Thursday Nov 21 WMD Scattershot Blasts

Democrats Choose Tyranny Over Liberty....Progressives decide debate is just too hard and so therefore they must stifle it....Folks, these people are dictators....They don't believe in the rule of law, law that has been just fine since 1789...I mean, and hypocrites also.... Today President Obama lauded the Nuclear Option, But When he was a Senator....


Durbin voted for the nuclear option today, but back in 2005....





Even Harry Reid, little dictator of the Senate, Was Against the Nuclear Option...Until Today...
 


Illinois Community Ravaged by Tornado Tells FEMA to Go Home...My friends, this is what America should look like....this is what the Real America is, folks.  

The White House Shared Concerns Over Obamacare Long Ago-  Is this video a smoking gun?  If not, then these emails mount a chain of evidence toward deceiving the American people....


S is for Stupid, and Sebelius....This woman makes Homer Simpson seem like Albert Einstein....Oops! Indeed!

While We are Talking about HHS, How Do You Spend More to Spend Less?  Department spends loads to find out how to....save money????

Hey! Leave Our Healthcare Alone!!!!  93% want Obamacare changed or repealed.  Yes, Please!


Breakin' Healthcare Wave II, the You Can't Keep Your Doc Bugaloo....It keeps getting worse and worse as more cancellations go out....

Obamacare Creates Alcoholics....Businessman says Obama driving him to drink....Will he get treatment for this condition?

Better Invest in Lifelock if Obamacare is Allowed to Stay Around....Navigators already plotting to sell your info down the river....

So Much for Ryan Being a Tough Budget Hawk....CandyArse admits he will deal rather than take a stand on principle if budget deadline looms again....

In Well, Duh! News, Chris Christie Hearts Obamacare....Thanks Rand Paul, the embrace and the love letters didn't clue us in already that Christie is left of John McCain....

More Scientists Questioning Global Warming/Hurricane Increase Hypothesis...People are trying to get to the truth....but prince Charles still spouts nonsense 

Thanks Loose Immigration Policy!  Al Qaeda in Kentucky!!!!  Patrick Poole, call yer office.....

If you want your baby killed, you'll have to speak up, my insurance doesn't cover hearing aids....Yes, this craziness is true.  Read it here....

Oregon?  Anyone there? No one is registering for health exchange in one of America's most liberal states...

He Didn't Feed the Lie So He was Fired....Official axed for not backing Obama's so called "Keep your doctor" fix...

YES YOU CAN ....get your insurance cancelled, too, college kids....

Even A Dem Is Questioning Obama's Authority....Better watch out, he'll do a Benghazi on you!

Cher is an Expert on Being One, But When Has She Ever Been Right?  I mean, she couldn't get naming her kid right, ahem....She called Sarah Palin a dumb C word....

Possible Solution to Obamacare:  National Health Charter??  I know, sounds dubious...but check out the article and decide....


Obama is so 2009 man...Why Youth Are Turning on the Big O (no, not Michelle....)  

I must break obamacare to save it? Another Illogical argument from the White House of Bad Ideas....

Veteran's Day Scattershot Blasts November 11, 2013

First, THANK YOU to all of our Veterans, for your sacrifice, service, and standards of excellence. 
God bless you and yours on this Veterans Day!

Sadly, We Don't Do Enough for Our Veterans....
Forty Percent of our Vets are on/need food assistance....

Some Good News....Paralyzed Vet to Walk Again....
Amazing what God's gift of technology and invention can do.  Check it out!

Hundreds Attend Funeral for "Unknown" WWII Vet....
Glad to see some folks showing respect for the Greatest Generation...

Debbie Delusional At it Again....
DNC Chair Debbie WasAMan Shultz, er, Wasserman Shultz said that she believes that the Democrats will run and win on Obamacare in 2014.  She also had said earlier that she didn't think the President told a lie to the American people with "if you like your plan, you can keep it."

I Guess Everyone in Oregon Likes What They Have....
Because NO ONE has enrolled in the exchanges in Oregon!

Like Rats, Many Obamacare Fans Are Jumping Ship....
Will they use the "I was actually against Obamacare as I voted for it?" Defense?  Will they use the "well, you couldn't have expected me to read the whole bill?" idea?  The Senators up for re-election in competitive states in 2014 are starting to panic, though they still aren't offering solutions for anything other than their own growing political jeopardy.  But, didn't they hear Debbie WasAMan Shultz?  They should embrace voting for this fiscal black hole....

Mental Health Mandate Will Drive You Nuts!
From Forbes: 
So while Obamacare is driving up the cost of a policy for many Americans by 50 percent to 100 percent, the new mental health rules will make coverage even more expensive—though it’s difficult to know by how much.
The state-based mental health mandate usually operated in an environment where health insurers could deny coverage for a preexisting condition.  Obamacare is eliminating that practice.  Now people with mental health, substance abuse and behavioral issues can sign up—well, if the bureaucrats ever get the website fixed—for subsidized coverage with very few limits.
Evidence is already emerging that those who have signed up are older than average, and they will surely be sicker—because they are the uninsureds most motivated to get coverage.
Furthermore, the mental health mandate could mean that millions of additional health policies will be canceled because Obama just expanded what’s considered qualified coverage.
If the past few weeks haven’t convinced you the Obama administration never understood how the law would affect health insurance, this new effort should do it.

Bold Prediction:  Obamacare Will Be Repealed Before 2014!?!
Steven Hayward says:
Prediction: even if HealthCare.gov is fixed by the end of the month (unlikely), Obamacare is going to be repealed well in advance of next year’s election.  And if the website continues to fail, the push for repeal—from endangered Democrats—will occur very rapidly.  The website is a sideshow: the real action is the number of people and businesses who are losing their health plans or having to pay a lot more.  Fixing the website will only delay the inevitable.
Check out his rationale here....some interesting theories....

Democrat Dictatorship Disease on the March....
Days after a Republican was elected mayor of Annapolis, City Council members say they will revisit legislation that would strip the mayor’s office of much of its power.  What a bunch of sore losers!!!

Free Speech for Anyone...But Christians!
A Man was arrested in a mall for passing out tracts and talking to people...despite having done it many times before and court cases assuring him he has the right.....Read the chilling report here...

He's Gay and He Opposes Gay Marriage....With Logic....

A very interesting read.  Go check out the whole thing.  Here are some excerpts:

  In our sometimes misguided efforts to expand our freedom, selfish adults have systematically dismantled that which is most precious to children as they grow and develop. That’s why I am now speaking out against same-sex marriage.

By the way, I am gay.
Natural law, tradition, religion, intellectual curiosity, and free inquiry no longer play a role in deliberations. Same-sex marriage legislation is defended solely on grounds of moral relativism and emotions.
Pure sophistry is pitted against reason. Reason is losing.
Here’s the problem: The national discussion of same-sex marriage treats the issue like a game of checkers, where opponents can quickly gain each other’s pieces without much forethought about the consequences. This unreflective view of the discussion has prevented any real debate.
In years past, defenders of marriage found it easy to win the battle on the checker board. Appeals to religion and tradition won hands down almost effortlessly. While same-sex marriage advocates argued for a more thoughtful consideration of the topic, they were mostly just bulldozed over.
The tide has turned. Same-sex marriage proponents now have all the “kings” on the board, and rule it. One only needs to consider media headlines from the last few weeks. We are bombarded with approvals of same-sex marriage. To the casual onlooker, not steeped in this issue, it would seem that conservatism has embraced same-sex marriage. Each day brings fresh news of Republican political elites, Fortune 500 companies, NFL members, and even Dirty Harry himself, Clint Eastwood, throwing their support behind genderless marriage.
The game we are actually playing is chess, not checkers. This sounds confusing, because chess and checkers are played on the exact same sixty-four square game board. Checkers is easy and it’s fast. It’s one of the first games children learn how to play. Chess is hard, requiring thought about the intended and unintentional consequences of every single move that may or may not be made.
In developing their goals for policy and law, politicians often look no further than the next election cycle. They’re concerned about votes. Supporting same-sex marriage now looks like a winner for them.
The sense of urgency regarding same-sex marriage, now palpably frenetic, is in itself a sign of our national discussion’s devolution into nothing more than slogans and emotions.
Our nation’s individual state legislatures and courts—including the Supreme Court— need to apply the brakes. Now.
As in chess, the unintended consequences deserve sound consideration.
Genderless marriage now enjoys an aura of equality and fairness, which suggests that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had same-sex marriages in mind as they penned their magnificent giant leap forward for humanity. While this situation is highly unlikely, those who selfishly seek additional “rights” for themselves have found their justification in the penumbra they now sense surrounding legitimate civil rights.
Same-sex marriage will not expand rights and freedoms in our nation. It will not redefine marriage. It will undefine it.
This isn’t the first time our society has undefined marriage. No-fault divorce, instituted all across our country, sounded like a good idea at the time. Its unintended consequence was that it changed forever the definition of marriage from a permanent relationship between spouses to a temporary one. Sadly, children became collateral damage in the selfish pursuits of adults.
Same-sex marriage will do the same, depriving children of their right to either a mom or a dad. This is not a small deal. Children are being reduced to chattel-like sources of fulfillment. On one side, their family tree consists not of ancestors, but of a small army of anonymous surrogates, donors, and attorneys who pinch-hit for the absent gender in genderless marriages. Gays and lesbians demand that they have a “right” to have children to complete their sense of personal fulfillment, and in so doing, are trumping the right that children have to both a mother and a father—a right that same-sex marriage tramples over.
Same-sex marriage will undefine marriage and unravel it, and in so doing, it will undefine children. It will ultimately lead to undefining humanity. This is neither “progressive” nor “conservative” legislation. It is “regressive” legislation.
Nowhere on any marriage license application in any state are the applicants asked, “Do you love each other?” Yet this is the basis on which same-sex marriage proponents seek to change our laws. Is the state really in the business of celebrating our romantic lives?
The mantra I heard repeatedly in Minnesota was that “marriage is about love, commitment, and responsibility.” But these three things are not the state’s interests in marriage. Marriage, from the state’s perspective, is about kids. Period. That’s the reason the institution exists. We should tremble at and fear the notion of undoing it.
For a nation that has no trouble selfishly creating a seventeen-trillion-dollar (and growing) deficit it will soon hand off to its children and grandchildren, perhaps this is asking too much. But for the sake of all children and those yet to be born, we need to slow down and seriously consider the unintended consequences of undefining marriage. Otherwise, we risk treating our progeny as expendable pawns, sacrificed in the name of self-fulfillment. We can do better than that.

In Memoriam: Joe Simon

I know we at WMD often deal with serious issues, but I wanted to take the time to honor an American icon who created another icon. Joe Simon, along with Jack Kirby, created Captain America. Joe passed away last week at the age of 98.


Joe Simon, icon and legend of comics, passed away last week at the age of 98. Truly, it can be said the golden age of comics and comic creators is at an end. When others were consumed with creating the latest strange visitor from another planet, Joe Simon, often with greatest comic artist ever Jack "King" Kirby created heroes who were men, albeit with special gifts. Joe and Jack's greatest creation is Captain America, which finally achieved box office success as a movie this year. Joe was finally able to see a big budget film for his creation. Joe also was part of creating the Sandman, the Newsboy Legion along with the Guardian, and Manhunter. He was one of the most prolific writers of his time, and will forever be associated with his patriotic creation of Steve Rogers, the everyman who became an icon for a country. Joe Simon stood up for Captain America, chastising the idiots at Marvel when they decided to kill him off a couple of years ago, saying, "this is the time when we need Cap the most." What follows is an obituary written that encapsulates his career and his greatness:

Before Captain America was the star of last summer’s blockbuster movie, he was a comic book superhero. The man who co-created the character over 70 years ago, comic book writer and artist Joe Simon, passed away this past Wednesday in New York.
Two months earlier, Simon spoke at New York Comic Con, a convention for fans of comic books and popular culture. It was three days after Simon’s 98th birthday, and as he entered the meeting room at the Javits Center, the enthusiastic crowd sang “Happy Birthday” to the comic hero creator.
The cover of the first issue of Captain America shows the character and his side-kick Bucky fighting Nazis, with the Captain himself socking Adolf Hitler on the jaw. Looking at the illustration now, it’s easy to write it off as typical American wartime propaganda.


But look closely at the issue date. Newsstand comics were routinely dated two or three months later than their actual publication date (so issues that lingered on the shelves unsold wouldn’t appear to be outdated). With a cover date of March 1941, that first issue of Captain America was likely created in late 1940 or early 1941.
The U.S. entry into the Second World War was nearly a year in the future.
When Simon and partner Jack Kirby were looking for a villain for their new comic book, they didn’t have to venture into the realm of fantasy – there was horror enough arising in Europe. Concluding that the best comics were the ones with the best villains, Simon thought, “Let’s get a real live villain.” Hitler was the obvious choice. As Simon wrote in his autobiography, Joe Simon: My Life in Comics, “We knew what was happening in Europe, and were outraged by the Nazis – totally outraged. We thought it was a good time for a patriotic hero.” And thus Captain America was created to go up against the rising Nazi threat.
Simon and Kirby did give Captain America a fantastical opponent — the Red Skull, the idea for which came to Simon as he watched hot fudge dripping down the ice cream on a sundae. Simon was struck by how the pattern of the fudge looked like arms and legs, and he began to imagine a new villain – one who oozed all over the place and could be called Hot Fudge. He quickly rejected that idea. He then realized the cherry on top of the sundae resembled a skull and thought, “Red Skull … that sounds good.” And Captain America’s arch-villain was born.
In creating Captain America, Simon sought to devise something different from the spate of superhero characters that appeared following the success of Superman in 1938. “Comics used to be right out of a mold,” he told the audience at New York Comic Con. At industry leader DC Comics, Simon said, “You put all the ingredients in a cake, shake it, twist it around — and out would come a DC comic…. We came out with something different. Jack Kirby’s great artwork was totally different from anything that DC was putting out.”
Simon went on to create other remarkable heroes and villains, many in conjunction with Kirby. The team developed the Sandman, the Blue Bolt, the Newsboy Legion, the Boy Commandos, Manhunter and many others. The pair also worked in a wide range of genres beyond superheroes, including titles focused on crime, war, romance, western adventure, horror and humor.

Throughout his long career, Simon worked with many of the major figures in the industry. Stan Lee, the longtime Marvel Comics writer and editor – and one of the best known and most influential people in the industry – began his career working with Simon as, in Simon’s words, his “assistant and gopher.” Speaking at New York Comic Con, Simon said, “[Stan Lee] is a good guy. I like Stan.” He then jokingly added, “I made him what he is today.”
Simon was one of a number of early comic book creators who later fought for the rights to their earlier work. As Captain America continued to generate revenue through comic books and other forms of popular entertainment, Simon sought to reclaim the copyright to the character. His legal battle with Marvel over Captain America was eventually settled out of court.
Throughout his career Simon seemed intrigued by what makes someone a hero. It was a fascination that began early in his life.
At New York Comic Con, Simon relayed the story of an old veteran from the Civil War who visited his school when he was eight or nine years old. The man proudly held an old 35-star U.S. flag and burst into song, “Ah, the old flag never touched the ground, boys. The dear old flag was never down….” He shook the hand of each student declaring, “Shake the hand that shook the hand of Abraham Lincoln!”
A key moment in the tale was Simon’s account of the difference in the reaction of the teacher and the students to the old soldier. As the man rambled on, at one point the teacher, standing behind him, twirled her finger around while pointing at her head. In her view, the old man was a bit loony. Simon and the young students, however, saw something different. “None of us agreed with her,” Simon told the Comic Con audience. “We thought this guy was a great, great American hero.”
It was clearly a story that made an impact on Simon. It serves as the preface to his autobiography published in 2011, in which Simon wrote, “I would always remember the odd little fighting man as I continued in my life-long quest for the great American Hero. Eventually I would find him … and more.”
The version of the story Simon spun at New York Comic Con was long and rambling, often skipping around from point to point. But, even if his narrative did meander, his memory of the event — after close to a century — was clear and sharp. To the admiring audience, he must have seemed much like the character in his own story: aged — even a bit doddering – yet still an icon of an earlier era of heroism.

Joe Simon gave us a hero who just wanted to fight bullies and represent his country. He gave us a hero who could be us all and who represents the best of what America was, is and will be. I hope, in the future, that others will carry Captain America as that great American hero. His cocreator, in his own way, was just as much of a hero who defined what he himself was. Just like his hero, Joe lived through some amazing times that defined him, but that he helped define as well. Godspeed, Joe Simon. Tell Jack we said hi, and I know you guys are creating some awesome comics in heaven.

Daniel Hannan Tells it Right: You Are Not Protesting Capitalism, Occupiers

Daniel Hannan gets it right again. The Occupiers keep talking and moaning about the ills of capitalism with its bailouts, etc. Heck, some hack in the WSJ today said we needed to go to a Command and Crush economy like the Chicoms. Mr. Hannan is right. We haven't had capitalism in this country since January of 2009, heck, even late 2008 when GWB betrayed the free market system. It is not the free market system that is broken and is causing this; rather, it is all the government attempts at intervention and redistribution and picking winners and losers that is causing this. Mr. Hannan in the Telegraph:

I was struck by how wide of the mark were the beliefs they attributed to me as a Right-winger. In the interests of deeper understanding, here are ten things which – trust me – most of the Tory scum I hang around with think. Obviously, I don’t expect to turn my Leftie readers in a single post; still, they might get a clearer idea of what we actually believe.

1. Free-marketeers resent the bank bailouts. This might seem obvious: we are, after all, opposed to state subsidies and nationalisations. Yet it often surprises commentators, who mistake our support for open competition and free trade for a belief in plutocracy. There is a world of difference between being pro-market and being pro-business. Sometimes, the two positions happen to coincide; often they don’t.

2. What has happened since 2008 is not capitalism. In a capitalist system, bad banks would have been allowed to fail, their profitable operations bought by more efficient competitors. Shareholders, bondholders and some depositors would have lost money, but taxpayers would not have contributed a penny (see here).

3. If you want the rich to pay more, create a flatter and simpler tax system. This is partly a question of closing loopholes (mansions put in company names to avoid stamp duty, capital gains tax exemption for non-doms etc). Mainly, though, it is a question of bringing the tax rate down to a level where evasion becomes pointless. As Art Laffer keeps telling anyone who’ll listen, it works every time. Between 1980 and 2007, the US cut taxes at all income levels. Result? The top one per cent went from paying 19.5 per cent of all taxes to 40 per cent. In Britain, since the top rate of income tax was lowered to 40 per cent in 1988, the share of income tax collected from the wealthiest percentile has risen from 14 to 27 per cent.

4. Those of us who believe in small government are not motivated by the desire to make the rich richer. We’re really not. We are, in most cases, nowhere near having to pay top rate tax ourselves; our most eloquent champions over the years have been modestly-paid academics. We believe that economic freedom will enrich the country as a whole. Yes, the wealthy might become wealthier still, but we don't see that as an argument against raising living standards for the majority.

5. We are not against equality. We generally recognise the benefits in Scandinavian-style homogeneity: crime tends to be lower, people are less stressed etc. Our objection is not that egalitarianism is undesirable in itself, but that the policies required to enforce in involve a disproportionate loss of liberty and prosperity.

6. Nor, by the way, does state intervention seem to be an effective way to promote equality. On the most elemental indicators – height, calorie intake, infant mortality, literacy, longevity – Britain has been becoming a steadily more equal society since the calamity of 1066. It’s true that, around half a century ago, this approximation halted and, on some measures, went into reverse. There are competing theories as to why, but one thing is undeniable: the recent widening of the wealth gap has taken place at a time when the state controls a far greater share of national wealth than ever before.

7. Let’s tackle the idea that being on the Left means being on the side of ordinary people, while being on the Right means defending privileged elites. It’s hard to think of a single tax, or a single regulation, that doesn’t end up privileging some vested interest at the expense of the general population. The reason governments keep growing is because of what economists call ‘dispersed costs and concentrated gains’: people are generally more aware the benefits they receive than of the taxes they pay.

8. Capitalism, with all its imperfections, is the fairest scheme yet tried. In a system based on property rights and free contract, people succeed by providing an honest service to others. Bill Gates became rich by enriching hundreds of millions of us: I am typing these words using one of his programmes. He gained from the exchange (adding fractionally to his net worth), and so did I (adding to my convenience). In a state-run system, by contrast, third parties get to hand out the goodies.

9. Talking of fairness, let’s remember that the word doesn’t belong to any faction. How about parity between public and private sector pay? How about being fair to our children, whom we have freighted with a debt unprecedented in peacetime? How about being fair to the boy who leaves school at 16 and starts paying taxes to subsidise the one who goes to university? How about being fair to the unemployed, whom firms cannot afford to hire because of the social protection enjoyed by existing employees?

10. Let’s not forget ethics, either. There is virtue in deciding to do the right thing, but there is no virtue in being compelled. Choosing to give your money to charity is meritorious; paying tax is morally neutral (see here). Evidence suggests that, as taxes rise, and the state squeezes out civic society, people give less to good causes.

Well, there you go, comrades. I don’t expect the tents outside St Paul’s to fold overnight. But perhaps we might at least engage honestly on some of these issues rather than talking past each other. ¡Hasta la victoria siempre!

Best Clips of the Weekend...God bless NASCAR fans and Newt

Unlike you, Mrs. Obama, NASCAR fans have always been proud of their country and don't appreciate our Armed Forces and families being used for photo ops:




Newt tells it like it is re: Occupy Degenerates, aka the Give Fleas a Chance, Pro-Lice Movement:

Video of Occupy Wall Street Rabble?

No, but based on what I have seen of them in the media, these are kindred tabula rasas to the goofballs who have nothing better to do.....



These people are so sad and pathetic and have no sense of self worth that they want to matter so much, but don't know what in the heck is true, false, or even what they are doing....Sad and pathetic. Not to mention dangerous.

Rhetoricgate: So Can I Blame Dupnick and Schultz and Olbermann for This One?

Even as more and more comes out to show that Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, the Tea Party, and Conservative media had zero to no influence or place in the Tucson assassin's life, we now see what happens when overzealous liberals with a political ax to grind speak out and hurl libelous accusations at a whole group of people. Liberal attacks incite people to violence. Where is the outrage over this:

A Tucson mass shooting victim was taken into custody Saturday after yelling "you're dead" at a Tea Party spokesman during the taping of an ABC-TV town hall event hosted by Christianne Amanpour.

The Pima County Sheriff's Office said J. Eric Fuller, 63, was involuntarily committed to an undisclosed medical facility, NBC News reported. The Associated Press said he was undergoing a psychiatric evaluation.

He faces charges of threats and intimidation and disorderly conduct, according to Tucson TV station KGUN.KGUN reported that Fuller took exception to comments by Republican state Rep. Terri Proud and Tucson Tea Party spokesman Trent Humphries.

Fuller was in the front row and apparently became upset when Humphries suggested that any conversations about gun control should be delayed until all the dead were buried, KGUN reported.
Fuller took a picture of Humphries and shouted, “You’re dead.”

Some media reports said Fuller kept booing and making other remarks before deputies escorted him from the church.

Liberals need to stop all this hatespeech and blame. Their level of discourse needs to be brought into line. For the sake of civility, please tone it down, libs, your comments threaten the lives of Americans. Of course, if I had to sit in a room with that idiotarian hack Armanpour, I would be a little nuts, too.

Again, this shows that there is more evidence to support liberal influence to violence than conservative, and shows the disgusting attempts to politicize a tragedy by sore losers in the liberal intelligentsia who don't care about the victims other than ratings and political traction. The fact that the Left continues this idiocy and that the college morons were cheering and whooping it up at a memorial service shows the lack of understanding and compassion by the Left.

Speaker Boehner’s Remarks on Resolution Condemning the Attack in Tucson, AZ

Remarks:

“Today, we are called here to mourn. An unspeakable act of violence has taken six innocent lives, and left several more – including our colleague, Gabrielle Giffords – battling for theirs. These are difficult hours for our country.

“Among the fallen is Gabe Zimmerman, a member of Congresswoman Giffords’ staff … a public servant of the highest caliber … one of our own.

“Even in our shock, we are composed and determined to fulfill our calling to represent our constituents. This is the great cause for which Gabe gave his life. Like us, Gabe swore on oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. At the time of the attack, he was engaged in the most simple and direct of democratic rituals: listening to the people … to his neighbors.

“The brutality that shattered Saturday morning’s calm was devastating, but brief. Bravery and quick thinking prevented a massacre, turning innocent bystanders into heroes. The service and skill of first responders and medical professionals saved lives. Law enforcement officials are working to ensure swift justice. Look to Tucson right now, and you will be reminded that America’s most plentiful source of wealth and strength is her people.

“We are so thankful Gabby is still with us. We are so thankful that two of her staffers who were also wounded – Ron Barber and Pam Simon – are still with us. These are days they were not supposed to see, and we can only pray there will be more of them.

“In her stead, Gabby’s staff has pressed on, opening for business Monday morning, right on schedule. The men and women who faithfully serve the people of Arizona’s Eighth Congressional District have signaled that no act – no matter how heinous – will stop us from doing our duty and being among the people we serve.

“To all of the dedicated professionals we rely on to make this institution work, to each of you: thank you for what you do. To Gabby’s staff – and their families: please know that our hearts and prayers go out to you.

“This body has yet to fully register the magnitude of this tragedy. We feel a litany of unwanted emotions no resolution could possibly capture. We know that we gather here without distinction of party. The needs of this institution have always risen above partisanship. And what this institution needs right now is strength – holy, uplifting strength. The strength to grieve with the families of the fallen, to pray for the wounded, and to chart a way forward, no matter how painful and difficult it may be.

“Today it is not ceremony, but tragedy that stirs us to renew our commitment to fulfill our oaths of office. Let us not let this inhuman act frighten us into doing otherwise. The free exchange of ideas is the lifeblood of our democracy, as prescribed by the First Amendment, that beacon of free expression Congresswoman Giffords recited in this well just days ago. These rights have not been handed down by dictate – they have been preserved and protect through generations of hard sacrifice and commitment. We will continue this unfinished work.

“We will do it for Christina Taylor Green, Dorothy Morris, Phyllis Schneck, and Dorwan Stoddard, ordinary citizens who died participating in their democracy. We will do it for Judge John Roll. We will do it for Gabe Zimmerman. And we will do it, God-willing, with Gabrielle Giffords.

“Our hearts are broken, but our spirit is not. This is a time for the House to lock arms, in prayer for those fallen and wounded, and in resolve to carry on the dialogue of democracy. We may not yet have all the answers, but we already have the answer that matters most: that we are Americans, and together we will make it through this. We will have the last word.

“God bless this House. God bless this Congress. God bless America.”

Boehner and Ohio Republicans on Giffords Shooting in Arizona

Speaker Boehner:

   “I am horrified by the senseless attack on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and members of her staff.  An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve.  Acts and threats of violence against public officials have no place in our society.  Our prayers are with Congresswoman Giffords, her staff, all who were injured, and their families.  This is a sad day for our country."

Rep. Latta:

“I am deeply troubled by this horrific act of violence against Congresswoman Giffords, her staff, and the other innocent bystanders.  Marcia and I want to extend our thoughts and prayers to the Giffords family and the families of all of the victims.  Senseless acts such as this have no place in our society.” 

Rep. Johnson:

  “This is a sad for our country. Our thoughts and prayers are with Congresswoman Giffords, her family, staff and friends as well as other victims of this senseless tragedy.”

TSA=The Sexual Assault Squad Update: GOP Response

From Byron York:

Did you know that the nation's airports are not required to have Transportation Security Administration screeners checking passengers at security checkpoints? The 2001 law creating the TSA gave airports the right to opt out of the TSA program in favor of private screeners after a two-year period. Now, with the TSA engulfed in controversy and hated by millions of weary and sometimes humiliated travelers, Rep. John Mica, the Republican who will soon be chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is reminding airports that they have a choice.

Mica, one of the authors of the original TSA bill, has recently written to the heads of more than 150 airports nationwide suggesting they opt out of TSA screening. "When the TSA was established, it was never envisioned that it would become a huge, unwieldy bureaucracy which was soon to grow to 67,000 employees," Mica writes. "As TSA has grown larger, more impersonal, and administratively top-heavy, I believe it is important that airports across the country consider utilizing the opt-out provision provided by law."

I wonder how many private security firms will be getting calls now that the TSA has decided to allow and endorse groping as security measure? However, the problem is even deeper:

what really worries critics is that the TSA has become dangerously ineffective. Its specialty is what those critics call "security theater" -- that is, a show of what appear to be stringent security measures designed to make passengers feel more secure without providing real security. "That's exactly what it is," says Mica. "It's a big Kabuki dance."

Now, the dance has gotten completely out of hand. And like lots of fliers -- I spoke to him as he waited for a flight at the Orlando airport -- Mica sees TSA's new "naked scanner" machines and groping, grossly invasive passenger pat-downs as just part of a larger problem. TSA, he says, is relying more on passenger humiliation than on practices that are proven staples of airport security.

So, instead of just theater, why not offer some real solutions? Who does it better than anyone? The Israelis:

experts have urged TSA to adopt techniques, used with great success by the Israeli airline El Al, in which passengers are observed, profiled, and most importantly, questioned before boarding planes. So TSA created a program known as SPOT -- Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques. It began hiring what it called behavior detection officers, who would be trained to notice passengers who acted suspiciously. TSA now employs about 3,000 behavior detection officers, stationed at about 160 airports across the country.

The problem is, they're doing it all wrong. A recent Government Accountability Office study found that TSA "deployed SPOT nationwide without first validating the scientific basis for identifying suspicious passengers in an airport environment." They haven't settled on the standards needed to stop bad actors.

"It's not an Israeli model, it's a TSA, screwed-up model," says Mica. "It should actually be the person who's looking at the ticket and talking to the individual. Instead, they've hired people to stand around and observe, which is a bastardization of what should be done."

Even when they have a successful model, government bleeding heart p.c. bureaucrats still can't get it right. But, all this groping means no terrorists get on our planes, right? WRONG-O:

the GAO "discovered that since the program's inception, at least 17 known terrorists ... have flown on 24 different occasions, passing through security at eight SPOT airports." One of those known terrorists was Faisal Shahzad, who made it past SPOT monitors onto a Dubai-bound plane at New York's JFK International Airport not long after trying to set off a car bomb in Times Square. Federal agents nabbed him just before departure.

Look, the American people want real solutions. Let's get real. Grandma isn't a terrorist and doesn't need to be given a pap smear before boarding a plane. Let's get to the business of focusing and studying bad actors and focus on those who are more at risk. Of course, that requires something bureaucrats don't have: courage.

MATT'S UPDATE: This post was so informative, I thought I'd link to the TSA's Blog so that everybody could learn that AIRPORTS can opt out too!

Al Gore Had Nothing To Do With It

I have seen a number of postings making a "big deal" out the Discovery Channel Nutjob having been "affected" by Al Gore's so-called documentary, but as a conservative I believe in personal responsibility. Al Gore is no more responsible for that Eco-Terrorist than when the lefties blame Timothy McVeigh or Rush Limbaugh or whoever the convenient target of the week happens to be for the latest tragedy.

There is one person who can be blamed for yesterday's events and he died when a police sharpshooter did what they do best: Protect and Serve.

Feds Take Control of BP Leak Website

Whenever you hear someone from the government say a takeover is to produce more "transparency," don't expect it. The Department of Homeland Security has decided it wants to shutter info coming from the dot com website that covers the BP oil leak. From the Washington Examiner:

The Department of Homeland Security has announced the government will assume control of the joint website between BP and various organizations in charge of providing information about the BP oil spill and recovery.

The website has been jointly owned and updated since the spill occurred in March. Once it switches to dot-gov, instead of dot-com, the government will be able to police the content posted. BP is also funding the website and may be required to continue doing so after the site is moved.

DHS, which has no current connection to the site, said it wanted to create more transparency, according to AP reporter Harry R. Weber:

The Department of Homeland Security wants a one-stop shop for information that is completely overseen by the government as it settles into the long-haul of dealing with the response to the disaster. The U.S. Coast Guard falls under Homeland Security's authority.

BP and the federal government are part of a unified command that is working together to try to contain the oil gusher, but the government has been directing BP at every turn.

A DHS spokesman told The Associated Press on Sunday that the joint relationship won't change when the website is given a dot-gov address instead of a dot-com address.

But who can post information to the site would change.

And I bet the content will change as well. More destruction of your rights and liberties and more covering up by the Obama regime.

Presbyterians Violate Bible, Are United Methodists Next?

The Presbyterian Church of the USA, a denomination branch so against the tenets of Scripture that many of the Presbyterian churches in the US actually conference with the Presbyterian Church of Africa, will most likely affirm same sex marriages, essentially spitting on the pages of the Bible and the faith which supposedly they believe in. From the Louisville Courier Journal:

he Louisville-based Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) would become the largest denomination in the nation to allow same-sex marriage if it follows a recommendation made Tuesday by a church legislative committee. And another church committee, gathering for the church's weeklong legislative General Assembly in Minneapolis, recommended the church begin ordaining non-celibate gays and lesbians.

The assembly's committee on Civil Union and Marriage Issues voted 34-18 to change the definition of marriage in the church constitution to describe marriage as a covenant between "two people" rather than between "a man and a woman."

This "would recognize committed, lifelong relationships that are already being lived out by our members," said a committee statement.

Also, check out this UPI story as well.

But it doesn't recognize the Bible, which supposedly this so-called church believes in.

Will Bishop Bruce Ough of the West Ohio Conference of the UM Church recommend the same for United Methodism? The conference did decide to violate its own Discipline as well as the Bible and encourage homosexuality by hiring a practicing homosexual to be its new CFO.

Whatever happened to defining principles? Whatever happened to following the Founding documents, in this case, the Bible? Well, we have a government that doesn't follow the Constitution, so I guess these heretics and blasphemers feel empowered to do the same. However, I think the Almighty might be a little more vigilant and likely to hold them to account than the American people.

Again, faith and spirituality is supposed to change people, not the reverse.

Why Do Pelosi/Reid/Obama Hate the Poor Kids In DC?

After all, with this action, they are dooming them to a subpar education and perhaps creating a permanent uneducated and dependent underclass in our nation's capital. One would almost think they want to make people stupid, because, like, facts don't lie:

The Department of Education commissioned Wolf to conduct a series of detailed studies on the results of the Washington DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP). Established in 2004 as a five-year pilot program, OSP is among the most heavily researched federal education programs in history.

OSP targeted about 2,000 of the poorest kids in DC who were stuck in some of the worst schools in the country. It gave their parents a $7,500 scholarship to attend a private school of their choice.

The response was immediate. Four applications were filled out for every slot available. Parents loved the program, considering it a lifeline for their children, a way to escape failing schools and enter safe, functional schools.

Everyone knew OSP would be a bargain. DC has among the highest spending per pupil in the nation. At a conservative estimate of $17,542, the public schools spend over $10,000 more per child than the $7,500 spent through the scholarship program.

But would OSP achieve measureable results?

The answer is a resounding yes. Previous studies by Wolf showed an improvement in academic performance, to the point that a student participating in OSP from kindergarten through high school would likely be 2 ½ years ahead in reading. The key finding in this final round of research, Wolf told us, was the graduation rates. OSP dramatically increases prospects of high-school graduation.

Wolf pointed to research showing that high-school diplomas significantly improve the chance of getting a job. And dropouts that do find employment earn about $8,500 less per year than their counterpoints with diplomas. Further, each graduate reduces the cost of crime by a stunning $112,000. Cecelia Rouse, an economic advisor to President Obama, found that each additional high school graduate saves the country $260,000.

Simply put, OSP has a profoundly positive effect not just on students, but on the city and the country as a whole.

So when it came time for Congress to reauthorize OSP, it would seem to be a no-brainer: Expand the program.

Instead, they killed it.

Buried deep inside a 1000+ page, half-trillion-dollar spending bill was a provision that prohibited any new students from entering the program. To top it off, the 216 new students added to OSP for the new academic year were pulled out by Education Secretary Arne Duncan just before the school year started.

Yep, let's send them to the more expensive but poorer performing schools, because like, the teachers' unions need some love, yo. Even the mayor of DC is not down wit' Nancy and Harry and Barry:

According to former DC Mayor Anthony Williams and former DC Councilman Kevin Chavous (both Democrats), the answer is politics at its worst.

Williams and Chavous co-authored an op-ed arguing that politicians opposing OSP “are largely fueled by special-interest groups that are more dedicated to the adults working in the education system than to making certain every child is properly educated.”

The editorial board of the Washington Post put it a little more bluntly:

It’s clear, though, from how the destruction of the [OSP] program is being orchestrated, that issues such as parents’ needs, student performance and program effectiveness don’t matter next to the political demands of teachers’ unions.

The Post board also wrote that “the debate unfolding on Capitol Hill isn’t about facts. It’s about politics and the stranglehold the teachers unions have on the Democratic Party.”

As it turns out, the teachers unions are the single largest contributor to federally elected politicians, with the vast majority of their funds going to Democrats. The teachers unions don’t like programs like OSP because when parents have the freedom to choose, they may choose schools that don’t have unionized teachers.

Look, my background is in teaching. I still tutor and would love to teach in either a public or private school. I didn't and don't care if my kids go to public or private schools as long as they learn. I even suggested to parents at times to look into private schools to help their kids. I guess maybe that is why I can't find a job in the public schools. They hear that I was one of those radicals who cared more for the education and well being of my students than a paycheck. Funny, I thought it was about the children (tm). I guess I am wrong. Oh, and check this out:

DC Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton was one of the principal opponents of OSP and was instrumental in ending the program. Guess who her largest donor is? Answer here.

Part of where I work now tutoring offers schools struggling reading and math after school and summer programs. Despite the fact that we have proven results working with the kids in this manner, many times we have to fight the teachers unions, and, if we do super well, we often lose contracts after one year because the teachers' union doesn't want it to get out that we came in and improved kids' learning by a grade level in 10 weeks when they couldn't do it in a school year. But, hey, the unions just want to help the kiddos, right? WRONG!

7/8/2010 UPDATE:

Anonymous #1 in the comments felt I was slamming all teachers. I was not. Here in the body of the post I am retyping what I said in the comments to clarify. I know there are a lot of us teachers out there who care about the kiddos. However, our teachers unions are not acting in the best interest of the children at times, especially when they lobby to get things like OSP shelved.
Forgive me if it seemed I was slamming all teachers. I was not. I am a teacher myself, if you go back and read what I wrote, I talk about teaching and how I would love to get back into it. I was slamming the hypocrisy of the teachers unions who claim on one hand to be "for the children" and then lobby to get things like OSP shelved. So, I hope that eased your hurt feelings and I provided enough clarification!

BullDog Deters Goes Down Like Simpering Kitty Kat...

From an email sent to Team WMD regarding the arsekicking Eric Deters was going to unleash on Judge Scott Gusweiler:

he Judge ruled the Judge had immunity. However, since we filed the lawsuit, there has been peace without meddling. The Judge in his Order recommended both parties put it behind them and both parties agreed. Case over. Problem solved.
Eric Deters

But Eric, what about all those punitive damages? What about the cause of justice? Oh wait, justice prevailed and you lost...as usual.

Mark 1, Deters, 0

Calling Darryl Parks, where is my 700 WLW radio gig?

Funny, I Thought Liberals Loved Whistleblowers

..or, in the case of Bill and Al, is there no whistle involved? I forget. Anyway, it appears the Department of Justice is not very happy that a former attorney has now laid it out there that Holder and Co. didn't go after the Black Panthers harassing people on the way to the polling place in Pennsylvania due to racial reasonings. Here is the story about the Panther case from the Washington Times:

On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.

The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.

The federal voter-intimidation statutes we used against the New Black Panthers were enacted because America never realized genuine racial equality in elections. Threats of violence characterized elections from the end of the Civil War until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.

Here are the serious charges:

Based on my firsthand experiences, I believe the dismissal of the Black Panther case was motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law. Others still within the department share my assessment. The department abetted wrongdoers and abandoned law-abiding citizens victimized by the New Black Panthers. The dismissal raises serious questions about the department's enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has opened an investigation into the dismissal and the DOJ's skewed enforcement priorities. Attorneys who brought the case are under subpoena to testify, but the department ordered us to ignore the subpoena, lawlessly placing us in an unacceptable legal limbo.

The assistant attorney general for civil rights, Tom Perez, has testified repeatedly that the "facts and law" did not support this case. That claim is false. If the actions in Philadelphia do not constitute voter intimidation, it is hard to imagine what would, short of an actual outbreak of violence at the polls. Let's all hope this administration has not invited that outcome through the corrupt dismissal.

Most corrupt of all, the lawyers who ordered the dismissal - Loretta King, the Obama-appointed acting head of the Civil Rights Division, and Steve Rosenbaum - did not even read the internal Justice Department memorandums supporting the case and investigation. Just as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. admitted that he did not read the Arizona immigration law before he condemned it, Mr. Rosenbaum admitted that he had not bothered to read the most important department documents detailing the investigative facts and applicable law in the New Black Panther case. Christopher Coates, the former Voting Section chief, was so outraged at this dereliction of responsibility that he actually threw the memos at Mr. Rosenbaum in the meeting where they were discussing the dismissal of the case. The department subsequently removed all of Mr. Coates' responsibilities and sent him to South Carolina.

I guess the Obama Administration appointees are all illiterate, or just willfully stupid. No, it is more likely they have an agenda meant to divide people and make them into subservient, warring and sparring groups that can then be manipulated and controlled.
Well, the libs at Justice didn't take this lying down. They came out with anonymous sources and all sorts of other spectral evidence that Adams was some Unibomber type or something.

And here is the response to the sliming of Adams by Adams himself through nightshirt media:

all it Panthergate, call it what you will. The Department of Justice (or its minions) is already attempting to slime its whistleblower J. Christian Adams — the attorney who recently resigned from the Department over its abandonment of the New Black Panther case.

Now Adams has struck back, telling Pajamas Media that the DOJ’s smears were a “blatant lie.”

Adams appeared on Megyn Kelly’s Fox News show to tell his story Tuesday, following which a “source familiar with the case” came forward, trying to tarnish the lawyer’s reputation. Pajamas Media was informed by a Fox producer:

The person said that any story should include the fact that Adams only left DOJ after being put into a job he disliked, and that he has long been an advocate of conservative views. Source also says Adams’ claims are “willfully inaccurate.”

This battle had been brewing for several days since Adams — using the Panther case as an example — asserted in the Washington Times, and then in more detail in Pajamas Media, that institutionalized bias had infiltrated Eric Holder’s Justice Department. Civil rights complaints would only be pursued when initiated by people of color against white people.

When it was the other way around, the complaints, even when well-substantiated as with the New Black Panthers, would disappear in a bureaucratic morass.

The attacks on Adams — whether from the “anonymous source” or from DOJ spokesperson Tracy Schmaler — were of surprising ferocity, indicating nervousness on the part of the Department.

Adams told Pajamas Media:

I was appalled and disappointed by the DOJ yesterday. They included a blatant lie in their response to my interview. They told Fox News I had been “unhappy with my position.” Not only would this be a personnel matter they aren’t supposed to discuss, it’s a fairy tale. In fact on April 28 I got a promotion, so maybe they can let me know what position I was unhappy with.

…

The problem with smearing me is that there are many others who know the truth inside the Department. Documents which they refuse to turn over pursuant to subpoenas from the Civil Rights Commission prove it.

Thomas Sowell Channels Yours Truly, or Has it Been the Other Way Around?

Big Smiles for Everybody!
One of the great minds of our time, Dr. Thomas Sowell, has penned another magnificent and meticulous piece of criticism against the statist agenda of one Barry Hussein Obama. In it, he talks of the slope to tyranny, a theme I have been repeating for months:

When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.

Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.

"Useful idiots" was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive.

In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.

The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.

Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.

And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated.

But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men."

And why is this so? Because the liberals have taken real education away from us--learning about the classics, about western civilization, about right and wrong--and replaced it with touchy feely goo about no competition and the glories of the groupthink.

If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in constitutional government.And, without constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a "crisis" — which, as the president's chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to "go to waste" as an opportunity to expand the government's power.

That power will of course not be confined to BP or to the particular period of crisis that gave rise to the use of that power, much less to the particular issues.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt arbitrarily took the United States off the gold standard, he cited a law passed during the First World War to prevent trading with the country's wartime enemies. But there was no war when FDR ended the gold standard's restrictions on the printing of money.

At about the same time, during the worldwide Great Depression, the German Reichstag passed a law "for the relief of the German people."

That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people — indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.

Using crisese for sheer expansion of power is disgusting and is not about helping but about something deeper and more sinister: lust for power.

Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power — vs. the rule of law and the preservation of freedom — are the "useful idiots" of our time. But useful to whom?

Indeed!

Cuomo and Lobbyist Cash: Why is NY Times Surprised?

Andrew Cuomo is a lying hypocrite. In other news, the grass is green. However, the NY Times is shocked, SHOCKED to find lobbyist cash in his coffers. I mean, after all, he was just assailing the lobbyists and special interests not that long ago:

Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, declaring his candidacy for governor of New York, could not have been clearer. “The influence of lobbyists and their special interests must be drastically reduced with new contribution limits,” Mr. Cuomo said last month. “We will be taking on very powerful special interests which have much to lose. We must change systems and cultures long in the making.”

But as he delivered his announcement, Mr. Cuomo was sitting on millions in campaign cash from the very special interests whose influence he said he wanted to limit.

An analysis by The New York Times shows that of the estimated $7.1 million that the Cuomo campaign has received from political action committees, associations, limited liability corporations and other entities, more than half has come from the biggest players in Albany: organized labor, the real estate and related industries like construction, the health care sector and lobbying firms.

In the spirit of reform, Mr. Cuomo pledged in 2007 not to accept donations over $10,000 from most categories of contributors during an election cycle. But he did not stick to that vow and has at times received amounts five times as great.

Gee, hasn't the Annointed One berated Goldman Sachs and BP, but yet has taken hundreds of thousands in campaign cash from them? Haven't all statist libs done this, even as they are claiming to be "for the little guy?" Give me a break. However, certain other "insiders" trying to have it both ways should take note:

The donations underscore the awkwardness of Mr. Cuomo’s effort to run against Albany and its insiders at the same time he is benefiting from their largess and, in some cases, his long relationships with them. He drew a similar proportion of his campaign money from special interests in his failed 2002 campaign for governor and his 2006 bid for attorney general.

Yes, awkward indeed.

Blago: What Did Obama Know and When?

Someone seems to think that Barry knew all about Blago's attempts at getting some action in exchange for appointing Valerie Jarrett to the US Senate seat that opened up when the Annointed One won the Presidency:

"The president understands that the governor would be willing to make the appointment of Valerie Jarrett as long as he gets what he's asked for. . . . The governor gets the Cabinet appointment he's asked for," Harris said, explaining a recorded call.

Harris said Blagojevich came away believing Obama knew what he wanted after having a conversation with a local union representative, who in turn spoke with labor leader Tom Balanoff, with whom Blagojevich met to discuss a Jarrett appointment. Jarrett, now a White House adviser, was seeking the appointment to Obama's Senate seat.

Defense lawyers say Harris' testimony contradicts the government's previous public statements that Obama knew nothing about deal-making involving the Senate seat appointment.

The defense on Wednesday moved to force the prosecution to turn over FBI reports of Obama's interview with federal agents in December of 2008. Obama is not accused of wrongdoing.

"Testimony elicited by the government from John Harris and wiretaps played in court raise the issue of President Obama's direct knowledge and communication with emissaries and others regarding the appointment to his Senate seat," lawyers wrote in the filing.

The filing came on the trial's third day of the extensive playback of recordings in which Blagojevich is heard repeatedly discussing ways to personally capitalize on his Senate seat appointment power. Blagojevich could be heard plotting to try to head up a charity; swearing and snapping at his wife, Patti, and dismissing the possibility of a federal position that pays $190,000 a year.

"I make $170 . . . So Fred, that has no appeal to me . . . I want to make money," Blagojevich tells national Democratic consultant Fred Yang. "I might as well go out and find a way to make money."

Obama's 2008 internal report about his staff's contacts with Blagojevich at the time indicates that Balanoff relayed to Jarrett that Blagojevich was interested in a Health and Human Services Cabinet post.

What did the President know and when did he know it? How much was he involved?