Ted Kennedy 1932-2009

For as much as I may have disagreed with the senior senator from Massachusetts, on this day, it's good for the world to see how we treat our leaders with dignity and respect and are willing to set differences aside and comfort those who mourn the loss of a father, brother, and uncle.

America is a wonderful country.

Rest in peace, Ted!

Samuel Gonzalez

Exploiting Ted Kennedy’s Death for Democrat Political Gain

WHY TED'D WANT HIS DEATH EXPLOITED

IF you read the papers or watch the news, you'll en counter a long list of accom plishments by the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. You're less likely to hear, however, that in his death Kennedy proved Rush Limbaugh right.

In March, the talk-show host and bete noir of progressives everywhere said that the health-care bill wending its way through Congress would eventually be dubbed "the Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care Bill." At the time, the official position of the Democratic Party was outrage and disgust. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee initiated a petition drive demanding that the Republican Party formally denounce Limbaugh for his "reprehensible" and "truly outrageous" comments.

Fast-forward to a few hours after the announcement of Kennedy's death. Suddenly, naming the bill after Kennedy would be a moving tribute.

ABC News reports that "the idea of naming the legislation for Kennedy has been quietly circulating for months" but was kicked into overdrive by Sen. Robert Byrd, the Democratic Party's eldest statesman.

Intriguingly, this suggests that either Democrats already had the idea when Limbaugh floated it, which would mean their protests were just so much opportunistic and cynical posturing -- or they actually got the idea from Limbaugh himself, which would be too ironic for a Tom Wolfe novel.

But that Kennedy's death should be marked by cynicism, opportunism and irony is not shocking, given that these qualities are now the hallmarks of the party he largely defined.

The Democratic Party's determination to exploit his death for political gain puts the commentator who doesn't wish to speak ill of the dead in something of a bind. So let us be clear that there's no evidence whatsoever that Kennedy himself -- or any Kennedy -- would object to such a ploy.

Whether one calls it exploitation or heroic perseverance, the Kennedy dynasty's longevity is best understood as a response to fatal tragedies. Shortly after her husband's murder, Jacqueline Kennedy lamented Lee Harvey Oswald's inconvenient political views: "It had to be some silly little Communist."

Fortunately, her husband's handlers had things well in hand, orchestrating with a compliant media the grand fiction that Kennedy had somehow been a martyr to civil rights, taken out by right-wing "hate."

The real JFK, who cut capital-gains taxes and only reluctantly supported Martin Luther King Jr.'s March on Washington, had never been nearly as liberal as the posthumous legend created to give new life to liberalism -- and the Kennedy name.

According to the mythmakers, JFK would have pulled us out of Vietnam. Meanwhile, the real JFK boasted (mere hours before his murder) that he'd massively boosted defense spending and ordered a 600 percent increase on counterinsurgency special forces in Vietnam. The prior March, he'd asked Congress to spend 50 cents out of every dollar on defense.

Hence one of the great ironies of Ted Kennedy's career: He was the chief beneficiary of an inheritance from a brother whose views he didn't share.

Such contradictions never bothered Ted Kennedy, nor his fellow Democrats, when he was alive -- so why should there be compunction now?

After all, the Kennedys and the Democrats have mythologized and exploited the deaths of three brothers (and minimized the deaths of Mary Jo Kopechne and Martha Moxley) in order to protect the Kennedy brand. Naming a massive expansion of the federal government after Ted Kennedy, particularly when it was indeed his life's cause, seems entirely fitting and fair.

My only objection is the notion that somehow anyone but partisan Democrats should be expected to cave in to the "Do it for Teddy" bullying.

Conservatives should surrender to something that violates their fundamental principles out of deference to the very man liberals celebrate for never abandoning his fundamental principles? No one expected Ted Kennedy to become a champion of free markets out of deference to Ronald Reagan's memory.

Now, if liberals want to rally their own troops by putting Kennedy's name on the bill, that's their right, even if it will likely result in an even more unpopular bill than the ones now under consideration.

I suspect that they'll be disappointed to discover that the currency of the Kennedy name purchases far less than it once did -- thanks in large part to what Ted Kennedy did with it.


Jonah Gldberg, NY Post, 8/29/09

Kennedy's Funeral Further Damages the Church's Credibility

There is much truth to the adage that many of our wounds are self inflicted. This has been especially true for the Catholic Church in the United States and the Archdiocese of Boston in particular. Recall that the clergy sex abuse scandal first came to light there because of their egregious nature and the laxity of the then Archbishop Bernard Cardinal Law in handling them. According to statistics the Church is still reeling from the aftershocks.

On Wednesday the Church further diminished her credibility when it was announced that a Mass of Christian Burial would be celebrated for Senator Edward M. Kennedy at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Basilica. It was also announced that President Barack Obama would be the eulogist.

Senator Kennedy, along with President Obama have been the most pro-abortion and pro-embryonic stem cell research politicians in the nation. As a matter of fact, Senator Kennedy refused to vote for Supreme Court nominees Robert Bork and Samuel Alito for fear their appointment might lead to overturning Roe v. Wade. These positions are inimical to Catholic Church teaching and throughout the years, the American hierarchy has railed against Catholic politicians such as Kennedy who hold such views. Some bishops have even advised them not to receive Holy Communion -- an action just short of excommunication.


In recent days the spin-doctors have done their best to portray Senator Kennedy as a devout Catholic. Stories of his visits to church in order to pray for his ailing daughter Kara, a cancer survivor, and reports of his personal religiosity have been widely circulated. The media has also noted numerous visits by priests to the Kennedys’ home during his illness for the administration of the sacraments, presumably including confession and even the celebration of a private Mass in Kennedys’ living room. There is no report, however, of repudiation of his voting record or sorrow for his obstinate refusal to adhere to Catholic morality on two of the most important life issues. An important part of the Sacrament of Penance, along with sorrow for sin, is to try to repair the damages that our sins have caused. Certainly, enough time had elapsed between the diagnosis of the Senator’s terminal illness and his death for him to make amends and to alleviate some of the scandal. Yet, there is no indication that this has happened.

A Mass of Christian Burial is a privilege -- not a right. It is for those who have lived a Christian life. Senator Kennedy’s scandalous disregard of his Church’s teaching and the destruction of human life that may be attributed to his voting record make his funeral celebration quite dubious. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to evil… and that it takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it”(n. 2284-85). For such a person the Code of Canon Law says, “Church funeral rites are to be denied to the following (unless they gave some sign of repentance before death): manifest sinners to whom a Church funeral could not be granted without public scandal to the faithful” (c. 1184.3). How many Catholics have been led astray by Senator Kennedy and other prominent pro-choice Catholics? And, finally, how many other Catholic politicians will be emboldened to emulate his behavior because the honor the Church is extending to him?

Some will argue that the Church, by its very nature, always gives the benefit of the doubt to the sinner. Yet, even such an act of charity calls for a pastoral solution so as not to mislead others and cause greater harm. In this case, a subdued funeral service should be offered for the repose of Senator Kennedy’s soul. It should be made clear that, as it is the purpose of every Catholic funeral, the Mass is being celebrated to beg God’s mercy for the deceased. But, then even this solution would be meaningless when the nation’s most pro-choice president ever is permitted to eulogize his ideological soul mate in the Church’s sanctuary. Imagine the accolades that will be lavished on the Senator Kennedy’s character and career!

The Church’s credibility has once again been undermined by the hierarchy of the Church in Boston. This scandal is even bigger than the one enabled by Cardinal Law because of its bad message and long ranging implications.

Rev. Michael P. Orsi a Research Fellow in Law and Religion at Ave Maria School of Law. Human Events, 8/28/2009

The Hero of Chappaquiddick: a profile of liberal Democrat Ted Kennedy

In light of the death of Sem Ted Kennedy, I like to re-post a 5 year old article that touches on “the other Ted Kennedy” that will not get much attention. The Liberal media so loves to whitewash their heroes.

Ted Kennedy was able to live 77 years.

Mary Joe Kopechne wasn’t so lucky.



The Hero of Chappaquiddick: a profile of liberal Democrat Ted Kennedy

B y Jack Ward 7/30/05

On the anniversary of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, Edward M. (Teddy) Kennedy wanted to make sure everyone was reminded of the incident. Since Sen. Kennedy wants to remind us of history, I feel obligated to mention the anniversary of Kennedy's troubled past.

Teddy is the last son of Joe and Rose Kennedy. The older, famous sons John (JFK) and Robert (RFK) are icons in Democrat politics. But as Cleo O'Donnell, a wife of a former Kennedy campaign aide said, "Teddy Kennedy was the weak kitten in the litter, never able to measure up to his brothers." At prep school his performance was so mediocre his brother JFK once referred to Teddy as "the gay illiterate."

Teddy was admitted to Harvard as a legacy student rather than for academic achievement. Teddy was fortunate that JFK, RFK and his father had graduated with distinction. Teddy's claim to fame at Harvard was getting expelled for cheating in his sophomore year. After getting expelled, he sat around feeling sorry for himself until he signed up for a four-year hitch in the Army.

His father Joe (who was the U.S. Ambassador to England) was very upset. He reportedly said, "Don't you ever look at what you're signing?" He then pushed political buttons and revised the enlistment to two years. It is nice to have a daddy fix your screw-ups. In two years he never go above the rank of private.

After demonstrating his military prowess, Teddy returned to Harvard and joined the rugby team. Rugby has been described as a "character-building sport." In one match, Teddy got into three fist-fights and was finally thrown out of the game. According to referee Frederick Costick, "Teddy was the only player he had ever expelled from a game in 30 years of officiating." Rugby did little to improve Teddy's character.

After graduating from Harvard, he entered the University of Virginia Law School. At Virginia, he was called "Cadillac Eddie." He got four tickets in two years for running red lights and driving at night with lights off at 90 miles per hour through neighborhoods. But even with convictions, fines and strict driving regulations, he never lost his license.

When JFK was elected president in 1960, his Massachusetts Senate seat became vacant. Papa Joe said, "Look, I paid for it, it belongs in the family." But Teddy wasn't 30, so he couldn't run. So Joe got an interim slug to occupy the office until Teddy could be anointed. In 1962, Ol' Joe succeeded and Teddy became a U.S. Senator.

On July 18, 1969, Teddy's sordid past caught up with him at Chappaquiddick, Marths's Vineyard, Massachusetts. Teddy was one of a party of six married men and six single women. Investigators confirmed that a package liquor store sold three half-gallons of vodka, four fifths of scotch, two bottles of rum and two cases of beer for the party. Attendee Joe Gargan said, "Frankly, everybody was a little bombed."

About 12:45 a.m., Teddy and campaign aide Mary Jo Kopechne decided to leave the party. Rather than have Teddy's personal chauffeur (Jack Crimmins) drive, Teddy demanded to drive Mary Jo "to the ferry" - but the ferry had stopped running at midnight.

Deputy Sheriff Christopher "Huck" Look saw a black Oldsmobile driving erratically and the driver appeared to be in a "confused state." Even with the partial license plate, it was verified to be Kennedy's car. After being spotted by Deputy Look, Kennedy sped off. In his haste, he missed the bridge and the car went into the water. Teddy escaped but Mary Jo Kopechne didn't. Kennedy didn't report the accident for more than 10 hours.

Neither Kennedy's timeline nor account of events matched the facts nor the statements from the deputy sheriffs or nearby residents. While the 10-hour delay ensured that he couldn't be charged with driving while intoxicated, his driver's license had expired and he had fled the scene of an accident. Friends recreated his driver's lcense, but Chapter 90, Section 24 of the Massachusetts vehicle code requires "imprisonment for not less than 20 days or more than two years" when a driver leaves the scene of an accident where injuries occur - for all people except a Kennedy.

State police detective-lieutenant George Killen said, "Senator Kennedy killed that girl the same as if he put a gun to her head and pulled the trigger."

In 1973, Sen. Ted Kennedy said, "Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?"

Teddy should know.

Summer Fun

As I was browsing through the plethora of digital images stored on my computer, I came across quite a few that I thought I would share. I will try to comment on them as I upload, just wanted to share some funny moments we have enjoyed throughout the summer.

Katie, Shelby, and I sitting on a blanket listening to live music...what great friends to have this summer.

Each year, Stehekin holds a music weekend with the opening performance at the ranch. It was great to sit on the grassy lawn and listen to tunes. The instruments and talent here were awesome.

Steven on Butte...just doing a little packing. He is right above High Bridge here heading towards Agnus Creek Trail.

Sunset on the lake with the tug in the foreground. A picture Steven took one evening.

Making brownies with Liz, Katie, and Shelby....half of the needed ingredients were missing...but they tasted oh-soo-good since we were able to find suitable substitutions. Never a dull moment with this group!

Early this summer, the power was out one night and the plan for dinner was bacon, egg, and cheese sandwiches. Needless to say those are tough to make without a stove (electric of course) and a microwave. So, we set up "camp" on the front porch and started cooking. Halfway through...the power came back on. Just as we moved everything back inside...it went back off. Dinner was great though...even though it took a while to complete.

Steven and his prize mushroom that he found in the lower field. I think he showed it to pretty much everyone in the valley and the thing weighed close to 10 lbs we think.

My home away from home..the kiosk!

Just horsin' around with Katie one afternoon when no one wanted to go to Coon Lake. We took Lilly and Foss to the river to splash around in the sun.

Katie playing dress-up at the house! I think she might actually steal Steven's hat before the summer is over with.

Packages

Fun packages are super exciting, especially when they have your box number on them. These two came last week, one from mom and one from a summer friend. Both were filled with exciting goodies and treats. Getting mail is a highlight of any week here since there are no cell phone messages to check after work!

Family Time

Mom and Steve were able to come for a visit a few weeks ago and we had a grand time together as a family. Our days were filled with short hikes, bike rides to the bakery, tasty meals from the Bozard kitchen, and evenings on the front porch at our house. Mom was able to go on a day ride with me one day to the ever-popular Coon Lake and enjoyed working in the craft shop a few days while I manned the kiosk. On Friday, the day after they arrived, they both enjoyed a scenic tour with Chelan Seaplanes and you can see a few photos from the airplane below. Local music played on Saturday evening by the river so we all stretched out on blankets to enjoy the evening after a tasty meal. Sunday morning was occupied by a boat ride to Holden to see the old Copper Mine and poke through old photo albums at the mine museum. Monday night was reserved for flank steak at the ranch...everyone's favorite meal served! Steve even tried his hand as a chief as he cooked pork loin on the grill on Friday night for us before departing on Sunday. They both floated down the Stehekin River one afternoon and returned to the landing area with smiling faces. It was a fun week and a great chance for Mom and I to catch up and look at pictures of Kyson and Sayla (I included a few below). Thanks for coming! Oh...I should say that mom took most of these pictures as well and I know there are some fun photos from the day ride, but I can't seem to locate them on my computer right now!

Obama Wagging the Dog: Launches Witch Hunt of Bush Interrogators

Obama's War on our Spies

The criminal indictments may as well be captioned, “The United States vs. The Central Intelligence Agency,” because that’s the correct way to identify the adversaries. The Democrats’ war on our intelligence agencies has now become a two-front war with the Obama administration attacking where Congressional Democrats couldn’t.

Attorney General Eric Holder has announced he will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the CIA interrogators who used tough interrogation techniques to see which of them will be prosecuted. Holder has drawn a line in the sand.

On one side stands the US Department of Justice, its army of second-guessers and scalp-hunters at the ready, with unlimited time and an unlimited budget to pursue whatever theory of the law it chooses. On the other sits the interrogators and CIA bureaucrats who have been trying -- sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing -- to get terrorist detainees to give up intelligence information that will save American lives.

Unlike the Justice Department, they don’t have unlimited funds to fight in court for years. There won’t be gaggles of high-priced lawyers donating their services to defend these people. Many of their lives will be ruined, and fortunes lost.

Grinning on the sidelines will be the terrorists and the nations that sponsor them, wondering how America can be so incredibly stupid as to hobble its principal spy agency in the middle of a war that cannot be won without that agency’s success in everything it does.

But the enemy is more understanding of our history than we are. They remember that Gen. George S. Patton was sidelined for many critical months during World War 2 for the minor infraction of slapping a soldier across the face. They know that though espionage is probably the world’s second-oldest profession, our politicians and academics treat its professionals worse than they treat the practitioners of the oldest profession. And they know how soft-brained we have become.

Holder’s about to appoint career federal prosecutor James Durham -- who is already investigating the CIA’s destruction of videotapes of many of the interrogations -- to investigate whether crimes were committed in the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” including waterboarding by CIA interrogators.

Holder’s announcement came a day after what ABC News reported as a “profanity-laced screaming match” at the White House involving CIA Director Leon Panetta who may have threatened to quit over the release of a CIA Inspector General’s report on the interrogations and -- almost certainly -- the Obama-Holder decision to go forward with the appointment of Durham.

That screaming match might also have been about the White House’s sudden move to take direct charge of the interrogation of terrorist detainees. No, Barry and Rahm won’t be going into the closed cells to face off with the world’s worst people. But they will be approving what can and can’t be done by those who do.

Congressional Democrats -- led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- have been at war against our intelligence agencies ever since it became clear that Pelosi had been briefed on CIA waterboarding of terrorist detainees in 2002. Pelosi has repeatedly accused the CIA of lying and driven Panetta -- himself a partisan Democrat -- to write a scathing defense of his agency in an August 2 Washington Post op-ed.

In that article, Panetta condemned the Congressional jihad against the CIA saying it was characterized by “…an atmosphere of declining trust, growing frustration and more frequent leaks of properly classified information.” For short-term political advantage, and to cover up for Pelosi’s lies, the Congress of the United States is making war on the CIA. Now the White House and the Justice Department have lined up with Pelosi.

Sen. Chrisopher Bond (R-Mo), ranking Republican on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, summed it all up yesterday. Bond said, “First the White House usurps control over terrorist interrogations, signaling to the world they have lost confidence in Leon Panetta and our intelligence community, and now the Obama Justice Department launches a witch-hunt targeting the terror-fighters who have kept us safe since 9-11. With a criminal investigation hanging over the Agency’s head, every CIA terror fighter will be in CYA mode. With things heating up in Afghanistan and Iraq, this looking back and unwarranted "redo" of prior Justice Department decisions couldn’t come at a worse time for the safety of our troops in harm’s way and our nation.”

Bond’s statement came on the day when the Obama administration released a heavily-redacted version of the CIA Inspector General’s report dated May 7, 2004 on the alleged abuses of detainees in CIA custody. The report was selectively redacted to remove apparent references to the information gleaned during the interrogations with two very important exceptions.

As soon as he was inaugurated, President Obama prohibited the use of the so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” on terrorist detainees, condemning them as “torture”, though that is not what American law said in 2002 and 2003 when they were employed.

One al-Quaida detainee, Al-Nashiri, was subjected to some of the “enhanced interrogation techniques” – the ten methods described with specificity on page 15 of the report – on the first day he arrived at the prison. As the report says, “Al-Nashiri provided lead information on other terrorists during his first day of interrogation.”

Abu Zubaydeh – who was subjected to waterboarding as Pelosi was told on September 4, 2002 – gave information that “helped lead to the identification of Jose Padilla and Binyam Muhammed – operatives who had plans to detonate a uranium-topped dirty bomb in either Washington, DC or New York City,” as the report says on page 87.

And Khalid Shayk Muhammad, who was one of three detainees who were waterboarded? He was “probably the most prolific.”

KSM “provided information that helped lead to the arrests of terrorists including Sayfullah Paracha and his son Uzair Paracha, businessmen whom Khalid Shayk Muhammad planned to use to smuggle explosives into the United States; Saleh Almari, a sleeper operative in New York; and Majid Khan, an operative who could enter the United States easily and was tasked to research attacks (part redacted). Khalid Shauk Muhammad’s information also led to the investigation and prosecution of Iyman Faris, a truck driver arrested in early 2003 in Ohio.” (Page 87 of the report).

The IG report alleges a number of abuses of detainees including “mock executions” and threats to relatives of the prisoners. But this CIA IG report was given to the Justice Department when it was written five years ago.

According to an August 19, 2009 letter signed by Sen. Bond and eight other Republicans, “Three former Attorneys General and numerous career prosecutors have examined the findings of that report and other evidence and determined that the facts do not support criminal prosecution.”

But Holder’s appointment of Durham willfully disregards that fact and implicitly says that all those former Attorneys General and career prosecutors didn’t know what the law is – actually, what it was when the acts occurred. Holder and Obama know better.

Conspicuously absent from the documents released yesterday are the ones that former Vice President Cheney asked for: two memoranda that show the information that was gleaned by the rough interrogation methods.

Most importantly to the Democrats all of the congressional investigations into the treatment of detainees -- and Nancy Pelosi’s knowledge of it -- will be foreclosed as long as the criminal investigation goes on. At least as long as it takes to get through the 2010 congressional elections.

But, in the end, it’s not the fate of Nancy Pelosi that matters. It’s just as Cong. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mi) said yesterday.

“At the same time the situation in Afghanistan is getting decidedly worse and the Taliban is advancing, the Obama Justice Department is launching an investigation that risks disrupting CIA counter terrorism initiatives. This is the last thing that should happen when the president is sending more troops into harm’s way, and the nation’s top military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, said over the weekend that al-Qaeda still remains a threat to America and our interests abroad.”

But all of that is of no importance to Obama and Holder. All that counts is treating our spies as our enemies, and our enemies as our friends. Take heart, Messrs. Ahmadinejad, bin Laden and Assad. These men are more dangerous to us than to you. And, it must be said, that can no longer be thought an accident. Not after yesterday.

Jed Babbin, Human Events, 08/25/2009

Oregon Denied Cancer Treatment to Dying Woman Offered Death Instead

Here’s a real life example of what President Obama wants to do nation-wide!

State denies cancer treatment, offers suicide instead
'To say, we'll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it's cruel'

State officials have offered a lung cancer patient the option of having the Oregon Health Plan, set up in 1994 to ration health care, pay for an assisted suicide but not for the chemotherapy prescribed by her physician.

The story appears to be a happy ending for Barbara Wagner, who has been notified by a drug manufacturer that it will provide the expensive medication, estimated to cost $4,000 a month, for the first year and then allow her to apply for further treatment, according to a report in the Eugene Register-Guard.

But the word from the state was coverage for palliative care, which would include the state's assisted suicide program, would be allowed but not coverage for the cancer treatment drugs.

"To say to someone, we'll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it's cruel," Wagner told the newspaper. "I get angry. Who do they think they are?"

She said she was devastated when the state health program refused coverage for Tarceva, the drug her doctor ordered for treatment of her lung cancer.

The refusal came in an unsigned letter from LIPA, the company that runs the state program in that part of Oregon.
"We had no intent to upset her, but we do need to point out the options available to her under the Oregon Health Plan," Dr. John Sattenspiel, senior medical director for LIPA, told the newspaper.

"I understand the way it was interpreted. I'm not sure how we can lift that. The reality is, at some level (doctor-assisted suicide) could be considered as a palliative or comfort care measure."

The 64-year-old Wagner lives in a low-income apartment in Springfield with her dog, the newspaper said.

State officials say the Oregon Health Plan prioritizes treatments, with diagnoses and ailments deemed the most important, such as pregnancy, childbirth and preventive care for children at the top of the list. Other treatments rank below, officials said.

"We can't cover everything for everyone," Dr. Walter Shaffer, a spokesman for the state Division of Medical Assistance Programs, told the paper. "Taxpayer dollars are limited for publicly funded programs. We try to come up with policies that provide the most good for the most people."

He said many cancer treatments are a high priority, but others reflect the "desire on the part of the framers of this list to not cover treatments that are futile."

Wagner, however, is ending up with the treatment needed when her lung cancer, in remission for two years, returned.

She reported a representative for the pharmaceutical company called and notified her the drug would be provided for at least the first year.

"We have been warning for years that this was a possibility in Oregon," said the "Bioethics Pundit" on the Bioethics blog. "Medicaid is rationed, meaning that some treatments are not covered. But assisted suicide is always covered."
"This isn't the first time this has happened either," the blogger wrote. "A few years ago a patient who needed a double organ transplant was denied the treatment but would have been eligible for state-financed assisted suicide. But not to worry. Just keep repeating the mantra: There are no abuses with Oregon's assisted suicide law. There are no abuses.

WorldNet Daily, 6/19/08

Bam Aide, Axelrod, Pocketing Millions of "Special Intersts" Ads

CORPORATE SHILLS FOR 'CHANGE'

MONEY from pharmaceutical firms and health-care companies is evil and corrupting -- except when key members of Team Obama are pocketing it.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs derides grassroots opponents of socialized health care as industry-funded lackeys with questionable motives and conflicts of interest. But what about the corporate shills at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.?

Two weeks ago, the White House embraced $150 million in drug-industry ads supporting ObamaCare. This week, Bloomberg News reported that White House senior adviser and chief campaign strategist David Axelrod's former public-relations firm, AKPD Message and Media, has raked in some $24 million in ad contracts supporting ObamaCare -- along with another PR firm, GMMB, run by other Obama strategists.

The ads are funded by Big Pharma, the AARP, AMA and the Service Employees International Union. In trademark Axelrod style, the special-interest coalition adopted faux-grassroots names -- first under the banner of "Healthy Economy Now" and more recently as "Americans for Stable Quality Care."

Because, well, "Corporate Shills for Hope and Change" doesn't have quite the same ring of authenticity.

Axelrod was president and sole shareholder of AKPD from 1985 until last December, when he resigned to take his White House position. His son, Michael, works there. So does former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.

Axelrod is prominently featured on AKPD's Web site. AKPD still consults with Axelrod on "strategy and research" for the Democratic National Committee. The firm owes him $2 million.

That Axelrod and his old firm benefit mutually from their roles selling ObamaCare should be gobsmackingly obvious. Axelrod pushes the White House plan on TV news shows. AKPD derives mega-income from ad contracts selling the White House-endorsed plan. The windfall allows AKPD to settle its debts with Axelrod, whose name, face and high-powered ties are critical to future wheel-greasing for AKPD -- and future salary-earning for Axelrod's son and close associates.

White House flack Gibbs called any suggestion that Axelrod benefits from the relationship "ridiculous." Retorted Gibbs: "David has left his firm to join public service." So when Republicans trade power and access, Team Obama calls that being "in cahoots" with business. But when noble servants like Axelrod do it, it's called "public service."

What else is Axelrod keeping from full public view? AKPD is just one of his influence-peddling operations. Housed in the same office as AKPD is Axelrod's secretive former PR shop, ASK Public Strategies. That firm also owes Axelrod money from a buy-out deal -- five annual installments of $200,000 each.

Axelrod has remained notoriously tight-lipped about ASK's corporate business. One client that came to light: utility company Commonwealth Edison in Chicago.

Axelrod ran a fear-mongering campaign in Illinois for ComEd in support of a huge utility-rate hike -- and failed to disclose that his bogus grassroots ads (under the guise of public-interest group "Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity") were funded by the utility. ComEd employees also donated nearly $182,000 to the Obama presidential campaign -- more than any other company in the state, according to Business Week.

What other corporate clients have hired ASK and may be benefiting from their ties to Axelrod right now?

It's time for Obama's corporate-funded hypocrites to pay more than lip service to transparency. But as the sanctimonious Axelrod lectures on AKPD's Web site: "Change is never easy."

Michelle Malkin, NY Post, 8/21/09

Obama’s True God: Sal Alinsky

Obama once said that if you want to know what he thinks about an issue, he would point you to the men and women that surround him. He called them his “associations.” Well, Obama has a particularly strong affinity for the original community organizer, Saul Alinsky.

Saul Alinsky believed in any avenue that would achieve ultimate and unflinching power for the individual. The only enduring rule for the individual seeking power is to put their immediate needs before all else: people, principles, groups, promises, political parties, etc. The Radical must maximize his power (and agenda) at every turn, no matter the dismay of other people or entities. In any given circumstance the Radical should spare no means to assume the most powerful position in that moment. Because, in short, power allows the Radical to achieve whatever whim he wants.
Though Obama never met the great Saul Alinsky, he follows Alinsky’s principles like that of a living mentor. He studied Alinsky in Chicago. He taught Alinsky at the junior college. He lived Alinsky’s principles in Chicago as a community organizer. That allegiance carried him to the Illinois Senate, where he began campaigning for the U.S. Senate. It carried him to Washington, where he began campaigning for President. Alinsky brought Obama to the White House. You may be asking, what’s the big deal? Well, show me a man’s friends, and I’ll show you the man. Below is Mr. Alinsky’s great doctrine, “Rules for Radicals.” This is Obama’s playbook, and after studying it, you can begin to clearly understand why Obama makes the decisions he does. At every turn, he does what he thinks will aggrandize his power position. He isn’t serving you or me or anyone but himself, his big-money “connections,” and his agenda.
Sal Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”

RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different than any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

K.A. Phinney, Break Down of America, 8/20/09

Prez Confidant David Axelrod Reaping Big Bucks on Health Care Debate

Barack Obama's chief White House adviser is collecting millions of dollars from his former public relations firms as they sign lucrative contracts with coalitions recently created to push the president's agenda.

After arriving at the White House as top political guru, David Axelrod filed a required financial disclosure form that shows he will receive $3 million in installments over the next five years in a buyout with AKP&D Message and Media, and Ask Public Strategies.

The bottom line: Axelrod is essentially on his old firms' payrolls as he sits in the Oval Office as the closest confidant to the president. Advocacy groups know that when they are hiring AKP or Ask Public they are helping those companies stay profitable and make good on the $3 million.

AKP, which shares Chicago office space with Ask, is now getting contracts from major groups assembled to push Obama's massive health care agenda. They include Healthy Economy Now and Americans for Stable Quality Care. Their million-dollar media blitz is financed in part by the giant pharmaceutical industry which has a big stake in how the White House -- and Axelrod -- craft a final health care bill.

Press reports say pro-Obama groups will spend $150 million on media ads. AKP's website does not list those groups on its client's list, which includes trial lawyers, the largest single contributor to the Democratic Party.

The White House press office did not respond to several emails from HUMAN EVENTS. The mainstream liberal press generally has ignored the Axelrod buyout.

But Republicans have taken notice. The Republican House Conference, led by Rep. Mike Pence, put out a release headlined, "Big Pharma and David Axelrod: $2 Million of Change You Can Believe In?" The $2 million refers to his buyout deal with AKP, where his son still works.

The release notes that the White House negotiated an agreement with the drug lobby (the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) to get its political support.

"Has David Axelrod recused himself from the [drug lobby deals] or will he work to defend an agreement with an industry that is directly funding his son's work, and indirectly funding his own $2 million severance package?" the statement said.

It added, "As the pharmaceutical industry spends hundreds of millions supporting a government takeover of health care -- one which the drug companies obviously believe will increase their profits, even as it raises Medicare premiums for seniors -- some may wonder whether White House senior advisors earning millions of dollars paid for in part by the pharmaceutical industry represent the kind of change Americans can believe in."

Axelrod founded AKP and turned it into a successful public relations and political management firm for liberal candidates and causes. His Ask Public Strategies became a master at setting up what appeared to be grass-roots pressure groups -- the practice is called "astroturfing" -- to pressure governments or industry to do their bidding.

AKP has helped to keep the Democratic Party machine in power in Chicago by running its campaigns.

Ask's website is bare-bone. It does not list clients, nor its address.

By channeling money to Axelrod's old firms, the pro-Obama groups are helping to insure that he will ultimately received all his buyout money since it virtually guarantees the companies will stay in business without their founder.

Axelrod may have physically left the Chicago-based firms. But his name lives on. His son works at AKP&D as an executive. And the words of the founder are still prominently displayed on its website.

At the top of one page is this: "Change is something you have to fight for. Change is never easy. We are going to have to work for every vote. The change we need is worth the struggle; it's worth the fight. David Axelrod, Founder."

The site also features a picture of Axelrod with Obama and David Plouffe, an AKP adviser who served as the president's 2008 campaign manager. And it profiles Axelrod as the campaign's chief strategist.

Bloomberg news reported that Axelrod still talks to one of his former partners, Larry Grisolano, about AKP's work for another client, the Democratic National Committee.

Axelrod's buy-out deal calls for five annual installments of $200,000 from Ask. AKP will pay installments of $350,000, $650,000, $400,000 and $600,000.

The White House was asked about the buyout at Tuesday's press briefing. Spokesman Robert Gibbs dismissed the issue:

Q: Have you seen this charge from Republicans on the Hill that they're asking is he profiting from a payment he's getting from his firm, his firm involved in the PhRMA advertising deal?

Gibbs: That's ridiculous. David has left his firm to join public service.

Q: They say he's about to get -- million-dollar payout.

Gibbs: An agreement I think that was made because David started and owned the firm. He left the firm and, if I'm not mistaken, is being paid for the fact that he created it and sold it, which I think is somewhat based on the free market.

Regardless, Axelrod is, in essence, on his old firm's payroll for the next five years. As such, he benefits from any business they receive as do other people on the payroll.

Rowan Scarborough, Human Events, 8/20/09

Socialist Party Cozying Up With Obama White House

Was a far-left think tank partnered with the community activist group ACORN and founded with input from President Obama instrumental in securing the appointment of controversial White House "environmental czar" Van Jones?
A key member of the think tank reportedly was also a founder of a socialist party that, evidence indicates, included Obama among its members.

In March, Jones was named the special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

His appointment drew criticism after a WND report exposing that Jones was as an admitted radical communist and black nationalist leader. The Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck hammered away at Jones' communist ties.

Months before Obama took office, however, Jones was recommended for the environmental pick in a report by business scholar Chuck Collins, an associate of philanthropist George Soros and a longtime leftist activist linked to some socialist causes.

Collins is director of the Tax Program for Shared Prosperity at Demos, a far-left think tank that has partnered with ACORN and its ally, Project Vote, on several projects. Demos personalities were among ACORN's top defenders when the organization was accused of rampant voter fraud in 2008.
According to Demos' own website, while Obama was a state senator in 1999, he served on the working group that founded Demos.

Collins penned a piece that listed his top picks for the Obama administration, including Jones, at the radical Institute for Policy Studies.

Through a socialist party, Obama may be more closely linked to Collins, who recommended Jones.

Researcher Trevor Loudon of the New Zeal blog dug up official newspapers of the socialist-oriented New Party that list Collins as among the party's founding builders in its fall 1994 edition. Collins is listed with approximately 100 other activists in an article entitled, "Who's Building the New Party?"

Obama belonged to socialist party

In a controversy never fully addressed by Obama, WND previously reported evidence showing Obama was a member of the New Party, which sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda.

While running for the Illinois state Senate in 1996 as a Democrat, Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of the New Party, according to confirmed reports during last year's presidential campaign.

The New Party, formed by members of the Democratic Socialists of America and leaders of an offshoot of the Community Party USA, was an electoral alliance that worked alongside the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. The New Party's aim was to help elect politicians to office who espouse its policies.
Among New Party members was linguist and radical activist Noam Chomsky.

Obama's campaign last year denied the then-presidential candidate was ever an actual member of the New Party.
But the New Zeal blog dug up print copies of the New Party News, the party's official newspaper, which show Obama posing with New Party leaders, listing him as a New Party member and printing quotes from him as a member.

The party's spring 1996 newspaper boasted: "New Party members won three other primaries this Spring in Chicago: Barack Obama (State Senate), Michael Chandler (Democratic Party Committee) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary). The paper quoted Obama saying "these victories prove that small 'd' democracy can work."

The newspaper lists other politicians it endorsed who were not members but specifies Obama as a New Party member.
New Ground, the newsletter of Chicago's Democratic Socialists of America, reported in its July/August 1996 edition that Obama attended a New Party membership meeting April 11, 1996, in which he expressed his gratitude for the group's support and "encouraged NPers (New Party members) to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration."

Becoming a New Party member requires some effort by the politician. Candidates must be approved by the party's political committee and, once approved, must sign a contract mandating they will have a "visible and active relationship" with the party.

The New Party, established in 1992, took advantage of what was known as electoral "fusion," which enabled candidates to run on two tickets simultaneously, attracting voters from both parties. But the New Party went defunct in 1998, one year after fusion was halted by the Supreme Court.
Following the initial reports of Obama's purported membership in the New Party, Obama associate and former Chicago New Party activist Carl Davidson posted a statement on several blogs claiming his former party was not socialist, but he admitted it worked with ACORN.

"[The New Party] was a pragmatic party of 'small d democracy' mainly promoting economic reforms like the living wage and testing the fusion tactic, common in many countries but only operational in New York in the U.S. The main trend within it was ACORN, an Alinskyist outfit, which is hardly Marxist," wrote Davidson.

But the socialist goals of the New Party were enumerated on its old website.

Among the New Party's stated objectives were "full employment, a shorter work week, and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal 'social wage' to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time, and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth and like programs to ensure gender equity."

The New Party stated it also sought "the democratization of our banking and financial system – including popular election of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets, community-controlled alternative financial institutions."

Many of the New Party's founding members were Democratic Socialists of America leaders and members of Committees of Correspondence, a breakaway of the Communist Party USA. Obama attended several DSA events and meetings, including a DSA-sponsored town hall meeting Feb. 25, 1996, entitled "Employment and Survival in Urban America." He sought and received an endorsement from the DSA.
According to DSA documents, the New Party worked with ACORN to promote its candidates. ACORN, convicted in massive, nationwide voter fraud cases, has been a point of controversy for Obama over the presidential candidate's ties to the group.

In 1995, the DSA's New Ground newsletter stated, "In Chicago, the New Party's biggest asset and biggest liability is ACORN.

"Like most organizations, ACORN is a mixed bag. On one hand, in Chicago, ACORN is a group that attempts to organize some of the most depressed communities in the city. Chicago organizers for ACORN and organizers for SEIU Local 880 have been given modest monthly recruitment quotas for new New Party members. On the other hand, like most groups that depend on canvassing for fundraising, it's easy enough to find burned out and disgruntled former employees. And ACORN has not had the reputation for being interested in coalition politics – until recently and, happily, not just within the New Party."

Aaron Klein, WorldNet Daily, 8/20/09

OBAMACARE'S BAIT & SWITCH

PRESIDENT Obama has stopped talking about "health-care reform." The new poll-tested phrase of the day is "health-insurance reform."

Specifically the president says he wants to protect people with "pre-existing conditions." He would require insurance companies to accept anyone who applies for coverage, regardless of their current health (a rule known as "guaranteed issue") and prohibit them from charging higher premiums to people who are sick (called "community rating").

But if that's what the president wants, he could already have a bill through Congress, with significant Republican support. In fact, even the insurance companies have agreed to it.

But the 1,017-page bill making its way through the House devotes all of six pages to insurance reform -- 30 pages, if you count all the definitions and supporting provisions, still less than 3 percent of the bill.

So why the bait and switch?

Well, one reason might be that Obama realizes that these insurance reforms aren't all they are cracked up to be.

After all, prohibiting insurers from charging more to older and sicker customers amounts to a tax on the young and healthy who must pay higher premiums to subsidize their less-healthy counterparts. And letting people buy insurance after they get sick means healthy people have little incentive to buy insurance.

Put the two together and, as the Congressional Budget Office has warned, the young and healthy are much more likely to simply do without insurance.

As the healthy leave the insurance pool, the proportion of sick in the pool grows ever greater, leading to higher premiums -- which in turn causes the healthiest remaining individuals to leave in what amounts to an insurance death spiral.

That's exactly what happened when New York adopted community rating and guaranteed issue in 1993. In the first year under the new law, an average healthy 55-year-old man in New York saw his health-insurance premiums fall by $415 -- while an average healthy 25-year-old was hit with a premium hike of more than $500.

As a result, more than 500,000 mostly young and healthy people dropped their health insurance in the first year. As the pool grew sicker and the death spiral escalated, premiums began to rise even for those older New Yorkers who initially had their premiums cut. In the end, ev eryone ended up paying more.

Today, only six states have guaranteed issue: New York, New Jersey, Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont. New Hampshire and Kentucky tried it, then repealed their statutes. Just nine states, including New York and New Jersey, have strict forms of community rating.

These two "reforms" are two big reasons why health insurance costs much more in New York and New Jersey than in states without those requirements. Perhaps that clear record of failure is why insurance reform is such a tiny part of the health-care-reform bill.

Or maybe lawmakers realize there are better ways to deal with the problem of pre-existing conditions, such as direct subsidies, high-risk pools or a new product called health-status insurance.

Or maybe -- just maybe -- it's not really about insurance reform after all.

Michael D. Tanner is a Cato Institute, NY Post, 8/20/09