Friday, March 30, 2012
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
From Judicial Watch --
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents suggesting the Obama White House approved of the decision to fire U.S. Department of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod on July 19, 2010, based on what were thought to be racist statements made by Sherrod during a speech at a NAACP meeting on March 27, 2010. Despite the fact that former White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs claimed that the Obama White House played no role in the decision, the documents also indicate that White House officials helped craft and approved the language used by the Secretary of Agriculture in announcing the acceptance of Sherrod’s forced resignation.
The 282 pages recently obtained by Judicial Watch pursuant to an August 2, 2010, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request are in addition to the 900 documents previously disclosed in October 2010. The new documents consist of internal emails between U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) employees and White House staff members in devising a public response to a rapidly growing controversy over the firing of Sherrod, who served as the USDA’s Georgia State Director of Rural Development. After the Sherrod dismissal backfired, former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs claimed “this was… a decision that was made by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,” and denied that the Obama White House was involved in her being asked to resign.
However, the emails obtained by Judicial Watch reveal that the Obama administration had early knowledge and was involved in subsequent decisions. For example:
- When informed on July 19, 2010, about Sherrod’s statements at the NAACP meeting, then-White House spokesperson Reid Cherlin emailed then-USDA Director of Communications Chris Mather “[H]as she been fired?”
- In an effort to emphasize what Vilsack needed to say to the press former Special Assistant to the President and White House Cabinet Communications Director Tom Gavin emailed to Mather on July 19, 2010, “Just [t]o be clear, this is the Secretary’s quote, right?” Mather responded, “I think it should be, don’t you,” to which Gavin replied, “absolutely.”
Within the documents released to Judicial Watch is an email chain indicating that Gavin oversaw the writing and obtained counsel approval of the announcement by Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack on July 19, 2010, in which Vilsack stated, “Today, I accepted Ms. Sherrod’s resignation. There is zero tolerance for discrimination at USDA, and I strongly condemn any act of discrimination against any person.” In approving the copy, Gavin indicated in a July 19, 2010, email “We are good with this version on this end.”
- As events unfolded on July 19, 2010, Mather emailed Gavin at the White House, “Did you connect with the NAACP?” Gavin responded, “OPE [Office of Public Engagement] did. We’ll be fine.”
According to Shirley Sherrod, who is an African-American, the Obama administration forced her to resign from her job after an excerpt of a speech she gave at the NAACP meeting appeared in a video posted online. In the controversial video, first disclosed by the late Andrew Breitbart, Sherrod described her reluctance to help a white farmer save his land. Further into the talk, Sherrod described how she later went on to work with the farmer and his wife over a two-year period to help prevent foreclosure on his farm.
The White House and the USDA reacted immediately to the video to quell what they assumed would be a furor over Sherrod’s controversial remarks. As reported by CNN, according to Sherrod, Deputy Undersecretary for Rural Development for the USDA Cheryl Cook called her three times, stressing that the White House wanted her to resign.
However, Robert Gibbs issued a denial that the White House played a role in the decision. According to Politico:
“This was, as you heard Secretary Vilsack say yesterday, a decision that was made by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,” said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, who refused even to say which senior Obama aides have been involved in the process.
“The president was briefed yesterday and has been briefed, obviously, today as well,” added Gibbs, who said the White House was informed but not “consulted” about the firing.
“The Sherrod firing was clearly an embarrassment for the Obama administration, but that is no excuse for the Obama White House to cover up its role in the decision to fire Sherrod. The Obama White House would rather we just accept their explanations, but facts can be pesky things. The documents clearly show that White House officials played a key role in the decision to force Sherrod’s resignation and then misled the American people about that role,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
This attack on our religious freedom is only one example of how Obamacare will be used, twisted, contorted and morphed into anything and everything to control your life under the guise of healthcare. If you want to stop Obamacare and attacks on our Constitution we again need to take action as we did when it was being rammed through Congress.
To sign up for a bus leaving out of Cleveland click here.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Friday, March 2, 2012
Super Tuesday is just a few days away away. If you are still undecided, or if you want some reference points to either persuade or dissuade a friend, colleague, or relative, I've collected a few background pieces on the four GOP presidential candidates. Candidates are presented in alphabetical order, with links and very brief extracts.
Newt Gingrich @ http://www.newt.org/solutions/
Steve McCann at The American Thinker on Romney, “Newt and the Next-in-Line Problem": “It is clear that in the final analysis, the nomination will come down to Mitt Romney and the anti-establishment candidate; within the present field, the person best suited for the latter role is Newt Gingrich.”
Smart Girl Politics on “Who Is The Real Newt Gingrich?” with a lengthy and critical report on his past actions (this one from 2010): “It seems what he says and what he does are two completely different things.”
Byron York on Gingrich’s ethics violations at The Washington Times: “The bottom line: Gingrich acted properly and violated no laws. There was no tax fraud scheme. Of course, by that time, Gingrich was out of office, widely presumed to be guilty of something, and his career in politics was (seemingly) over.”
Bill Markin at The American Thinker on Newt as a bull in a china shop: “Yes, he's far from perfect, but history is full of flawed characters who have risen to the occasion and done great things. At this point in our history, he may not only be our best hope, but our only hope.”
Ron Paul @ http://www.ronpaul2012.com/ (drop down “Issues” tab)
Jason McNew on “The Case for Ron Paul”: “Ron Paul believes, as the Founders did, that individuals can do a much better job governing their own selves, and should not be ruled over by government.”
Andrew MacCarthy on Paul’s view of The Taliban: “Paul’s claim that the Taliban is just opposed to foreign interference in Afghanistan is patently absurd.”
Mitt Romney @ http://www.electmitt2012.org/about.aspx
NRO’s Andrew McCarthy: “Of course he now says he’d fight to, but is Romney really the best candidate to be making that fight? How convincing will he be in decrying wealth redistribution, runaway government spending, and freedom-killing government mandates while he continues championing an overbearing state program that stands as a monument to all those things?”
William Tucker at The American Spectator on “Romney Can Be The Next Reagan”: “I'm hoping Republicans will soon wake up, stop fighting among themselves, and realize that Mitt Romney has the best chance of becoming the nation's next Ronald Reagan.”
Jonah Goldberg on “The Case for Romney” at National Review Online: “Conservatives are extremely reluctant to settle or compromise simply on the say-so of the establishment. For good reasons and bad, seems like a compromise.”
Rick Santorum @ http://www.ricksantorum.com/issues
Michelle Malkin at her website (endorsing Santorum): “Character and honor matter. Santorum has it.”
James Delingpole at The Telegraph: “Rick Santorum is a big government conservative.”
Chuck Norris on Townhall: “Though I commend Santorum for some of his stands since leaving Congress -- for example, his opposing the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the stimulus, the Fannie-Freddie bailout and the auto bailout -- I have a slew of problems with what he did while serving in the U.S. Senate from 1995-2007.”
For much more on the candidates’ position, visit Project Vote Smarthere. You can go to the “Vote Easy” option, choose your issue(s), check the boxes, and find out how the candidates measure up to your values.
As a community we must come together and not allow the community of Chardon and most importantly the parents, family and friends of these students to again be victimized by having the funeral of a loved one be disrupted by the hate mongering protests of the Westboro Church.