by the freeze.

Equally unfortunate was the president’s penchant, once again on display, for caricaturing and distorting the arguments of his political opponents. While Republicans like Wisconsin’s Paul Ryan have offered innovative solutions [3] for reforming high-cost government programs and restraining government spending, the president simply repeated his standard jibe that the GOP is “just saying no to everything” and offering no proposals of their own. Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, himself a beneficiary of the populist backlash against the administration, paid a modest compliment to the intelligence of the American people and performed a legitimate public service when he used his rebuttal to call attention to the website [4] of Republican policy proposals. Indeed, McDonnell’s response was a textbook example of the kind of respectful and genuinely conciliatory tone that the president seems to endorse only in theory.

Obama missed his biggest opportunity to forge a political middle ground when he discussed national security. By significant margins, the American public favors more assertive counterterrorism measures. To that end, the administration could do much for American security, and its own political fortunes, if it supported the use of harsher interrogation techniques on terrorists like would-be Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and abandoned its plans to stage civilian trials for high-level jihadists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The latter would not even be a particularly dramatic compromise, since the administration has already allowed for terrorist trials to continue in the military commissions system.

Instead, the president used his speech to denounce coercive interrogation techniques as “torture,” while chiding critics for presenting a “false choice” between defending national security and upholding the country’s values. Yet such tradeoffs arise all the time. The latest example would be underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Interrogated for just 50 minutes before being passed into police custody, he seems to have revealed little about terrorist operations abroad as a result. That such incidents have been allowed to occur on Obama’s watch inspires little confidence in the president’s claim that his administration is doing “what it takes to defend our nation.”

Unusually for Obama’s scripted speeches, the State of the Union showed a spectacular lack of self-awareness. Concluding his remarks, the president lamented that Americans have lost faith in the country’s institutions, not least the government itself. It was a statement as politically tone deaf as Obama’s recent claim [5] that “the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office.” In fact, Brown was elected on the strength of an electoral insurgency against the administration and its domestic policy agenda. As he puzzles over Americans’ growing skepticism of big government, the president seems not to recognize that he is the change they seek.


Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/01/28/obama-defiant/

URLs in this post:

[1] State of the Union address: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/27/text-of-obamas-first-state-of-the-union-address/

[2] created no jobs: http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/27/news/economy/stimulus-but-no-jobs/index.htm

[3] innovative solutions: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703808904575025080017959478.html

[4] website: http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare

[5] claim: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/president-obama-scott-brown-massachusetts-victory/story?id=9611222

[6] Image: http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Ffrontpagemag.com%2F2010%2F01%2F28%2Fobama-defiant%2F&linkname=Obama%20Defiant

Secret AIG bailout docs leaked; Update: Bernanke on the hot seat

Secret AIG bailout docs leaked; Update: Bernanke on the hot seat

By Michelle Malkin  •  January 27, 2010 04:54 PM

Eeenteresting. About a week ago, the SEC agree to cover-up bailout documents for AIG until 2018. The documents relate to the backroom bank bailout payments at top dollar to AIG counterparties — which know-nothing Tim Geithner was grilled about today on the Hill. The leak comes as Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke heads to the Hill himself to secure a second term.

Zero Hedge has the scoop on the secret documents and uploaded some of the data for open-source analysis:

…the critical question is: since there is not one security rated A, and in fact the median rating is a high C, and since we know that Soc Gen had parked its securities with the Fed in November 2008, just what standards does the Federal Reserve have when accepting securities in the discount window to lend against? And the implication is that Bernanke will allow any toxic crap to be eligible collateral, likely at par.

We will continue analyzing the other firms’ securities as well, and solicit reader input in ideas on how to steer this analysis.

Stay tuned.

***

Update: Bernanke sent a buck-passing letter in response to questions about the AIG backroom bank bailout payments. Dealbook posts the Bernanke document and reports:

In a letter to Representative Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Mr. Bernanke said he “was not directly involved in negotiations” over payments to A.I.G.’s trading partners to unwind tens of billions of dollars in credit default swaps. Instead, he said, these negotiations were handled primarily by the staff of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. (Read Mr. Bernanke’s letter on the jump.)

Responding to questions from Mr. Issa, Mr. Bernanke said the financial conditions of A.I.G.’s counterparties “was not a factor in the decision regarding the amount paid to the counterparties or whether concessions should be sought from them.”

Mr. Bernanke also said he was not involved in discussions with the Securities and Exchange Commission last year about any disclosure issues involving A.I.G.

Hotline On Call has the whip count at 43-18:

Allies of Fed chair Ben Bernanke spent the weekend trolling for Senate support ahead of an expected reconfirmation vote this week, but Bernanke remains short of the votes he needs to win a second term, according to a Hotline OnCall tally.

Bernanke has public support from 43 senators, while 18 are publicly opposed to his reconfirmation. That leaves 39 senators uncommitted, and many have said they are concerned about Bernanke’s record during his first years in office.

The WH and Senate leaders have expressed confidence they will have the votes they need. Still, underscoring the trouble some members have with Bernanke’s renomination, even the top GOPer in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, has refused to disclose how he would vote.

What was supposed to be an easy confirmation became more difficult recently as populist anger has surged across the nation. It has even cost Bernanke a certain vote; Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) voted for Bernanke when his nomination came before the Banking Committee, but Brown has said he is rethinking that vote.

How Muslims Defeated the United States

Published on The Brussels Journal (http://www.brusselsjournal.com)

How Muslims Defeated the United States

By Diana West Created 2010-01-27 10:49 Today, I am posting an extraordinary letter from a soldier currently stationed in Iraq, a sometime penpal of mine to whom I sent my three-part series on the aftermath of the surge to elicit his opinion. Knowing how thoughtful he is, I expected a substantive response. Given his time constraints alone, I did not expect an essay of this scope and I decided, with his permission, to present it here. It is unlike any commentary I have read from Iraq; it is both coolly reasoned and deeply passionate, and certain to challenge and disturb readers across the political spectrum: PC-believing liberals, Iraq-as-success-believing conservatives, Islam-as-a-religion-of-peaceniks of both Left and Right.

So be it.

He writes:

I apologize for the delay in my response. I have been putting in long days … lately and I hadn’t had the time to put the thought and effort into writing this until now.

Your three-part column series wonderfully analyzes Iraq and reaches the correct strategic assessment that no one in power wants to acknowledge.

I have many things that I want to say but I do not wish to waste your time and I therefore put an executive summary at the beginning of this e-mail so you can skip the expanded version if you wish.

*****

You correctly assessed that we have not gained anything positive from our efforts in Iraq and that the nation is not our ally. (The same is true for Afghanistan.) I will go as far as saying that the Iraqis are our enemies—enemies better equipped to wage jihad against us than they have ever been. We will regret what we have done. We will regret that we created this officially Islamic nation. And we will regret that we created an officially Islamic Afghanistan. We will regret that we have placed ourselves in the service of Islam, waging jihad worldwide as we advance the Religion of Peace and eliminate Christians in the process. (So much for the accusation that the U.S. is on a “Crusade.”) It is a shame that so many people refuse to recognize how horrible Islam is, and that the U.S. made a fatal mistake when it refused to declare war against Afghanistan and Islam—when it refused victory by binding the greatest military force of all time.

*****

The Full Analysis:

Parts 1 and 2 of “The ‘Surge’ and ‘Success’” correctly identify that we have gained nothing positive for our efforts in Iraq while the Iraqis have betrayed us. I do not trust any Iraqi or Middle Easterner. I do not care if anyone calls me a “racist” or “bigot” anymore. Those words have lost their meaning. Do I think that every single Iraqi or Middle Easterner is bad? No. But I think it is difficult to tell. An Iraqi or Middle Easterner will smile to your face or be your best friend one moment, and cut your head off in the next. It is odd that so many people cannot comprehend this. It is even weirder that those who pride themselves on being “culturally aware” cannot grasp that Middle Eastern culture and thought, and Islamic behavior and thought are completely different than ours (than ours on the Right, at least). Perhaps this ignorance partially explains why the U.S. had no reaction when Maliki declared victory over the U.S. when we moved out of the major Iraqi cities. But even if it is a partial explanation it still is no excuse.

The Iranian War in Iraq is a travesty and has been since it started under Bush. I still cannot believe that a nation can war against us and murder Servicemen, and not pay the price of oblivion for it. Our nation sits back and apologizes, and defends itself constantly from accusations of an “illegal” and “unjust” war yet Iranians, other foreign terrorists, and even Iraqis go about murdering American troops without any consequence whatsoever. We should war back against them. But we won’t.

I remember when people said that we had brought on the September 11 attacks because “we created Bin Laden.” I never understood that. In fact, that we had helped the Afghanis defeat the Soviet Union should have been even more reason for us to kill Bin Laden and destroy Afghanistan. We had saved their lives and they repaid us for it by murdering us on our own soil. Yet our government refused its God-given duty to its people to mete out punishment and justice. History repeats with Iraq. The Iraqis lived under oppression for decades and when we liberated their nation they repaid our unimaginable mercy and sacrifice with betrayal. It is sickening.

Part 3 (“Victory” in Iraq? Really?) perfectly summarized where the U.S. is now in our “war” in Iraq. Once we made Iraq an officially Islamic country I knew that it would become among our worst enemies. (The same is true for Afghanistan.) I said years ago that the end result of our efforts will be that Iraq will be a rebuilt nation better prepared than ever to wage jihad against us. You cannot create an officially Islamic nation and expect anything less. Regrettably, our leaders and our nation cannot identify Islam for what it is: evil. And so we continue our suicidal practice. The Iraqi betrayal of the U.S. started sooner than I expected it but I expected it nonetheless. This is outrageous. Yet the situation is even more unjust than this.

Muslims have waged jihad against the West since their insane, pedophiliac founder started their cult; they have waged jihad against the U.S. since our inception. But what is worse about our policy of establishing officially Islamic nations and pouring money, technology, weapons, and training into them is that we have been labeled as “occupiers” being on a “Christian crusade to wipe out Islam.” Think about that. We have been demonized as “occupying Christian crusaders” (if only!) even as we have waged jihad in the service of Islam, helped Muslims spread Islam and wipe out Christians, and died for ungrateful Iraqis even as terrorists from all over the war invaded and occupied Iraq, and slaughtered and oppressed Iraqis. (And don’t even get me started on the fact that we—the United States of America—are truly being invaded and occupied by illegal aliens warring on us!)

I am woefully understating the situation when I say that the U.S. has no clue how to fight wars any longer. We have allowed our enemies to control this war and make it one of media and information—information warfare / information operations . We have chosen not to win by refusing to reject the enemies’ preferred warfare; we have chosen not to wage a kinetic warfare where we could easily defeat our enemies in months if not weeks with our superior technology, tactics, and Servicemen. And through it all we seem not the least bit embarrassed that a “coalition” of dozens of nations cannot beat a primitive bunch of troglodytes. I no longer can express my outrage about this or any of the myriad horrors which plague our once great land. Every day there is something new which is more perverse and inequitable than the last day’s wickedness. I sit here in Iraq and do all I can do to stomach the disastrous excuse that passes for “strategy” in this war—a strategy where our leaders openly say that the lives of our Islamic enemies are worth more than ours; a “strategy” where the Army Chief of Staff openly states that the “death of diversity” would be a larger tragedy than the slaughter of Soldiers (and get away with it with but a whisper of outcry from the American people). I pray that I get out of here alive so I can complete my Army contract and get away from this nonsense and betrayal.

Two final things.

First, I wonder how many people have considered how successful the September 11, 2001 Islamic attacks were. Think about what they accomplished. They thrust Islam to the center of the world; they undoubtedly caused more people to learn about Islam than would have prior to their attacks. And the attacks combined with the near non-response of the U.S. doubtlessly gained them converts. Furthermore, what response the United States did produce resulted in the establishment, enrichment, and training of the officially Islamic nations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the enrichment and training of countless other Muslim nations around the globe. Islam now stands better suited than ever to wage jihad across the world. The September 11 attacks also resulted in Muslims being portrayed as victims around the world (thanks to their leftist allies) and helped them (again, with an assist from their leftist allies) advance their jihad even as Muslims and leftists further vilified Christianity, America, and Western values. And finally the crowning achievement of the September 11 Islamic attacks: eight years after them the United States places as its leader a person whom can at best be described as an anti-American, racist, Islamic sympathizer (and who has the same name as an infamous Islamic dictator). This is stunning. It is bizarre. It is incomprehensible. Yet it is our nightmarish reality. The Islamic attacks on September 11, 2001 achieved success beyond the wildest dreams of the Religion of Peace cultists.

Finally, I would like you to know that I am willing to comment on other posts and articles that you publish, including some of your other posts that mention the debate that your three-part column on the Surge started. I am willing to comment for two reasons.

The first reason is that everyone on the Right needs to fight back against the Islamic War on the West and stop the jihad. And one of the ways to fight back is to speak out against it. The second reason is that I want to establish for posterity that I am firmly against this evil and every other evil. I will explain why this matters.

Leftists always rewrite history so as to demonize what is Right and so as to cover their real nature. They abhor the truth as much as the vilest of Muslims. And as a way to enable their rewriting of history they use political correctness to silence opponents; to vilify them so that they have no place in society. We have allowed leftists to use political correctness to emasculate us. In fact, political correctness is the leftist weapon of choice in paralyzing the Right and aiding their Islamic allies who also advance an anti-Christian, anti-Foundational America agenda. Political correctness is what prevents us from fighting back against the left, and what prevents us from fully fighting back against the jihad and ending the Islamic threat. Political correctness makes us acquiesce to the left so as to be “moderate” and “bipartisan.” Our capitulation to the left will doom us physically by allowing the Muslims and left to eliminate the last vestiges of the West and it will doom us historically as our enslaved descendants will look back and ask how we could have allowed the twin insanities of Islam and the left to control and destroy us when we easily could have defeated them both. Our descendants will condemn us for remaining idle in the face of evil . . . and the leftists of the future will use our submission and our descendants’ condemnation to manipulate history and blame us as the originators of the horrific agenda that they instituted. The future left will use our sinful surrender to pave the way for them to control and destroy civilization once more (all in the name of “progressivism” of course).

I do not want leftists to be able to do this. I do not want them to easily rewrite history in the future. I want to be a loud voice (wherever I may be) that opposes everything Islam and the left want. I want there to be no doubt that I, a Right-wing Christian, utterly reject them and their core beliefs. I want to make it all but impossible for future leftists to say that, “It was the Christian Right who enabled and supported the worldwide jihad (not to mention the global warming hoax, the sexual perverts, and the freedom hating communists)! It was the Christian Right who wanted them to take over and destroy the world!” I want to make it all but impossible for future leftists to say that atheists, humanists, and secularists (like Bruce Bawer, Christopher Hitchens, Tammy Bruce, and a few others) tried to oppose the Islamic War on the West but “could not convince the mentally inferior but numerically superior Right-wing Christians to join them!” I want to counteract the in-name-only Christians and conservatives who have bought into the “Religion of Peace” and leftist nonsense, and who will do untold additional amounts of damage to civilization and our good name with their cravenness and rejection of Truth. And that is why I am willing to comment on more of your posts.

I know I am in the minority with my beliefs but I do not care. I want to be like the 300—not just the ones who fought at Thermopylae—but the 300 who fought with Gideon against the Midianites. I want to stand for the Truth.

Keep up the good work.

Sincerely,

A US soldier in Iraq

Reaction Roundup: Heritage Responds To The State Of The Union

Reaction Roundup: Heritage Responds To The State Of The Union

Posted By Conn Carroll On January 27, 2010 @ 10:31 pm In Ongoing Priorities | 5 Comments

Heritage members and fans are discussing President Barack Obama’s State of the Unions address at Twitter [1] and Facebook [2] right now. And here are just some of our experts immediate reactions to parts of the speech:

State of the Economy
President Obama inherited a global recession and a global financial meltdown. So far, his enacted policies have had no beneficial effect as the 10 percent unemployment demonstrates in spades, and his threatened policies remain perhaps the greatest barrier to a strong economy. The economy will recover, and appears to have started to do so, thanks to the inherent strengths of the American economic system and the energy and hard work of American families and American businesses.

The President now says he is focused intently on getting the economy to create jobs, but his announced policies say otherwise. Altogether, they are little more than a series of benign sounding talking points substituting for serious action, similar in quality and nature to the proposals already advancing in the House and the Senate.
– J.D. Foster

Jobs
Read the rest of this entry »

Mister Speaker

Thursday, January 28, 2010


Mister Speaker   [Mark Steyn]

I’d be interested to hear what Peter Robinson and the other professional speechywritey types round here think, but for me the President is pretty much a total bust as an orator. When Jay says below that he’s “a very, very good speaker,” he is in the sense that he’s a mellifluous baritone who’d sound very appealing if you needed a voiceover guy to read some vapid boilerplate for the bland travelogue before the movie on a long-haul flight. But as a persuasive salesman for policy he’s bad, and getting worse.

One problem, as Jay pointed out, is that upturned chin. Just as a matter of angles, it looks wrong on TV. So it would be a problem for Hillary or McCain or Ron Paul or whoever would have won. But it’s worse for Obama because it plays into the aloof-and-arrogant meme. I don’t know why he does it. Are the prompters notched up a hole too high? What’s the deal? Why doesn’t one of his supersmart advisers get out the wrench and lower them?

As to the content, I think there are several broad stylistic problems that, cumulatively, lead to a bigger one, identified by (of all people) The New York Times‘s Bob Herbert:

Mr Obama is in danger of being perceived as someone whose rhetoric, however skillful, cannot always be trusted.

Why is that? Well, look at the SOTU opening. It’s eloquent, but in a cheesily generic way, as if one of his speechwriters was sent over to Barnes & Noble to pick up a copy of State of the Unions for Dummies:

They have done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility. And they have done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments of great strife and great struggle.

It’s tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable — that America was always destined to succeed. But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain. These were times that tested the courage of our convictions, and the strength of our union. And despite all our divisions and disagreements; our hesitations and our fears; America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, and one people.

It sounds like an all-purpose speech for President Anyone: We’ve met here in good times and bad, war and peace, prosperity and depression, Shrove Tuesday and Super Bowl Sunday, riding high in April, shot down in May. We’ve been up and down and over and out and I know one thing. Each time we find ourselves flat on our face, we pick ourselves up and get back in the race. That’s life, pause for applause . . .

There’s no sense that, even as platitudinous filler, it arises organically from who this man is. As mawkish and shameless as the Clinton SOTUs were, they nevertheless projected a kind of authenticity. With Obama, the big-picture uplift seems unmoored from any personal connection — and he’s not good enough to make it real. Same with all those municipal name-checks.

When he does say anything firm and declarative — the pro-business stuff at home, the pro-freedom stuff abroad — it’s entirely detached from any policy, any action, so it plays to the Bob Herbert trust issue. And, when he moves from the gaseous and general to the specific, he becomes petty and and thin-skinned and unpresidential. And, unlike the national security feints and 101 Historical Allusions For Public Speakers stuff, the petulance is all too obviously real.

So I think the Churchill/Lincoln/Henry V-at-Agincourt de nos jours is a total flopperoo, and Obama would do well to hire some writers who can create for him a plausible voice — not for my sake but for all the Bob Herberts and disillusioned Obama Girls out there.

01/28 12:37 AMShare