Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Democrats: The "D" Stands for Dishonest

According to Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Sen. Robert Menendez, the Democratic strategy for this fall is to run away from the Democrats' legislative record and try to make the election a choice between political parties. In support of this strategy, President Obama offered up a cutesy little metaphor:
"I do want to point out, when you get in your car, when you go forward, what do you do? You put it in 'D.' When you want to go back, what do you do? You put it in 'R.' We don't want to go into reverse back in the ditch."
Effectively, the strategy is to run against George W. Bush.

"Blame Bush" is hardly a new strategy. One might even say it's a worn-out dogma that has, for far too long, strangled our politics. It's like President Obama's mind is stuck in reverse. And it's because of this brand of childishness that the president's once-soaring popularity has declined, by the way.

Far worse, however, is that it's dishonest. The groundwork for the financial crisis was laid before George W. Bush took office. In the last month of his presidency, President Bill Clinton signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted the toxic mortgage-backed securities from government regulation. And before that Clinton signed the Financial Services Modernization Act which allowed the creation of the mega-banks, the banks that were "too big to fail".

So by the time President Bush (43) took office big banks were getting bigger and had been equipped with the financial instruments that Warren Buffett described as "weapons of financial mass destruction". The car was already in overdrive when George W. Bush first sat in the driver's seat.

But blaming President Clinton is overly simplistic; it's the sort of thing the Democrats would do, and I most certainly will not stoop to their level. The global financial crisis was a complex occurrence, and the guilty parties are many. (Besides, the former president has had the decency to admit his error in creating the climate for the collapse.) However, when doling out blame, there are some very guilty people who mustn't escape notice: former Clinton advisers who now, coincidentally, are Obama's advisers.

As it turns out, we can't put the car in reverse because we've already gone backward.

Liberal columnist Paul Krugman asserts, dejectedly, that all of Obama's economic advisers are "proteges of [Clinton Treasury Secretary] Robert Rubin, the apostle of financial deregulation". And Krugman is right to do so. Beyond being mere proteges, Obama's economic advisers were in the room with Rubin as he pushed for the Financial Services Modernization Act before bailing government service for a $15-million-a-year job at Citigroup. (Citigroup itself having been created in a merger made legal by the Financial Services Modernization Act--it's dealings like that which earned Rubin a spot on Market Watch's 10 most unethical people in business.)

Let's take a look at the Rubin proteges who shape Obama's thinking:
  • Gary Gensler's official biography as Obama's Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission states that, as Under Secretary of the Treasury, "Chairman Gensler was the principal advisor to Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and later to Secretary Lawrence Summers on all aspects of domestic finance." Ah, so he was Rubin's Rubin. According to The New York Times, Gensler also played a "significant role in shepherding through Congress deregulation measures that led to the explosive growth of the over-the-counter derivatives market."
And, of course, there are more, lower-profile Clinton era (read as: deregulation era) economic advisers surrounding President Obama. Not quite the "Change" we were promised.

President Obama has oft-repeated a line about Republicans driving the country into a ditch. He ought to level with us and mention that the car had faulty steering and brake lines, and that they were installed by his own economic team. That doesn't make for a very rousing stump speech, however.

Sadly, our local trial lawyer won't press our case and demand restitution from the negligent technicians who put us here. Apparently, the Democratic cause has already paid her a hefty retainer for her services.

We can take heart that the tow truck is coming this November.

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Since You Asked...The Answer is HELL YES: Mary Jo is Anti-Israel

In a desperate attempt to convince voters that Congresswoman Mary Jo Kilroy is not an opponent of the strong, friendly relationship that exists between the United States and Israel the Congresswoman's campaign recently launched a new website, http://ismaryjoantiisrael.com/. The dull and uninspired website, which is un-sourced and provides veritably no useful information to voters, poses a solid white background with the question "Is Mary Jo Anti-Israel?" in black lettering, and then in large, bold-faced type: "NO" with a link to contribute to the Congresswoman's campaign. (However you needn't worry about contributing even if you are so misguided as to support her; she's already supplemented her campaign with your tax dollars.)

Kilroy's denial is very adamant, and I think the lady doth protest too much. An examination of the Congresswoman's record demonstrates that she has not been a "100%" supporter of Israel as she claims. In fact, Mary Jo Kilroy is one of the most anti-Israel Members of Congress. Period.

Congresswoman Kilroy's record of disregard for the U.S.-Israel alliance predates her tenure in the United States Congress. In 2002, during the height of the second Palestinian intifada, then-Franklin County Commissioner Kilroy was the lone vote against a three-part resolution expressing determination to 1) stand behind the efforts of the president in support of the government and the people of Israel in their time of crisis; 2) stand behind the State of Israel in its campaign against terrorism; and 3) support the State of Israel in its efforts to live in peace and security.

It is unclear to which innocuous provision(s) Ms. Kilroy objected: standing behind the president, supporting the people of Israel in a bloody conflict that cost them the lives of 1,063 of their countrymen, or supporting our ally in its quest to live in peace and security. Regardless of from which provision her objections stemmed, in dissenting to any she expressed disdain and disrespect for the people of Israel.

After being elected to Congress, Kilroy continued to exhibit her disdain for Israel. Congresswoman Kilroy was one of only 54 representatives to sign a letter urging President Obama to pressure Israel into easing blockade restrictions on the HAMAS-controlled Gaza Strip. Additionally, Kilroy was one of only six representatives to sign a letter asking Attorney General Eric Holder to hold a meeting with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim advocacy group the FBI has found to be linked to the terrorist group HAMAS, the primary goal of which is to "obliterate" Israel.

Now, why would Mary Jo take such positions so far out of the mainstream? Gosh, surely this can't possibly be another example of Kilroy being bought and paid for by disreputable characters....

Yep. It's that again. She's sold herself so many times you'd think she was on the other end of the Craigslist scandal.

As it turns out, Mary Jo Kilroy has a long-standing donor/puppet relationship with the Council on American-Islamic Relations. When then-Commissioner Kilroy voted against the resolution supporting Israel in 2002 CAIR was there to praise her for her "responsible stand by abstaining from voting on this very disturbing resolution." And then, in four years time, when Kilroy decided to make her first run for Congress, CAIR National Vice Chairman Ahmad Al-Akhras rewarded Kilroy for her anti-Israel sentiments with the first of many campaign donations.

If Kilroy's collection of bizarre out-of-state and out-of-the-mainstream donors can be likened to a compost heap, Ahmad Al-Akhras might well be the biggest weed growing out of it. Check out the picture of him below pressing the flesh with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's predecessor, Mohammad Khatami.

(Picture originally from CAIR's 2006 Annual Report)

Beyond being the No. 2 man at a front group for HAMAS, Al-Akhras has been known to serve as a character reference for convicted terrorists. Take, for example, Christopher Paul, an Ohio man who was charged and later plead guilty to "conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, namely explosives to be used as bombs" against U.S. citizens and property outside the United States as part of an al-Qaeda plot. Al-Akhras, who claimed to know Paul, said of him: "From the things I know, he is a loving husband and he has a wife and parents in town. They are a good family together." Paul was such a fine family man and father that investigators seized a letter from his apartment instructing his wife to raise "little mujahideen," or holy warriors. (The children are our future--even for jihadis!)

Kilroy donor Al-Akhras vouched for another suspected terrorist when he asserted that Nuradin Abdi, a Somali national accused of plotting to blow up a shopping mall, was "unlike how he [was being] portrayed" by the FBI. Al-Akhras went on to predict a dismissal of the charges, "This may be one of the cases also that may not have enough evidence or there's no evidence at all." Abdi later plead guilty to providing material support to terrorists.

With Congresswoman Kilroy sitting on the House Homeland Security Committee, it's deeply disturbing that she's accepting money from a guy who, at best, associates with terrorists and, more likely, is one.

It's equally disturbing to consider that she's so mentally warped as to make an argument that she supports Israel while palling around with folks who are nothing more than front men for a terrorist organization that's sole purpose is to destroy Israel.

The national Democrats want to make this election a choice, not a referendum on the legislative overhauls passed by the sitting Congress. In the case of Ohio's 15th Congressional District, the choice could not be clearer: Lt. Colonel Steve Stivers, who has worn the uniform of his country in the fight against terrorists, or Mary Jo Kilroy, a politician funded by terrorists.

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Mary Jo, Nancy, and The Pimp

Congresswoman Mary Jo Kilroy gets her money from some disreputable places. As previously reported in this blog, Kilroy has received money from the man who modernized the prostitution industry, Craigslist Founder Craig Newmark. Yesterday, Third Base Politics highlighted a CNN investigation into the role of Craigslist in the underage sex trade and suggested Congresswoman Kilroy should donate the money she received from Craig Newmark to charity. When you think about the flow of cash used to make this particular donation, it's impossible not to agree.

Craigslist makes nearly one third of its $122 million in revenues from "adult services" ads--that's more than $36 million of revenues earned from what are, essentially, pimping fees. With his company raking in pimping revenues hand over fist, it's safe to say a good chunk of Craig Newmark's net worth came in the form of sweaty, fluid-encrusted cash from the hands of gratified johns.

According to the CNN investigation, "A 20-year-old identified only as 'Jessica' works out of low-rent hotels on Washington's busy Interstate 95 corridor. She posts [Craigslist] ads mid-morning for $10 and says she earns up to $250 from each man who answers and shows up."

$250--that's the exact amount of money Craig Newmark has donated to Congresswoman Kilroy so far this election cycle. It's almost as though the john was paying Kilroy directly. Sleazy. And it's all happening right there in our nation's capital, right under Kilroy's nose.... I thought they were going to drain the swamp?

Over the course of the Congresswoman's career Newmark has basted her with $2,000 in direct donations. Indirectly, Newmark has furnished Kilroy with even more money by donating $15,500 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Barack Obama's Hopefund, Inc., Al Franken's Midwest Values PAC, and Howard Dean's Democracy for America, all of which have given sizable donations to Kilroy over the course of her career as a politician.

I don't know how many sex acts that all translates into, but I'm sure it's more than enough to have crushed the spirits of more than a few young women. The flow of money is sickening:

Sweaty, gratified palms of a john --> involuntary prostitute --> Craigslist/Craig Newmark --> Mary Jo Kilroy

What's particularly disgusting is Mary Jo Kilroy's hypocrisy. The Congresswoman has accepted a lot of money from well-meaning "Women's Issues" groups. She has two daughters; we've seen them in her ads. Congresswoman Kilroy should be out front showing some leadership to stop sex trafficking. Instead, she and her party are all but supporting it by accepting donations from the world's most notorious pimp.

Of course, as in everything, Mary Jo Kilroy is just following the example of her mentor, Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi has also accepted graft from Newmark. Together they're making a mockery of women's empowerment by abandoning the truly helpless to a cruel fate. Apparently, the Pelosi-Kilroy bond is strengthened by a mutual willingness to be blind to anything so long as it helps them gain the cash they need to stay in power.

Birds of a Feather
(Original photo from http://www.flickr.com/photos/speakerpelosi/3748460352/in/photostream/)




The issue shows a stark and meaningful contrast between Congresswoman Kilroy and her opponent, Lt. Colonel Steve Stivers. Stivers, while a State Senator, voted to strengthen anti-human trafficking laws by mandating prison terms for persons found guilty of human trafficking and payment of restitution to victims.

Steve Stivers knows what is right, and he does it.

Mary Jo Kilroy doesn't care what is right. She cares about cash for her re-election, and she'll accept it from anyone--even a pimp.