From a March 10 WorldNetDaily video by Molotov Mitchell:
Previously:
AIM’s Kincaid omits parts of Lancet study
that undermine his support for anti-gay Uganda law
AIM’s Kincaid aggressively defends proposed
anti-gay Uganda law
Some of Molotov Mitchell’s best friends are …
gay?
WND’s Mitchell says Uganda would be “right” to make
“homosexuality a capital offense”
Glenn Beck has repeatedly attacked popular music as “propaganda” that is helping to advance a progressive agenda and undermine America. Fox example, Beck warned that Woody Guthrie’s “This Land Is Your Land” is “about a progressive utopia” and that the Beatles’ “Revolution” “spell[s] it all out” about “how progressives have been operating.”
Beck and crew
call Springsteen’s “Born in the U.S.A.”
“anti-American.” On Beck’s radio show, co-host Pat
Gray stated: “How many of us go to the
Fourth of July fireworks display, we see the fireworks blasting, exploding in
the air, and we hear ‘Born in the U.S.A.’ by Bruce Springsteen, and we’re like,
‘Yeah, “Born in the U.S.A.” ‘ And you get filled with patriotic pride, and then
you find out that Bruce Springsteen’s ‘Born in the U.S.A.’ is
anti-American.” After Beck read the lyrics of the song, Gray said, “That’s what
it’s all about. That’s what America’s about, according to Bruce
Springsteen.” Beck responded: “See, here’s the thing that I don’t think people
understand yet — I think you do — that it is time for us to wake up out of
our dream state, wake
up out of the propaganda.” [Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, 3/11/10]
Beck warns
viewers that Woody Guthrie’s “This Land Is Your Land” is “about a progressive
utopia.” On his Fox News show, Beck read
lyrics from “This Land Is Your Land” by Woody Guthrie — whom he identified as a
communist — and stated: “This song is about a progressive utopia where there
are no owners of anything. We all just share it. It’s made for you — it’s your
land, it’s my land. We all have it together. Some people have property now, and
some people don’t. We can all think of this song as an American song. Yes, it is
– an American progressive song.” [Fox News' Glenn Beck,
3/10/10]
Beck analyzes
Beatles’ “Revolution” to illustrate progressives’ plan to slowly institute
Marxism. On his radio show, Beck implored
his listeners to “listen to the words” of the Beatles’ “Revolution.” After
playing part of the song, Beck asked, “Do you know why those two lines — evolution and
revolution — are in this song?” Beck then said, “If you know the history of
progressives” and stated that progressives and Marxists “believe in all the same
stuff.” Beck continued: “Their [progressives'] idea was you don’t need a bloody
revolution. You just evolve things slowly, and you’ll change the world.” After
playing more of the song, Gray said, “This is all — it’s peaceful.” Beck
responded, “But it’s progressive.” [The
Glenn Beck Program, 1/21/10]
Beck again on
“Revolution”: “[I]t’s all about understanding how progressives have been
operating.” On his January 25 Fox News show,
Beck again warned about the Beatles:
BECK: Last week on radio, we were
talking about the Beatles song, “Revolution.” I really listened to the words of
this and I got to tell you something, the Beatles spells it — they spell it all
out. And it’s all about understanding how progressives have been
operating.[...]
BECK: The Beatles knew. They knew,
opening and defending Mao, or attacking the Constitution would be suicidal. You
can’t change it. You can’t have a revolution. But you can make the Constitution
evolve. You can make it a — what is it progressives said around the turn of the
century — a living document! Evolution. Evolution, not revolution — slowly,
step-by-step. [Glenn Beck, 1/25/10]
My life has been filled with strange events, encounters and people since I was a small child. Besides encounters that I would consider alien in nature I have had experiences with those I have not been able to qualify as human, alien or something else. Three of these happenings stand out in my mind as experiences with the strange and unidentified.
Fox & Friends’ Steve Doocy baselessly claimed that Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) is offering a way to pass health care reform legislation “without actually voting on it.” However, the House has already voted on and passed a health care reform bill, and a legislative rule reportedly under consideration would still require the House to vote on changes to the Senate’s health care reform bill.
From the March 11 edition of Fox
News’ Fox & Friends:
DOOCY: It’s interesting, though.
While the Democrats are meeting behind closed doors today, Louise Slaughter, who
is the chair of the House Rules Committee — she has apparently got this idea on
how the House can vote on this bill without actually voting on it. Because apparently, what — you know, where people actually come out and
say, “I’m for it,” or
“I’m against it” — apparently, with each bill they have to
come up with a — they have to agree on a set of rules. And according to the papers this morning, the
“Slaughter
solution” rule would
declare that the House deems the Senate version to have been passed
by the House, and then
House members would then have to vote on whether or not to accept
the rule. So, by
passing that rule, then they can pass the health care bill without actually
voting on it. That is crazy.
House has already
passed health care reform bill. Contrary to Doocy’s claim that the
House “can pass the health care bill without actually voting on it,” the House already passed health care
reform legislation on November 7, 2009.
Report: House
would still have to vote on corrections to the Senate bill.
Contrary to Doocy’s claim that the
House would pass the bill simply by voting “on whether or not to accept the
rule,” CongressDaily reported (subscription required)
that the rule would require that the “House approves a corrections bill that
would make changes to the Senate version” for passage. From
NationalJournal.com’s CongressDaily:
House
Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is
prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially
avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.Slaughter is weighing preparing a
rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a
corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.
Fox News has trumpeted stories that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s staff — but not Pelosi herself — may have been made aware of some concerns regarding Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) last year. However, following the revelation that then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert had likely been personally informed of email then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) sent to a congressional page, Fox News personalities defended Hastert.
The disparities
between Fox’s coverage of the reports surrounding Massa and its coverage of the Republican
leadership’s handling of the Foley situation are especially striking
given the differences in the two stories.
After the Foley
scandal, the House ethics committee confirmed reports that Hastert was
likely told about Foley’s inappropriate emails yet took no action. The ethics
committee further found that Republican leader John Boehner failed to show “any
curiosity regarding” the Foley emails and failed to ask Hastert to do anything
about them.
By contrast, there is no evidence
that Pelosi personally knew of allegations about Massa before the matter became public, and
majority leader Steny Hoyer’s office says that Hoyer ensured that the
allegations were referred to the ethics committee as soon as he was made aware
of them.
Pelosi says she
first learned of Massa allegations in March
2010. As The Wall Street Journal reported
on March 11, “Pelosi said she personally learned about allegations of misconduct
[by Massa] March
3. The speaker said her staff knew about the allegations of sexual harassment
around the time they were reported to Mr. Hoyer’s office in early
February.”
WSJ: Leadership aide
says Pelosi wasn’t informed of “October discussion” about Massa. While Pelosi’s
staff was reportedly informed of “concerns” about Massa in October 2009, the Journal reported that according to a
senior Democratic leadership aide, “Pelosi wasn’t informed of the October
discussion, and the matter was not referred to the House ethics committee
because it did not involve allegations of inappropriate behavior or sexual
harassment.”
Hoyer’s office
says Hoyer ensured misconduct allegations were immediately referred to ethics
committee. Hoyer’s office released the
following statement
on March 3:
The week of
February 8th, a member of Rep. Massa’s staff brought to the attention of Mr.
Hoyer’s staff allegations of misconduct that had been made against Mr. Massa.
Mr. Hoyer’s staff immediately informed him of what they had been told. Mr. Hoyer instructed his staff that if Mr. Massa or
his staff did not bring the matter to the attention of the bipartisan Ethics
Committee within 48 hours, Mr. Hoyer would do so. Within 48 hours, Mr. Hoyer
received confirmation from both the Ethics Committee staff and Mr. Massa’s staff
that the Ethics Committee had been contacted and would review the
allegations. Mr. Hoyer does not know whether the allegations are true
or false, but wanted to ensure that the bipartisan committee charged with
overseeing conduct of Members was immediately involved to determine the
facts.
By
contrast, ethics committee found that Hastert was likely
told about Foley emails and apparently took no
action. From page 85 of the ethics committee’s 2006 report on the Foley
scandal:
The
Investigative Subcommittee finds that the weight of the evidence supports the
conclusion that Speaker Hastert was told, at least in passing, about the e-mails
by both Majority Leader [John] Boehner and Rep. [Tom] Reynolds [R-NY] in spring
2006.[...]
Neither the Majority Leader nor Rep.
Reynolds asked the Speaker to take any action in response to the information
each provided to him, and there is no evidence that the Speaker took any
action.
Ethics committee found that Rep.
Boehner and then-Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY) failed to show “any curiosity
regarding” Foley emails and failed to ask Hastert to take any
action. From page 85 of the ethics committee
report:
Rep.
Alexander did not ask either the Majority Leader or Rep. Reynolds to do anything
– each decided to mention the matter to the Speaker on his own initiative. Like
too many others, neither the Majority Leader nor Rep. Reynolds showed any
curiosity regarding why a young former page would have been made uncomfortable
by e-mails from Rep. Foley. Neither the Majority Leader nor Rep. Reynolds asked
the Speaker to take any action in response to the information each provided to
him, and there is no evidence that the Speaker took any action.
September
30, 2006: McClatchy reported that Reynolds said he informed Hastert of emails “months ago.”
On September 30, 2006,
McClatchy reported (accessed via Nexis) that
Reynolds said he informed Hastert
“months ago about the existence of e-mails to a page from Foley”:
Rep. Thomas Reynolds,
R-N.Y., chairman of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee charged with
maintaining his party’s majority, said Saturday that he told House Speaker
Dennis Hastert months ago about the existence of e-mails to a page from Foley
– e-mails the boy said
“freaked him out.”Hastert said he doesn’t
remember the conversation but “has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynolds’
recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution,” his
chief of staff and outside counsel said in an internal review released after
Reynolds’ statement.The
revelations have prompted calls for independent investigations. Some Democrats
have alleged a coverup by the House leadership.
Hannity defends Hastert: “The only
thing that Hastert knew about was that there was an
e-mail.” From the October 4, 2006, edition of
Fox News’ Hannity &
Colmes:
JANE
FLEMING (director, Young Democrats of America): Yeah,
it’s clear that Hastert knew over a year ago, and maybe even longer, that this
was going on, and he did absolutely nothing about it. And we have to ask: Why
did he do nothing about it?It seems to us that he was covering
it up, hoping that it would go away. When it didn’t go away, then they had Foley
resign, and they still haven’t done a full investigation about –HANNITY: Hey, Jane, Jane –
FLEMING:
Yeah?HANNITY: Let me stop you right
here.FLEMING: Go
ahead.HANNITY: There is no evidence, none
that you can cite to our audience –FLEMING: Yes, there
is.HANNITY: — wait a minute, wait a
minute — that Dennis Hastert knew anything about the sexual, salacious nature
of the instant messages.[...]
HANNITY: The only thing that Hastert
knew about was that there was an email. Now, I spoke to Hastert. He didn’t even
know about the request for a picture. All he knew was the parents wanted the
emails to stop –ANN
COULTER (right-wing pundit):
Right.HANNITY: — and the parents’ request
was answered. He didn’t know about this, and there’s no proof, in spite of
liberals screaming it, they can’t cite any evidence that Hastert
knew.COULTER: No, of course
not.HANNITY: But here’s what we do know.
Here’s what we do know. The George Soros-funded group, for example, got hundreds
of thousands of dollars from the Open Society that gives money to this group,
CREW, well, they knew about this — and I’m reading from The Hill —
quote, “when CREW received copies of Foley’s e-mails earlier this summer.” So
apparently, now there’s even discussion that they may have been in contact with
Democrats.
Hannity said there’s “no evidence”
GOP leaders knew Foley was “going after pages,” demanded CREW “phone
records.” From the October 5, 2006, edition of Fox News’
Hannity &
Colmes:
HANNITY: Let
me go back to Michael Barone here for just a second. Michael, this is an
important point you were raising here. And I want a full investigation.
Democrats are calling for it, but interestingly, I think, you know, I’d like to
see — for example, we know that this website, CREW, funded by George Soros, had
these emails now and were bragging on their website as early as July
21.Now, that raises the questions,
because a lot of these CREW members previously worked on Capitol Hill for
prominent Democrats. I’d like to see emails, I’d like to see phone records, I’d
like to know if there was any contact regarding these things. In other words,
what did they know and when did they know it? Because what you’re pointing out
here, they would have put the safety and security of children, you know –BARONE: At
risk.HANNITY: — prioritize partisan
politics over the safety and security of children.[...]
DOUG
HATTAWAY (Democratic strategist): That’s exactly what
the Republican leadership did. They — the point you’re missing, Sean, I think,
is wherever these explicit emails showed up — I don’t know what the leadership
knew about those — they knew that this guy was going after pages –HANNITY: There’s no evidence of that
at all.[crosstalk]
HATTAWAY: — they did nothing about
it.ALAN
COLMES (co-host): And thank you very much, Mr.
Liddy, Mr. Hattaway, and Mr. Barone. Thank you.
Hannity: “no evidence” Hastert knew,
suggested Republican leadership are “innocent people” being “smeared.” From the October 3, 2006, edition of
Fox News’ Hannity &
Colmes:
HANNITY:
Well, it’s taken on a very different dynamic though tonight, and that is that
Democrats are saying — I was watching The Fox
Report with Shep tonight, and there’s Nancy
Pelosi out there campaigning today, saying with just 100 percent certainty that
Dennis Hastert knew.Now, I interviewed Dennis Hastert.
I’ve interviewed John Boehner. They both deny — and there’s absolutely no
evidence to corroborate this. Now, we’re also getting information tonight that
there are Democratically funded websites, by people like Soros, that had
knowledge of this long before this was made public.I’m wondering if we’re now moving
into a different arena here, where this is so politicized that this is going to
backfire against the people trying to make hay out of what is a sexual scandal
of one man. Your thoughts?[...]
HANNITY: All right, perhaps, but
we’ll examine that in the next segment. But I think more importantly here
there’s some fundamental, I think, fairness issues
here.Everybody that I know is glad Foley
is gone, but there seems to be an issue here to purposefully politicize this
issue, and I find that equally repugnant to me. And, more importantly, I think
this takes on a whole new dimension, and this is it, that, if in the pursuit of
political power you are going to falsely accuse individuals of knowing things
about horrible scandals like this, you better have evidence, because we live in
America, and those American people you’re describing are
fair-minded.DICK
MORRIS (Fox News contributor): And that’s going to
backfire.HANNITY: And when innocent people
are smeared, Dick, I’ve got to believe that people would tend to side with the
people that are being smeared. And I see that this is happening more and more in
this scandal.
Brit Hume: “[I]’s always easy to say
what [Hastert] should’ve done, but when you start thinking about the things he
could’ve done, there’s not much there.”
From
the October 8, 2006, edition of Fox Broadcasting
Co.’s Fox News
Sunday:
HUME: Well,
I think that toward the end of the week it did begin to look a little brighter.
I don’t think the weekend revelations, Chris, are particularly
important.The former page of whom you speak
was an adult, 21 years old, at the time, and was long out of the House page
program. And it appears that Foley’s pattern was that he would flirt with these
pages, and sometimes in quite a lurid and disgusting way, but nothing ever
happened physically until after they were out of the program. And heaven knows
how many more will turn up to say that, yes, they, too, carried on with him
after they were out of the program, so I — and besides that, Foley’s gone, in
disgrace, finished. So how much more of the scandal can be fed by revelations
about what he did is questionable.As for what Hastert knew or didn’t
know, we probably won’t know what the facts are on that until this investigation
is concluded. However, let’s look back at this a
moment.Let’s assume that Hastert did know
or that he decided he wanted to do more than simply issue a stern warning when
he discovered these overly friendly but not X-rated emails. I think the defense
that he makes, or that some make of him, that if he tried to do something really
strong, he would have been accused of gay-bashing, there would have been charges
that the Republicans were trying to out one of their own members solely because
he was gay. It would not have been a pretty sight.So history doesn’t disclose its
alternatives, but I think we can pretty well see what that one would have been.
And it gives you an idea of — it’s always easy to say what he should’ve done,
but when you start thinking about the things he could’ve done, there’s not much
there.
Bill Kristol: “I think there’s no
evidence that Hastert did anything wrong, in my
view.” From the October 8,
2006, edition of Fox News Sunday:
KRISTOL:
Well, one would think, if one were Foley’s chief staff and thought one’s boss
was doing something really wrong and immoral, one might not just be quiet for
the next three years, if Hastert’s chief of staff didn’t act appropriately.
Maybe they thought they had talked to Hastert and to Foley and things — and he
had subsided. Maybe there’s some self-serving recollection going on
here.I think there’s no evidence that
Hastert did anything wrong, in my view. And this is — I do honestly believe now
the media is trying to stampede the social — you know, they’re treating social
conservatives like idiots, for one thing, like children. “Oh my God, one of 230
House members was gay and a real creep, and, you know, and therefore we’re not
going to vote on the issues we care about, therefore we’re going to abandon
every position we have. We’re going to retreat in shudder from the — retreat in
horror from the polls in November and let the Democrats win a
majority.”It’s not going to happen. The polls
have not moved all week. That is the big fact that’s going on. The media is
trying to stampede the elections, confirm the Democratic victory, and it’s not
working.
Kristol: “No one has really proven
or even plausibly suggested what [Hastert] should have done that he didn’t
do.” From the October 3, 2006, edition of Fox News’
The Big
Story:
JOHN
GIBSON (host): With me now is Fox News political
analyst Bill Kristol, who is the editor of The Weekly Standard. He
actually spoke to Dennis Hastert just a short time
ago.Bill, what does Dennis Hastert say
about this call for him to step town?KRISTOL: Well, first, he’s really
repulsed, I think, by Foley’s behavior. You know, Denny Hastert was a high
school teacher and a high school coach, and this kind of attempt to exploit
young boys, I mean, he — it’s just — he seems really sickened by
it.He’s angry at Foley for betraying
his trust, his colleagues’ trust, the voters of Florida’s trust, these page — pages’ trust.
He’s also angry at the Democrats for making — trying to make this a big
political issue to divert attention from the real issues that should be debated
in this congressional election, and I think he’s disappointed in some of these
few conservatives who I think foolishly have somehow lashed out at Denny
Hastert.The speaker seems to have done what
he could have done given what knowledge he had at the time. No one has really
proven or even plausibly suggested what he should have done that he didn’t do.
And I think he’s — he says he’s going to, you know, he’s not resigning, and
he’s going to try to get the debate back to the issues.
Mort Kondracke: “Hastert’s position
is completely defensible.” From the October 6, 2006, edition of
Fox News’ Special Report:
KONDRACKE:
Look, I completely agree with what Jim Baker said, and Jim Baker is a very wise
politician, that you give the — you give the enemy one of your people, and
they’ll just be chomping after more. Look, I agree that Hastert’s position is
completely defensible, and what the Republicans need to do is to change the
subject.Now, what are they going to change
the subject to? They don’t, you know, they’re not going to want to talk about
Iraq. I guess they want to go back to
terrorism. I don’t think that arguing over Gerry Studds or Barney Frank is gonna — is
gonna really change the subject; it’s just going to rivet attention back on this
because, look, what the Republicans rely on for their base is morality voters,
values voters, married women with children, and evangelicals, and those people are dismayed by
this whole thing.
Bill O’Reilly: “Hastert’s you know,
being witch-hunted
down.” From the October 4, 2006, edition of Fox News’
The O’Reilly
Factor:
O’REILLY:
And in the “Impact” segment tonight, the Foley controversy continues to dominate
the media. The question now is there anything more here? And is the far left
involved in exposing Congressman Foley?Joining us now from the ABC News
studio in New York
City, the man who broke much of the story, investigative
reporter Brian Ross.Now we are hearing that the roof is
going to fall in on Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Hastert’s guy issued us a statement just seconds ago, saying, look, Hastert
didn’t know anything about this. He heard a couple of inappropriate emails were
sent. Nothing was sexual. Hastert’s, you know, being witch hunted down. What do
you have? What do you know? And is Hastert in trouble in your
opinion?[...]
O’REILLY: Whatever. But the fact
remains that you tried to get a hold of Speaker Hastert. And so did I today. We
both did. He will not talk to you. He will not talk to me. I think that’s
foolish. I think he has to go out and defend
himself.Because at this point, the heavy
odds are that he’s going to have to resign for the good of the Republican Party.
Am I wrong?ROSS: Hard for me to judge on the
politics of it, but I can give you the facts. And that is that he has given
inconsistent statements and actually forgot apparently that he was told about
Foley earlier this year by Congressman Tom Reynolds, who today reasserted, “I
told the Speaker. Maybe he forgot, but I did tell
him.”O’REILLY: But what did he tell him?
What did he tell him? You see, here’s the real crux of this
matter.ROSS: Right,
right.O’REILLY: Did he tell him this guy
is just flirting with these guys, and it is ridiculous, and it’s embarrassing,
and he’s got to stop? Or did he tell him the guy’s having a sexual deal on the
Internet? See, that -ROSS: No, he didn’t tell him
that.O’REILLY: — that is what it
is.ROSS: And, look, I know what
happened here in terms of the timeline. Those sexually explicit instant messages
were not really in anybody’s possession outside of a handful of pages until last
week -O’REILLY: All right.
ROSS: — when we got them from some
former pages.O’REILLY: So it’s very possible that
Hastert didn’t know anything other than the guy’s an idiot. He’s just doing
things that are just immature and ridiculous.ROSS: Well, a hair more than that,
according to Fordham. That this was — because it was no secret among that group
that Foley was likely gay, and that his attention to the young male pages, in
particular, troubled a number of staff members.O’REILLY: All right, so they did
raise a red flag -ROSS: They
did.O’REILLY: — and apparently Hastert
did not act upon. I think that’s fair. Is that a fair
statement?ROSS: Well, he — Scott Palmer,
according to Fordham, at least, went and met with Foley. And then others also
went there.O’REILLY: OK, so I think it’s a fair
statement.Now the Citizens for Responsibility
and Ethics in Washington is a far-left group. George Soros
gives a lot of money to it through his Open Society Institute. They apparently
are the ones that drove this thing behind the scenes. Is that what you’re
hearing?ROSS: I’m not familiar with them.
They didn’t drive us, but I’ve since seen they have posted some of those
original emails on their website. I don’t think they had the ones that really
are the ones as you say correctly are in
contention.O’REILLY: OK. Because we’re trying
to figure out who is driving this, who went to The St. Petersburg Times,
The Miami
Herald, Fox News in Washington and got a hold of some
emails.The emails that we got a hold of
were innocuous. There weren’t any smoking gun. But we now believe, and
The Wall Street
Journal believes as well, that a George Soros-funded
group drove this story. That could be an interesting wrinkle here.
FoxNews.com:
“Massave Problem.” On March 11, FoxNews.com posted a
Wall Street Journal article
entitled “Pelosi’s Office Knew of Massa Concerns.” FoxNews.com posted the
following image which linked to the article:
Malkin: “The stance of
the Democrat majority
has been to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.” On the March
11 edition of Fox News’ Fox &
Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson claimed “now it’s coming out that
potentially her aides may have known about Congressman Eric Massa and some of
the concerns that people had about his activity, sexual misconduct allegations,
that maybe they knew as long ago as last year.” Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin
responded: “[T]his is
about Nancy Pelosi, and it is
about that very pledge she made so publicly and
ostentatiously to clean the swamp, to drain the swamp, and what she has done is overflown it — overflowed it, and I think the stance of
the Democrat majority
has been to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. And to hear her talk in such condescending
and flippant tones about how her job is not to be a receiver of rumors — that was the actual quote
that she has given now — what does that tell you
about her vigilance regarding integrity among her majority
members?”
America’s
Newsroom: There are
“reports now that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was actually informed months ago”
about Massa.
On the March 11 edition of Fox News’
America’s Newsroom, co-host Bill
Hemmer claimed there were “new questions about what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
knew about those incidents and, chiefly, when.” Co-host Martha MacCallum claimed that there
were “reports now that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was actually informed months
ago about some very questionable issues surrounding Eric Massa.” Hemmer later
asked Fox News reporter Steve Centanni, “What do we know about what Nancy Pelosi’s
staff first heard, and when, about these concerns about Massa?”
A New York Post column this week expressed grave concerned about the “ruthless” Obama administration and its willingness to use “every trick” in the book to get health care reform passed. The mob-like tactics remind the (fragile) Post of The Sopranos.
That’s certainly been a GOP Noise Machine favorite in recent week and months; that the WH is using extraordinary arm-twisting measures, including illegal maneuvers, to get its own members of Congress to sign off on a high-profile and controversial bill. Conservative partisans express outrage and gasp that they’re certain they’ve never seen anything like the horse-trading now on display inside the Beltway.
Except we have. And worse.
I noted this a couple month ago, but with the incessant right-wing rhetoric about the supposedly corrupt health care vote, it’s worth repeating: In 2004, a conservative member of Congress accused Republican colleagues of trying to bribe him by offering a six-figure campaign donation in exchange for his ‘yes’ vote on the controversial (and costly) Bush Medicare bill.
Funny, back then I don’t remember hearing much caterwauling from the Post opinion page, or from Michelle Malkin, who appears to be working her way through the alphabet and denouncing every member of the Obama administration as corrupt. She’s never seen this kind twisted vote-getting, she insists.
Except, of course, when it reportedly happened in plain sight in 2003.
From CBS/AP, at the time [emphasis added]:
The House ethics committee said Wednesday it will begin an investigation
to determine whether Rep. Nick Smith, R-Mich., was offered a bribe to
vote for the Medicare drug bill.…
Smith was among several
lawmakers lobbied heavily by GOP leaders last November to vote for the
measure. It narrowly passed but Smith voted against it because he said
it was too expensive.After the vote, Smith told a radio station
that Republican colleagues had offered $100,000 in campaign cash for his
son, Brad, if he voted for the bill. The younger Smith is running to
replace his father, who is retiring.
And what was the GOP’s reaction to the allegations?
And Republicans were mounting a defense, with former House Speaker
Newt Gingrich telling C-SPAN on Friday that Smith was “a disgruntled
retiring member” who was the victim of nothing more than the
usual treatment in a close vote.“I just think this is one of those occasional Washington mountains
that’s being built out of less than a molehill,” Gingrich
said.
Seizing on allegations made by Rep. Bob Bishop (R-UT), Fox & Friends accused the Obama administration of moving ahead with a “secret” and “sinister” plan to “grab 12, 13 million acres, designating them as federal monuments.” In fact, there is no such plan; the allegations are reportedly based on a “very preliminary” Department of Interior memo “brainstorming” possible “candidates” for monument status, and the Interior Department has said “[n]o decisions have been made about which areas, if any, might merit more serious review and consideration.”
Doocy: Document
“says that the government may be on the verge of grabbing 12, 13 million acres.”
On March 11, Fox & Friends hosts Gretchen Carlson
and Steve Doocy hosted the Heritage Foundation’s Becky Dunlop to discuss how
“somebody got their hands on this Department of Interior document that says that
the government may be on the verge of grabbing 12, 13 million acres designating
them as federal monuments.” According to The
Washington Post [archive], Dunlop resigned her position as an
assistant secretary in the Interior Department in 1989
after Republicans and Democrats in Congress “expressed fears
that Dunlap was attempting to take two of the government’s most sought-after
positions and fill them with political appointees.”
Carlson: Memo is
a “secret document” and it’s a “sinister” plan to “tie up land.”
Carlson stated that “some would
argue” that the national monument designation is “a cover. It’s a cover for what
they actually want to do which is what you’re alluding to, which is to tie up
this land so that we can’t mine this land in the future. Do you believe it’s
that sinister and this is why it’s sort of a secret document?”:
DUNLOP: The national monument
designation actually takes land and makes it similar to national park land,
which means there can really be no development and limited, not no activity, but
limited activities. So it would really lock up coal and other minerals which we
really need for energy, national security issues and jobs.DOOCY: What’s the monument part?
National monument – usually people think that you’re going to put a national
monument on it.DUNLOP: It’s just a designation.
DOOCY: OK.
DUNLOP: It’s a designation.
CARLSON: Well some would argue it’s
a cover. It’s a cover for what they actually want to do which is what you’re
alluding to, which is to tie up this land so that we can’t mine this land in the
future. Do you believe it’s that sinister and this is why it’s sort of a secret
document?DUNLOP: Well the sinister part is
lack of transparency. Our government – the way our government was founded, it
was for the people to be involved in making decisions. The designation of
national monuments is something that the president can do without going to
Congress, which means there’s really no public debate –DOOCY: Yeah.
DUNLOP:–and the people are not
considered in this decision. [Fox &
Friends, 03/11/10]
During the segment, an on-screen graphic appeared
calling the memo the “administration’s secret
agenda”:
Carlson: Obama is
“planning a massive land grab.” On March 10, Carlson stated,
“Information from a leaked memo show[s] how President Obama’s administration is
planning a massive land grab to designate more than 13 million acres of resource
rich land across 11 states as federally controlled national monuments.” Carlson
and co-host Brian Kilmeade then hosted Bishop who said he
wants to reform the process to give states “some say in what happens.” Carlson
asked “Are you saying environmentalists are in bed with the administration, and
that they say they want to put up national monuments, but in fact, they want to
keep land away from being able to be refined for resources?” Bishop said it’s a
“concern.”
Memo lists 14
“candidates” for National Monument designation. The Department of
Interior memo
lists 14 areas in Western states that “may be good candidates
for National Monument designation under the Antiquities Act” and three areas
“worthy of protection that are ineligible for Monument Designation and unlikely
to receive legislative protection in the near term.”
FoxNews.com
contradicts Doocy’s claim that government is considering “grabbing 12, 13
million acres.” A February 18 FoxNews.com article
reported that the 14 areas listed “total more than 13 million acres.” Contrary
to Doocy’s claim that “the government may be on the verge of grabbing 12, 13
million acres,” FoxNews.com reported, “Sources say President Obama is likely to
choose two or three sites from the list, depending on their size, conservation
value and the development threat to each one’s
environment.”
Memo indicates
that assessment of public support would be completed before final decisions.
Contrary to Dunlop’s assertion that
“there’s really no public debate and the people are not considered in this
decision,” the memo itself states that “further evaluations should be completed
prior to any final decision, including an assessment of public and Congressional
support.”
New
York Times: DOI spokesperson
said “the list was not secret at all.” The New York Times reported February 20 that
a “spokeswoman for the Department of the Interior, Kendra Barkoff, said the list
was not secret at all, but simply a ‘very, very, very preliminary,’ internal
working document resulting from a brainstorming session that Interior Secretary
Ken Salazar, a Democrat and former senator from Colorado, had requested about
the lands in the West.” It quoted her statement that “[n]o decisions have been
made about which areas, if any, might merit more serious review and
consideration.” From the Times article:
A new monument fight erupted this
week when Representative Rob Bishop, Republican of Utah, said he had uncovered a
“secret” Interior Department memorandum suggesting that the federal government
was considering national monument designation for 14 huge blocks of land in nine
states from Montana to New
Mexico.A spokeswoman for the Department of
the Interior, Kendra Barkoff, said the list was not secret at all, but simply a
“very, very, very preliminary,” internal working document resulting from a
brainstorming session that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, a Democrat and former
senator from Colorado, had requested about the lands in the
West.“No decisions have been made about
which areas, if any, might merit more serious review and consideration,” Ms.
Barkoff said in a statement.[...]
Ms. Barkoff at the Interior
Department said in an interview that Mr. Salazar, as Colorado’s attorney general, United States
senator and secretary of the interior, had a history of seeking consensus, and
that any discussion of monument designation would be open to public and
Congressional involvement.
Barkoff said
Salazar asked for “brainstorming” about “which areas might be worth considering
for further review.” The Hill
also reported
that Barkoff said the memo was “the fruit of ‘brainstorming’ within Interior’s
Bureau of Land Management,” and quoted her as saying, “Secretary Salazar
believes it is important that the Department of the Interior serve as wise
stewards of the places that matter most to Americans. For that reason, he has
asked DOI’s bureaus to think about what areas might be worth considering for
further review for possible special management or Congressional
designation.”
Doc Edwards educates us on alien motivation, the reason they are here! I am happy to welcome Regan Lee back to UFO Digest. She has a new article about ‘NEW’ UFOs, triangles and beams of light. Steve Hammons pens two articles on the anniversary of the Phoenix Lights. Nigel Kerner wonders why ET is playing hide and seek with us. Paul Schroeder instructs us on how to defend ourselves against alien abduction. Chris Holly asks a witch about UFOs and aliens. Then, Stephane Wuttunee writes about the return of the Extraterrestrial King. We have two UFO Spotlights this week: ‘WHY COAST-TO-COAST AM RULES THE NIGHT ‘by Vince White and ‘Remote Viewing’ by James Walsh. Next, Tony Elliott writes about the Earthquake Domino Effect and finally Carolyn Shield discovers the Cajun connection to Rennes-le-Chateau. Enjoy Dirk
The mystery of the 1997 ‘Phoenix lights’ incident seems to continue. TV shows, films, research articles and other explorations of the case still fascinate us – and still raise many questions. As the 13th anniversary of the strange incident approaches on Saturday, March 13, 2010, it does seem an appropriate time to take a new look at clues about this case.
Referencing HBO’s “The Sopranos,” Cato Institute senior fellow Michael Tanner wrote in the New York Post that Democrats “are willing to use every trick in the book to get this [health care] bill passed.” However, many of Tanner’s allegations of suspect tactics by Democrats are not supported by the facts.
From Tanner’s March 10 defined
by the U.S. House Committee on Rules as “part of the congressional budget
process … utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy
changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to
achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget
resolution.”
Republicans
repeatedly used reconciliation to pass former President Bush’s agenda. Republicans used
the budget reconciliation process to pass Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as well
as the 2005 “Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act.” The
Senate also used
the procedure to pass a bill containing a provision that would permit oil
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (The final version of that
bill that Bush signed did not contain the provision on drilling.)
Reconciliation
has repeatedly been used to reform health care. On February 24, NPR noted
that many “major changes to health care laws” have passed via reconciliation.
These measures include COBRA, which allows laid-off workers to keep their
insurance coverage, and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Tanner: “No sooner had Rep Jim Matheson
(D-Utah) suggested that he might be willing to switch his vote and support the
latest version of ObamaCare than his brother was nominated for a federal
judgeship.” From Tanner’s March 10 July 21, 2009,
Matheson outlined “some of the substantial changes required before he
could vote for” the House health care reform bill and “said the
suggested changes represent what will be a common-sense, bipartisan proposal
that shares many of the features under review by the U.S. Senate in their
committee negotiations.” In a November 6, 2009, press release,
Matheson “said he will vote against HR 3962″ because it does not
ensure “that the health care system is secure, stable and
affordable.” The press release further noted that “Matheson said he
is encouraged that a bipartisan, budget-deficit-neutral, cost-lowering bill is
on the table in the Senate.” After Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced
health care reform legislation to the Senate on November 18, Matheson
reportedly reported
on December 22, 2009, that Matheson “backs the tax on so-called ‘Cadillac
plans,’ especially after analysts with the non-partisan Congressional Budget
Office said it is one of the most powerful ways to slow health care
inflation.” Obama’s proposal includes
a version of the tax; the House plan does not. Moreover, The New York Times
reported
on October 28, 2009, that Matheson “prefers nonprofit member-run
cooperatives, rather than a government plan.” The Associated Press noted
on February 22 that “Obama did not include the government-run insurance
plan sought by some Democrats. He kept the Senate approach, which gives
Americans purchasing coverage through new insurance exchanges the option of
signing up for national plans overseen by the federal office that manages the
government health plan available to members of Congress. Those plans would be
private, but one would have to be nonprofit.” The Salt Lake Tribune also
reported
on November 5, 2009, that Matheson proposed “drop[ping] the nationwide health
insurance exchange called for in the [House] bill in favor of state-based
exchanges.” As the AP noted
on February 22, “liberals hoped Obama
would go with a national exchange like the House bill did, but he stuck with the
Senate’s state-based approach.”
Rep. Matheson’s office
and White House have called the “selling judgeships” smear
“ridiculous” and “absurd.” Politico’s Chris Frates reported
that Matheson’s spokeswoman “called the question ‘patently ridiculous,’
saying there was no deal made between her boss and the president that
guaranteed Scott Matheson’s nomination in exchange for Rep. Matheson’s vote.”
Frates later noted that a “White House official calls the charge ‘absurd.’
‘Scott Matheson is a leading law scholar and has served as a law school dean
and U.S. Attorney. He’s respected across Utah
and eminently qualified to serve on the federal bench,’ the official
said.” statement
regarding Scott Matheson’s appointment on March 4, saying, “Sen. Bennett
has heard of all kinds of pressure being applied and offers being made to
Democrats for votes on health care, but Scott Matheson’s nomination is not one
of those because it has been in the works for a long time.” Utah’s Deseret News reported
that Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) congratulated Obama on his selection and
praised Scott Matheson as “an excellent nominee.” A March 5 The Salt Lake Tribune article noted that
“pretty much everyone who knows the Mathesons” have “called the
claim simply absurd” and reported that Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) “said he
knew Scott Matheson was going to be the nominee more than a month ago and
disputes any idea that Obama was trying to get a vote for the nomination.”
Tanner: Dems
“bought votes with pork and special deals.” From Tanner’s March 10 op-ed:
Whether
or not you believe former Rep. Eric Massa’s bizarre accusations of locker-room
confrontations and conspiracies to drive him from office, there is no doubt
that the Obama administration and its congressional allies are willing to use
every trick in the book to get this bill passed.They’ve
already bought votes with pork and special deals — the “Louisiana
purchase” ($300 million to bolster that state’s Medicaid program, which
swayed Sen. Mary Landrieu); the “Cornhusker kickback” ($100 million
to Medicaid there, sweetening the pot for Sen. Ben Nelson), and Florida’s
“Gator Aid” (a Medicare deal potentially worth $5 billion, a hefty
price for Sen. Bill Nelson’s vote). Plus the millions for Connecticut
hospitals, Montana
asbestos abatement and so on.
“Louisiana
Purchase” was necessary Medicaid fix. Contrary to the claim that funding
for Louisiana in the Senate health care bill is a “trick … to get this bill passed,” the funds are urgently
needed to fix the state’s Medicaid problems, which are a result of
Hurricane Katrina; moreover, many of the state’s Republican lawmakers say
the fix is necessary, despite criticizing Landrieu for securing it in the bill.
PolitiFact:
The “Gator Aid” provision was included in Senate Finance Committee bill and
would have benefited seniors in multiple states, not just Florida. Contrary to Tanner’s suggestion that a provision
shielding Medicare Advantage enrollees living in certain areas was the “price
for Sen. Bill Nelson’s vote” on the final Senate health care bill, PolitiFact noted that “Nelson’s provision wasn’t a last-minute
addition. The Medicare Advantage exemption was included in the health care
reform bill that passed the Senate Finance Committee in October.” PolitiFact
also stated that the provision would not only benefit seniors in Florida, but also “in Oregon,
New York, New Jersey
and California.”
Obama proposal removes
“Cornhusker kickback,” “Gator Aid.” Obama’s February 22 proposed
changes to the Senate health care bill would “[e]liminat[e] the Nebraska
FMAP provision and provid[e] significant additional Federal financing to all
States for the expansion of Medicaid.” On March 2, Obama stated, “[M]y proposal does not include the Medicare
Advantage provision … which provided transitional extra benefits for Florida and other
states.”
