Obama: "I'll listen when you shut up!"

In a speech earlier this month in Virginia, President Obama starts off by telling us that he wants to listen to all side of an issue and then, several minutes later, closes his speech by basically telling those who disagree with him to sit down and shut up! Hmmmmm? I guess I must have missed this news on the main stream media. Oh, wait a minute, the main stream media didn't report this on this speech? I'm shocked! Peter J. Mahon

Bloomberg - "King For Life?"

Recently, a reporter asked Mayor Bloomberg if there is any guarantee that he won’t try to seek a fourth term if he wins his current bid a third term as Mayor. With a straight face, King Mike responded that the “law does not permit a fourth term!” When the reporter pointed out to Bloomberg that the term limits law did not used to permit more than two terms in office for Mayor Bloomberg said said “But it does now. It permits only three terms, so I don’t know. Talk to your City Council. The City Council changed the law. It’s up to the voters whether they want four more years…” Later that afternoon, realizing that the Mayor essentially stuck his foot in his mouth, Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser says the mayor is "not running for a fourth term; period." If I remember correctly (and I do!), Loeser said much the same thing back in January 2008, too. This is the same Mayor, who back in 2002, speaking of the two public referendums wherein the public voted twice to uphold the 2 term limit law, told the Daily News “I would oppose any change in the (term limits) law that a legislative body tries to make. I do think after you’ve asked the public to express their views twice, you don’t try to circumvent the will of the people.” In 2007 ,the Mayor also described the actions of some members of the City Council who were trying to overturn the term limits law so that they could hold on to their council seats as "disgraceful." In 2007, Council Speaker Christine Quinn also issued a statement saying, “After careful consideration and discussions with my colleagues in the Council, I have decided not to pursue a change in New York City’s term limit law… I believe that over-ruling the will of New Yorkers - who have voted twice in favor of term limits - would be anti-democratic and anti-reform.” Of course, in August of 2008, all that changed when King Mike decided that he wanted to run for a 3rd term. Speaker Quinn and the rest of the City Council who, by that time, had their own problems with the Council’s “slush fund” scandal, jumped right on the Mayor’s bandwagon and passed legislation, without any public input, effectively negating the longstanding term limits law. This Mayor and his City Council essentially told the voters of this city, who had twice voted for term limits, that their votes didn't count for anything when he and his Council simply rewrote existing law, without public input, amending the term limits law to allow for a third term. And now, when asked about the possibility of a fourth term, he has the audacity to look at a camera and tell us that "It’s up to the voters whether they want four more years…" What I would really like to see is a reporter with some backbone to pointedly ask the Mayor how he can blithley state that "it is up to the voters" when he obviously disregarded those same voters when he conveniently amended the term limits law despite the two voter enacted referendums mandating that the two term limit law remain in place? In doing so, did not he and the Council basically "circumvent the will of the people?" After all, given the Mayor's track record with this issue, if the voters don't want a fourth term, there is nothing stopping our billion dollar Mayor and his cohorts on the Council from, once again, amending the term limits, essentially making Mike "King of New York for Life!"

Peter J. Mahon

Hillary Compares Florida to Third World Country!

Lest we forget about our Secretary of State... During her recent rip to Africa, our Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton visited Nigeria, a land of political violence and corrupt elections, Clinton tried to push the message that embracing violence after a disputed election is never the answer. But then she said this. “Our democracy is still evolving. We had all kinds of problems in some of our past elections, as you might remember. In 2000, our presidential election came down to one state where the brother of the man running for president was the governor of the state, so we have our problems, too.” Clinton’s comparison of Nigeria and Florida didn’t get too much play on the Main Stream Media, Brian Williams of NBC simply stated that it was “an off the cuff remark.” Memo to Brian Williams, the Seretary of State is not supposed to make “off the cuff remarks” in the course of her duties! It’s bad enough that our President is continually apologizing to the World for the success of our Nation but now our Secretary of State is comparing the State of Florida to the third world politics of Nigeria? What the hell is going on here?

Peter J. Mahon

Obama's "Green Jobs Czar"

Speaking of President Obama's Czars, earlier this year the White House web page announced Obama's appointment of Van Jones as the President's "Green Jobs Czar". The White House described Mr. Jones as follows... "The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Chair Nancy Sutley announced yesterday that Van Jones – an early green jobs visionary -- will start Monday as Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at CEQ: Van Jones has been a strong voice for green jobs and we look forward to having him work with departments and agencies to advance the President’s agenda of creating 21st century jobs that improve energy efficiency and utilize renewable resources. Jones will also help to shape and advance the Administration’s energy and climate initiatives with a specific interest in improvements and opportunities for vulnerable communities Jones is the founder of Green For All, an organization focused on creating green jobs in impoverished areas. He is also the co-founder of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and Color of Change, and was the author of the 2008 New York Times best-seller, The Green Collar Economy." What the White House failed to mention on their web page is that The administration’s “Green Jobs” czar, Van Jones, has a “very checkered past” deep-rooted in radical politics, including black nationalism, anarchism, and communism. The broadcast network newscasts have mostly failed to report on Mr. Jones’s past political affiliations which are lock-step with the network’s downplay of coverage regarding President Obama’s associations with the former radical and terrorist William Ayers during the election. On the July 10 edition of “Fox and Friends,” Americans for Prosperity Policy Director Phil Kerpen, told interviewer Brian Kilmeade that Jones is “somebody who was involved in radical politics in San Francisco, “who was self-admittedly “radicalized in jail” and found “Communism and anarchism.” Kerpen compares Van Jones’s Communist past with his new quest for environmentalism and the creation of green jobs: "I think it’s pretty instructive what his past is...it’s the same sort of philosophy, the idea that government ought to be reordering society in accordance with some utopian vision that failed with communism and socialism, and will fail with this green jobs idea. Jones himself stated in a 2005 interview his environmental activism was a means to fight for racial and class “justice,” and that he was a “rowdy black nationalist,” and a “communist.” Because the administration’s “czars” do not go through congressional confirmation, and are therefore not scrutinized or vetted, many Americans have no idea who they are or where they come from. Kudos to Fox News for bringing Van Jones’s controversial past and political ideology to light. The following was aired on the July 10 edition of Fox and Friends: BRIAN KILMEADE, co-host, “Fox and Friends”: Phil, we have a czar, he’s a green jobs czar, he’s Van Jones, he’s got a deep history in communism. PHIL KERPEN, AFP Policy Director: He does. He has a very checkered past. This is somebody who was involved in radical politics out in San Francisco, California. He was arrested during a demonstration/riot following the Rodney King verdict. And he said himself that he was radicalized in jail, that he found communism and anarchism. And then he started a pretty radical, kind of communist, socialist, utopian group that was supposed to end all racism though central planning. And then he decided that the real path the sort of progressive nirvana, was the this green jobs idea. I think its pretty instructive what his past is, I am not just trying to smear the guy, but I think it’s the same sort of philosophy, the idea that government ought to be reordering society in accordance with some utopian vision that failed with communism and socialism, and will fail with this green jobs idea. We are imposing a top-down vision. GRETCHEN CARLSON, co-host: And more importantly for America Phil, is the fact that we already have an Energy Secretary, who by the way had to go through Congress to be approved. And the reason that these czars, you don’t know anything about them, is because they don’t have to go through that process. So let's back track a moment, shall we? William Ayers - admitted terrorist bomber Jerimiah Wright - "God Damn America" John Holdren - forced marriages, abortions, and mass sterilization Van Jones - self described rowdy activist and communist Anyone see a problem here?

Peter J. Mahon

Obama"s Science "Czar"

John P. Holdren was recently named as President Barack Obama's 'Science Czar." Holdren's official titles are: Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; Assistant to the President for Science and Technology; and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. The longtime Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, Holdren is no stranger to controversy. Holdren's radicalism dates back to the late 1960s. (Remember William Ayers and the Weather Undergound?) In 1969 Holdren wrote that it was imperative “to convince society and its leaders that there is no alternative but the cessation of our irresponsible, all-demanding, and all-consuming population growth.” That same year, he and (the now largely discredited) professor of population studies Paul Ehrlich jointly predicted: “If population control measures are not initiated immediately and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.” In 1971 Holdren and Ehrlich warned that “some form of ecocatastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century.” Viewing capitalism as an economic system that is inherently harmful to the natural environment, Holdren and Ehrlich in 1973 called for “a massive campaign … to de-develop the United States” and other Western nations in order to conserve energy and facilitate growth in underdeveloped countries. “De-development,” they said, “means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” “By de-development,” they elaborated, “we mean lower per-capita energy consumption, fewer gadgets, and the abolition of planned obsolescence.” " In a new report “inspired by this article in FrontPage,” undercover videoblogger “Zombietime” (known for his “candid camera”-style exposes of leftist activists and protesters) got hold of a copy of Holdren & Ehrlich’s 1977 book, entitled Ecoscience, and verified the quotations and page citations provided in the FrontPage Magazine article, by scanning and posting them on the Internet. To this day, Holdren lists the book on his resume. Among other things, Holdren and Ehrlich wrote in Ecosystems: "Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." "It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society." "Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock." I realize the above words were written by Holdren over 30 years ago, but if you or I were to run for local elected office with this type of background, we would be crucified! Of course Holdren's post is not an elected one but just the same, our President's choice of administration appointments (and friends) is beginning to scare me! Due diligence requires that I also post that pior to his appointment as Science Czar earlier his year Mr. Holdren was questioned by Senator David Vitter (very briefly) about the policies he put forth in book and he responded... "I no longer think it's productive, Senator, to focus on the optimum population of the United States. I don't think any of us know what the right answer is. When I wrote those lines in 1973, uh, I was preoccupied with the fact that many problems the United States faced appeared to be being made more difficult by the greater population growth that then prevailed. I think everyone who studies these matters understands that population growth brings some benefits and some liabilities; it's a tough question to determine which will prevail in a given time period." Vitter then asked, "You think determining optimal population is a proper role of government?" To which Holdren replied, "No, Senator, I do not." I really don't care a whit that Mr. Holdren now states he doesn't believe in his previously recommended policies for the control of population growth. I have a very big problem with Obama's appointment of an individual who, for whatever reason(s), thought that the United States Constitution would allow for forced abortions, forced marriages, large scale sterilization of the population, and an accompanying massive campaign to "de-develop" the United States! Mr. Holdren stated that his previous espoused policies back in 1977 were a result of his being "preocupied" with the problem of population growth in the United States. In light of the Obama administration's continuing grab for power via nationalization of our health care system, I ask the following question...What if Mr. Holdren suddenly becomes preoccupied with "population control" again?

Peter J. Mahon