Many in America have been surprised by the magnitude of the Tea Party uprising, but perhaps none more so than Barack Obama. As people are inclined to do when threatened or under pressure, the President fell back on what he learned cutting his teeth in Chicago politics; brute force.
The Service Employees International Union members got the President's message. The SEIU members sporting their purple people beater shirts picked their first victim. Perhaps most disturbing, the attack began with a black union member coming unglued on a black man who did not share his leftist political beliefs all the while calling him a "nigger". Is this a hate crime?
Recall the summer of 2009. Traditional values-loving Americans, all over the country were so shocked by the bailouts, cap and trade and other big government expansion programs that they took to the streets in numbers never seen before. Liberals were shocked that the political right had figured out the playbook of the political left. As the Congressional Summer recess got underway, leftist politicians found their town hall meetings packed to the rafters with angry people asking tough questions. As the bloggers streamed the footage and America got a nearly daily dose of another Democrat politician getting hammered, it became clear that the left was unprepared.
Protesters were disparaged as "tea baggers" and Astroturf, but name-calling is not what they do in Chicago. It might be over the top to say the President himself ordered the hit, but what about his people? What he said of the conservative protestors is "If they are going to hit us, we will hit them back twice as hard ". Within two days, a black man distributing patriotic flags and buttons, found himself struggling under a tremendous beating from as many as four separate assailants. The Service Employees International Union members got the President's message. The SEIU members sporting their purple people beater shirts picked their first victim. Perhaps most disturbing, the attack began with a black union member coming unglued on a black man who did not share his leftist political beliefs all the while calling him a "nigger". Is this a hate crime?
It has been three months now, so what happened to the thugs? Nothing. Local Prosecutors appear to have taken a pass. The St. Louis County Prosecutor is Bob McCullough. The police report details a gang-style assault, resisting arrest, the arrest of a journalist for the major daily, the Post-Dispatch and the Prosecutor is claiming something between ignorance and lack of jurisdiction in the case. So who has jurisdiction for such crimes?
In St. Louis County, an area holding the curious distinction of 92 separate municipalities within the boundaries, municipal prosecutors handle the traffic tickets, ordinance violations, and other minor offenses. If the crime is committed in the County, but outside of any municipal boundaries, then police will usually hand the job to the County Counselor to be sure justice is done rather than hand it off to the County Prosecutor. It appears that Prosecutor McCullough believes County Counselor Patricia Reddington should be handling the case. One can wonder whether the police tried to give it to McCullough or if they took it directly to Reddington. In any case, those who gang assaulted Ken Gladney walk the streets. Why?
When the SEIU members went to the town hall meeting hosted by Democrat Congressman Russ Carnahan, did they have a fight on their minds? Were they spurred on by The President's words or the HCAN national Field Advisor Margarida Jorge's talking points? Did the favorite White House guest, Andy Stern promise the POTUS that the situation would be dealt with, as a way to curry favor with the King? We may never know if there was a specific instruction given, but we do know that four adults from the same gang decided simultaneously to mingle with the protestors and then single one out for a beating. We also know that the union has hired for them, Paul D'Agrosa one of the top criminal defense lawyers in St. Louis. Finally, we know that County Counselor Patricia Reddington, who serves at the pleasure of Democrat County Executive Charlie Dooley (previously a union member) is not moving the case.
This is even more interesting because Counselor Reddington distinguished herself in another assault trial. At that trial, a Republican Congressional Candidate was accused of assaulting a "campaign staffer" for Democrat Dick Gephardt, who was actually stalking the opposing candidate in a parade while drawing his paycheck from the U.S. Treasury. As the young patsy James Larrew got too close to his prey, he and the candidate made contact, and the "cameraman" went down. Democrat Counselor Reddington charged the Republican candidate with assault and went after him. After the week long trial the jury acquitted the candidate.
Of course the message was sent and Reddington delivered it. No, the message is not that you don't mess with Dick Gephardt; it is that Counselor Reddington has no tolerance for street brutality. No tolerance unless the assailant is a made man. And today, that means a member of SEIU.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/11/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It is a "hate crime" and the SEIU needs to be prosecuted to the full ends of the Law in this case.
#2
Yes, but a powerful POS. That's what its all about. Never about justice, fairness, liberty or freedom. Just power. Their fundamental problem is that they believe they'll always have the power. When you destroy the protections for others, you destroy the protections for yourselves as well. If you ever do lose that power you have nothing to protect you.
#3
The union should be prosecuted under RICO as a criminal organization and busted up - not 'reformed' (translation: the dirt is swept further under the rug) but utterly wiped out.
#1
The agency, citing federal policies, told the two lawyers, Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel, who are married and based in San Francisco, that they could mention their E.P.A. affiliation only once; must remove language specifying Mr. ZabelÂ’s expertise and their years of employment with the agency; and must remove an image of the agencyÂ’s office in San Francisco.
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd on Tuesday called for sweeping new government powers to prevent another economic collapse, protect consumers and dismantle failing institutions.
Dodd's 1,100 page-draft would strip the Federal Reserve and other regulators of their powers to regulate banks and hand that job to a single agency. The bill also would take away the Fed's ability to monitor credit cards and mortgages and establish a new "Consumer Financial Protection Agency."
The bill, inspired by last year's financial meltdown, will minimize "economic turmoil and protect(ing) the interest of taxpayers," the Connecticut Democrat wrote.
An advance copy of the legislation was obtained by The Associated Press.
President Barack Obama has demanded that Congress rewrite the federal regulations governing Wall Street to close legal loopholes and prevent the kind of fraud and abuse that fed the crisis.
Dodd's proposal was expected to gain broad support among Democrats, but Republicans haven't signed on.
Among the top points of contention is Dodd's desire to create a new agency to protect consumers taking out home loans or using credit cards against predatory lending and surprise interest rate hikes.
Republicans counter that creating another bureaucracy will make business harder for banks and limit the availability of credit.
The Senate Banking Committee was expected to review the legislation next week, paving the way for a floor vote by early next year.
The House was already on track with its own proposal. Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said he expects a floor vote in December.
Dodd's plan differs slightly from Frank's bill and the administration's proposal in that it would do more to scale back the powers of the Federal Reserve, which many lawmakers blame for the economic crisis.
For example, Frank has proposed that the Fed be in charge of enforcing tougher regulations on large and influential financial firms so that they don't grow "too big to fail." A council of regulators would monitor these firms and make recommendations.
Under Dodd's bill, the Fed would have less reach. An "agency for financial stability," managed by a board that includes Fed representation would enforce new rules and dismantle complex financial firms if they threaten the broader economy.
Both the House and Senate bills would likely put limits on the Fed's ability to provide emergency loans and eliminate its oversight of consumer protections.
Also unlike the House bill, Dodd's proposal would establish a single federal regulator for banks called the "Financial Institutions Regulatory Administration."
Posted by: Fred ||
11/11/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
No economy, no economic crash. It's so simple even a Dodd can understand it.
Posted by: ed ||
11/11/2009 1:01 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Picture this: Billions vanish without a trace? Well, the agency wase just "retiring" some of the old, unserviceable paper money out of circulation to key players...
#4
The financial crash was caused by Government power.
If you regulate vast amounts of credit and thus risk into the FINANCIAL system (the financial system is supposed to represent the economy, not the other way round) then you will inevitably have a crash.
According to a Gallup poll released Wednesday, 48 percent of voters said they would back a Republican, while 44 percent said they would support a Democrat, if the 2010 House elections were held today.
Fresh off major Election Day victories in Virginia and New Jersey, Republicans got another boost Wednesday with a new Gallup poll that shows registered voters would favor the GOP over Democrats if the 2010 congressional election were held today.
The Gallup survey, conducted Nov. 5-8, found that 48 percent of respondents said they would vote for a Republican candidate for Congress, while 44 percent said they would back a Democrat.
Independent voters were decidedly stronger in their preference for a Republican candidate, choosing the GOP by a 22 percent margin -- 52 to 30 percent -- according to the survey.
"The number one reason for the poll results is the economy," said Larry Sabato, director of the center for politics at the University of Virginia.
"People are generally concerned that we havenÂ’t seen more economic recovery, particularly in unemployment," he said, though he stressed that numbers can change substantially within the next year.
"The wind is going to be at the backs of the Republicans" going into the 2010 midterm elections, but "it could be anything from a breeze to hurricane force," Sabato added.
The Gallup trend mirrors results of Fox News polls, which last April found Democrats enjoying a 13-point lead over Republicans for the House congressional races. But a Fox News survey conducted Oct. 27-28 found Republicans had surged to a one-point lead over Democrats.
#1
"People are generally concerned that we haven't seen more economic recovery, particularly in unemployment," he said, though he stressed that numbers can change substantially within the next year.
Indeed they can. They can easily go from 10.2 % to 12 or 14 percent, and may likely do so.
Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.) on Tuesday signaled he would not support a measure to raise the country's debt ceiling unless lawmakers first established a bipartisan commission to oversee deficit spending.
Congress has raised the maximum the country can owe eight times since 2001 to avoid a crippling default on about $12 trillion in total debt, but Bayh hopes to use that upcoming, crucial vote to pitch -- and hopefully, to pass -- his more long-term, deficit-reduction measures.
"Who would have thought that the Budget Committee would be the site for the beginning of an institutional insurrection, but here we are," Bayh said before the committee on Tuesday. "Many of us count ourselves as pragmatists not idealists, moderates not extremists. Yet here we are, asking for a change in the way business is done in Washington."
Rather, Bayh is advocating the creation of a bipartisan panel that could in effect mandate spending cuts or impose new taxes to reduce the deficit and tackle the debt. Although the details of the plan are still murky, and supporting lawmakers disagree how over much authority the panel should have, the idea has proven nonetheless controversial to the Senate lawmakers writ large.
A number of senators have argued recently the commission would be partisan, its decisions would be unfair and its activities would merely encroach on territory belonging to other congressional committees.
That sentiment is echoed in the House. "[Speaker Nancy Pelosi] thinks we can accomplish the same goals through the work of the committees we already have," Brendan Daly, her spokesman, told The New York Times.
Bayh, however, perhaps has time and precedent on his side. Treasury officials expect Congress will have to raise the country's debt ceiling again by December in order to remain fiscally sound, and lawmakers are always reluctant to approve such increases -- a skepticism about spending that has dominated this session of Congress and could provide the momentum Bayh needs to advance his proposals.
"There are rare moments of leverage in this institution where you can implement fundamental change," Bayh said on Tuesday. "This is one of those moments. We must seize it."
Posted by: Fred ||
11/11/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A blue dog is a yellow dog holding it's breath.
#3
“Rather, Bayh is advocating the creation of a bipartisan panel that could in effect mandate spending cuts or impose new taxes to reduce the deficit and tackle the debt.”
Not exactly. The proposal seems to be the creation of a panel similar to the BRAC commission. The panel would make recommendations to congress. It would mandate that it comes to floor and that every member of congress would be required to cast an up or down vote. (No wonder Pelosi is grousing about it.) It’s not clear if the process allows for any debate. One key difference would be the members of the panel would be selected by the legislature – not the executive.
A Republican senator on Tuesday introduced a Constitutional amendment that would mandate term limits for all federal lawmakers.
Every lawmaker then could serve no longer than six years in Congress. DeMint said term limits are a reaction to the influence of special interest groups on Capitol Hill, corruption, high federal deficits, and a Democratic agenda he says will increase the size of government.
Sen. Jim DeMint's (R-S.C.) amendment would limit House members to three terms and senators to two terms. Every lawmaker then could serve no longer than six years in Congress. DeMint said term limits are a reaction to the influence of special interest groups on Capitol Hill, corruption, high federal deficits, and a Democratic agenda he says will increase the size of government.
"Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians," said DeMint in a statement. "As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward...amassing their own power."
Two thirds of the House and Senate as well as three quarters of the states would need to vote for DeMint's amendment for it to become a part of the Constitution.
Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) cosponsored the bill. Coburn has long supported term limits. He retired from the House in 2000 after being elected in 1994, pledging only to serve three consecutive terms.
Coburn then ran for Senate and won in 2004. Brownback is stepping down from the Senate in 2010 to run for governor, citing his support for term limits. Hutchison is running for governor against incumbent Rick Perry (R), who is running for a third term in 2010. If elected, Perry will become the longest serving governor in Texas history.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/11/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Good for him. We need this. No more permanent congressional Reps like Pelosi - or Delay. Nor more eternal senators like Byrd or Thurmond or Kennedy or Stevens.
#6
I have no hope this will pass. Can you see Pelosi, Byrd, et al endorsing it? Even if 90% of the voters wanted it, they will never give up their power.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
11/11/2009 7:21 Comments ||
Top||
#7
We can enforce term limits every two to six years but consistently choose not to. It is the fault of We the People.
#9
The only way this will come to pass is by the states instituting a Constitutional Convention and sending it back home for ratification. The best way to press it is to include it as one of many amendments that will be addressed in such a convention. When you get within a handful of states to make the convention a reality, then you'll see whether the beltway will reform or perish.
#10
Procopius,
As good an idea as that is, a Constitutional Convention today would be an ever-loving disaster for this nation, and would probably insure its collapse. It would take months just to determine who is going to be represented - and can you imagine the ind of people that the current Congress and administration would insist on seating as delegates? Put another way - do you want people like Saul Olinsky helping write our Constitution? An amendment is probably the best - and only realistic way - to deal with the problem. A full convention, sadly, might only be truly possible if the current system has failed to the extent that the only option is to start over.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
11/11/2009 10:08 Comments ||
Top||
#11
--- I would prefer an amendment allowing for the recall of elected federal lawmakers. It's more to the point.
--- A Constitutional Convention would be subject to exactly the same forces giving us the current dog's breakfast of congressional representation.
--- It is true than the electorate repeatedly has chosen NOT to enforce term limits. We need a better quality electorate.
#12
You really believe that given the opportunity the state governments and the state parties would allow the beltway boys to dictate the convention. There was no beltway at the original convention. It was all handled by the states. The states, federalism, would suddenly be something other than a submissive subordinate administrative unit to the beltway. You don't think they'd take the first opportunity to kill unfunded federally directed mandates that suck their budgets dry? You really believe they'd give the central government more power that would mean the end to the states themselves? All politics is local. They're going to cover their own posteriors.
Once the process begins, each state is equal. Wyoming is just as important as California or New York. While the existing powers may control the big boys, there are enough little boys out there to put the hurt on the those concentrated in coastal urban areas.
What you fear is already evolving right before your eyes without the convention. Take council of your fears and just watch it happen anyway. It's the one 'out' we have. You really think that the Trunks running the beltway are going to massively alter what has been put in place by the Donks. You show me one department they've removed from the federal hierarchy.
#13
In California we had a ballot proposition to limit terms for state legislators. Of course, there was no way the legislators would enact such a law themselves. I voted for it at the time because the state assembly speaker was flaming liberal Willie Brown and I couldn't see any other way to ever get rid of him. The ballot proposition passed and we now have term limits but, sadly, I don't think it has made much difference. The legislature is still overwhelmingly liberal, corrupt and irresponsible.
I think glenmore said it best, voters get a chance to vote these people out of office every two or six years but we don't do it. That's the problem.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
11/11/2009 11:55 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Only the consituents have the right to vote out their representatives. The reps have an impact on the ENTIRE country. Term limits is how we remove the corrupt reps from other districts.
#15
None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by Constitutional Convention. However, there is always a first time. If enough States go broke because of Federal mandates and bone-headed Federal legislation, a Constitutional Convention may become a reality. I'd be in favor of an Amendment limiting the terms of Congress members. Now that's change I can believe in.
#16
It's not clear to me, per the Constitution, who runs a constitutional convention:
Article V. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress ...
It seems to me that the Congress calls the convention, and that implies that the Congress sets the rules and runs it.
Now the convention could do what the last one did. Recall that the Congress (under the Articles of Confederation) had called a convention with the charge of finding ways to improve the Articles. First thing the new convention agreed to was to toss the Articles and write a new constitution.
Would we win or lose if a new convention did that today?
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/11/2009 13:23 Comments ||
Top||
#17
..or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,
#18
Also a convention cannot be constrained by 'rules' or limits. They can do whatever the heck they want. Abolish the constitution. Institute Sharia law. Whatever.
A lot would depend on how the delegates to a convention are chosen. If by direct vote - I think we'll be screwed since people will vote for whoever will promise them the most (see Obama). If chosen by the separate legislatures... we might have a little hope.
#19
They get their two terms in Senate, twelve years is enough even for a Goldwater. Only a fool or an idiot royalist looks at it that way which is how we got into this mess.
I would trade all Goldwater and other good senators extra terms for getting ourselves rid of termites like Kennedy and Byrd far sooner.
In the long run the latter are far more destructive than the former are constructive. History shows the truth of it. No government position is meant to be permanent nor long standing. George Washington set that example.
#20
End congressional pensions and find a better way to set district boundaries. Someone at Hot Air mentioned using zip codes. I like that idea. Start adding zip codes together till you get enough people to fill one district, then start adding the next bunch to get the next district, etc.
#21
Or Vandenberg, George, Holland, Goldwater or Russell
Lawzie dems wuz de dayz! Whitewallz on de tires and on de sides of de menz hedz. Burgers wuz alla five centz and commies wuz de real thang. No pinkos doing dere vacayshun thang with Fidel evah year.
Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio (R) said on Monday that he would welcome the endorsement of ex-Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska).
The conservative insurgent candidate challenging Gov. Charlie Crist (R-Fla.) said that Palin's endorsement would be more than appropriate because they agree on nearly every issue.
"I can't think of anything her and I disagree with off the top of my head," he told CBS News in an interview.
Though Crist is the favored candidate of the Republican establishment, having already gained the backing of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Rubio has cut into Crist's lead in the polls by running a conservative campaign that has attracted the support of grassroots Republican activists.
Palin has not endorsed a candidate in the Sunshine State's GOP Senate primary, but she did back Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in New York's special House election that took place last week. Rubio also threw his support behind Hoffman, who ran to the right of centrist GOP nominee Dede Scozzafava.
Like Hoffman challenged Scozzafava on her support for abortion rights, gay marriage, and card check legislation; Rubio has questioned Crist's support for the federal stimulus package passed in February. Crist has since said he no longer supports the stimulus but some conservatives still view him with suspicion for his earlier position.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/11/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a California Democrat dismayed by the House vote over the weekend to prohibit taxpayer subsidies for insurance policies that cover abortion in the healthcare overhaul, is saying maybe the IRS should investigate the tax-exempt status of the Catholic Church following its lobbying effort for the restriction.
"I expect political hardball on any legislation as important as the health care bill," Woolsey writes in Politico. "I just didn't expect it from the United States Council of Catholic Bishops ... Who elected them to Congress?"
"I expect political hardball on any legislation as important as the health care bill," Woolsey writes in Politico. "I just didn't expect it from the United States Council of Catholic Bishops ... Who elected them to Congress?"
How many divisions does the Pope have ...
Abortion rights supporters say the restriction will effectively deny abortion for the low- and moderate-income women whom the healthcare overhaul is intended to insure. The U.S. Conference (not Council) of Catholic Bishops, which supports universal health insurance coverage but opposes abortion, lobbied hard for the restriction as the healthcare bill neared a vote on Saturday.
Archbishop Edwin F. O'Brien told us on Monday that it was appropriate for Catholics to make their beliefs known during the healthcare debate. "When it comes to abortion and research on human life, we can't compromise on those things," he said. "Once we get the foundation established that human life has to be respected, then let the debate go on as to what the health bill will contain."
But Woolsey says the bishops' effort went beyond advocacy. "They seemed to dictate the finer points of the amendment, and managed to bully members of Congress to vote for added restrictions on a perfectly legal surgical procedure. And this political effort was subsidized by taxpayers, since the Council enjoys tax-exempt status."
Posted by: Fred ||
11/11/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
She can kiss my Catholic rear.
We have a right to be heard, same as any other citizen. The Catholic Church does not endorse politicians, but it certainly does endorse stands on moral issues -- that's its job. Speaking out on moral issues? That's something the First Amendment protects.
And its not "bullying" to point out to them the largest Christian denomination in the US will not support policies that are counter to our morals -- and is morally obligated to speak out to the public and to government.
#2
I think we should investigate labor union exemption from taxes.
Any organization that gives so much cash to one party should not be exempt from taxes. Particularly one that represents government workers and then turns over millions to political campaigns of one part over the other by a massive amount.
Democrats have a vested interest in growing government bureaucracy. Increasing government union members directly increases their campaign contributions. It is a kickback.
#4
of course if you do it for the Catholics then you will need to do it for the Mormons too. That will destroy the bottom line for Marriott and several foodstore chains. That destruction will be then nail in Harry Reid's coffin and likely upset him enough for a heart attack. Is Lynn ready to loose her Senate Leader?
#5
I'd love to get rid of all the damn deductions, starting with chartiable. If your gawd tellz you to give, give. If your account sez give then fuck off I'd don't want to subzidizxe your priests and smoke.
#7
Go ahead, Democrats, pick a fight with the Bishops. Smart. Real smart coming into the 2010 elections. It's not like voters have a reason to flock to the polls for you ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/11/2009 10:04 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I would support a Constitutional amendment providing for constituents to RECALL sitting Congressmen for misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance and DUMBfeasance. Way better than term limits, since the process could be activated at any point. Oh, and no benefits of any kind payable to a recalled Congressperson.
#10
I for one welcome this. Attack the very core of our constitution. Turn this PC standoff into a full blown firefight. Remember its "God and Country" and in that order. As far as stupid moves go, this is a keeper. Every Christian believer will have had enough and take action, the Jews who understand where this is going better than most will come unhinged. She will open the pandora's box she did not want to touch.... You go Lynn!
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
11/11/2009 10:55 Comments ||
Top||
#11
She's just trying to get more votes in her home district (Marin/Sonoma counties), and she'll probably get them. After all, it's not like she is suggesting going after some weird New-Agey cult, or saying gerbil worming doesn't exist.
#15
Ms. Woolsey, y'all may not want to 'poke' that old bear too much. He's got a good set of teeth on 'im and he's got a lot of family hereabouts. He's also got a lot o' kinfolk in the other valleys that may feel the same way he does about that particular subject.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
11/11/2009 16:55 Comments ||
Top||
#18
M' thinks Cornsilk Blondie has it right. As a resident of Sonoma County, I don't see a serious challenge to Dimwit Lynn, but I think she's seeing the coming tidal wave that's coming for the Donks and she's scared. She really is an idiot, but then 90% of our locals are idiots. Serious. Try driving around this county. Jeebus, these folks are freekin' brain dead - especially those with a Prius (Pious). They don't have to follow rules of the road, ya know.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
11/11/2009 23:20 Comments ||
Top||
Gerald Walpin, the AmeriCorps inspector general fired by the White House in July during his probe of Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, has been cleared of a complaint by the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento that he had acted improperly.
Now, he says, he wants his job back. "It takes away any basis belatedly set forth by the White House as a reason for my termination," Walpin said this morning in an interview from his home in New York. "So I am certainly looking forward to a final determination by the court and to be reinstated."
Walpin filed suit in federal court in Washington, D.C., in July alleging that he was fired improperly while investigating whether Johnson had misused federal grant funds. The government is trying to have the case dismissed, but Walpin filed documents in court late Monday opposing that.
Walpin denied any wrongdoing but was fired June 11 by the White House, which said he had been in a "confused, disoriented" state during a May meeting of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees AmeriCorps.
Among the documents was an Oct. 19 letter from the Integrity Committee of the Council of the Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency telling him that the probe against him had been closed. "After carefully considering the allegations described in the complaint together with your response, the IC determined that the response sufficiently and satisfactorily addressed the matter and that further inquiry or an investigation regarding the matter was not warranted," committee Chairman Kevin L. Perkins wrote.
The investigation had been prompted by an extraordinary April letter from Lawrence G. Brown, then the acting U.S. attorney for the Sacramento area, complaining to the Integrity Committee that Walpin had "overstepped his authority," withheld "potentially significant information at the expense of determining the truth" and engaged in a campaign in the media that damaged the image of the AmeriCorps program. "He sought to act as the investigator, advocate, judge, jury and town crier," Brown wrote in the April 29 letter.
By then, the investigation of Johnson and how he had used federal funds for his St. HOPE agency to run schools and other endeavors had been closed without criminal charges. The federal government agreed to settle the matter with Johnson and St. HOPE agreeing to repay $400,000 in funds.
Walpin denied any wrongdoing but was fired June 11 by the White House, which said he had been in a "confused, disoriented" state during a May meeting of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees AmeriCorps.
As inspector general, Walpin's job was to act independently to investigate potential problems in federally funded programs, and he says he believes the decision to settle the case rather than pursue it stemmed from "media pressures and political considerations," including the fact that Johnson is seen as an ally of President Obama.
Members of Congress raised concerns about whether the firing was justified, but to date no hearings into the matter have been scheduled. Instead, the case is being fought out in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.
Brown is no longer acting U.S. attorney. He now serves in the No. 3 spot in the office, and officials there did not immediately respond to a request for comment this morning. Steve Maviglio, who acted as a spokesman for Johnson during the probe and was a vocal critic of Walpin, said he and Johnson attorney Matthew Jacobs would decline to comment.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/11/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Can you imagine the 24/7 headlines in the NYT, WaPo, AP, ABC, NBC, CBS if Bush had fired an IG who was investigating a "Friend of George"? At this point in time, I respect Pravda more than I do the US news media. At least Pravda's whores are in the classifieds, not on the bylines.
Posted by: ed ||
11/11/2009 1:08 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Conversion of America into Amerika turns out to be harder than expected?
A leading Senate Independent on Monday stressed he would support using reconciliation to break a filibuster and bring healthcare reform to a conclusive vote.
Leading independent? There are only two ...
That affirmation, offered Monday night by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), slightly assauges Democratic leaders' concerns, but it leaves open the possibility that the Vermont lawmaker could still buck the majority party on a vote to end debate, complicating the healthcare bill's passage. "I think the role that [Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.)] is now attempting to play on healthcare is very, very unfortunate," Sanders told MSNBC in an interview, noting Lieberman's intended filibuster is precisely why he wanted his fellow Independent sanctioned last year for stumping with GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).
"The American people overwhelmingly want a public option for a variety of reasons," he added. "Correctly, they want a choice between a private insurance company and a Medicare-type plan. And they should have that choice."
"If we can't do it because we don't get 60 votes, then there are other ways that we have to proceed. And I would strongly support those other ways."
And when asked whether he would support reconciliation in the event Lieberman and other Democrats blocked consideration of the bill, Sanders said: "Absolutely. Look, the trick here is to do the best that we can for the American people. And that is quality, affordable healthcare for all of our people. If we can't do it because we don't get 60 votes, then there are other ways that we have to proceed. And I would strongly support those other ways."
Lawmakers and pundits throughout the healthcare debate have kept a watchful eye on Sanders, wondering how he might ultimately side on his chamber's proposed reform. While he has long supported the public option and offered some favorable, choice words for Senate Democrats' work, he has been noncommittal recently about whether he would lend his voice to a cloture motion.
Without Sanders' support, ending debate on the bill would be exceptionally difficult, if not impossible.
"All I'll say for now is that I want the strongest public option possible in the bill," Sanders told The Hill. "Beyond that, we're going to have to look at what develops."
Sanders never broached the subject of his cloture intentions on Monday, but his otherwise stated support for Democrats' healthcare bill is at least likely to calm some party leaders a little. They are also sure to take some solace in his qualified endorsement to use reconciliation, as well as his newly stated concern that abortion restrictions in the House version of the bill could doom healthcare reform writ large.
"It is hard to imagine that with a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress, we would take a major step backward in a struggle that women have engaged in for decades," he said of Rep. Bart Stupak's (D-Mich.) amendment, which sets strict rules on the public plan and abortion services. "So, it just seems to me inconceivable that that can remain in the bill."
Posted by: Fred ||
11/11/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"A leading Senate Independent..." Independent my ass. Bernie is a commie.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
11/11/2009 1:29 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"The American people overwhelmingly want a public option for a variety of reasons."
Exactly which public option are you referring to Bernie? Is it the one where states can “opt in” or is it the one where states can “opt out”? Or maybe it’s the “trigger option”? Or maybe it’s the “exchange”? Maybe it’s the “co-op”? Or do you suppose it’s the one where people think they get free health insurance? The answer to that question may shed some light on the validity of the opinion polls you like to cite…don’t’cha think?
Citigroup executive Eric Eve has resigned from ACORN's phony, allegedly independent advisory panel, a move that removes one of the few people on the panel who could even remotely claim to actually be independent.
According to ACORN, the advisory council was established in early 2009 "to help facilitate a transition to a new management team under the leadership of CEO Bertha Lewis." Eve, senior vice president of Global Consumer Group, Community Relations, at Citigroup, quit after the National Legal and Policy Center pressed Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit to cut ties with ACORN.
If you read between the lines, it also seems to mean Citigroup agrees the panel is a sham. According to ACORN, the advisory council was established in early 2009 "to help facilitate a transition to a new management team under the leadership of CEO Bertha Lewis." The emergence of the undercover prostitution sting videos in September gave the council another problem to mull over.
Eve, senior vice president of Global Consumer Group, Community Relations, at Citigroup, quit after the National Legal and Policy Center pressed Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit to cut ties with ACORN.
In a letter to NLPC president Peter Flaherty, Citigroup announced Eve's resignation from the panel. "We too are deeply concerned about the recent media reports regarding ACORN and, because of those reports, have suspended our charitable financial support and program relationships with ACORN, and we are awaiting the results of the independent audit of ACORN activities now underway," wrote Natalie Abatemarco, Citigroup's vice president, Global Community Relations. "On a related topic, please be advised that Eric Eve has resigned his position on the ACORN Advisory Council."
Citigroup is a Big Government lovers' bank that funds just about every trendy left-wing cause in America. Long before it started drowning in red ink, the poster child for so-called corporate social responsibility was a longtime donor to left-wing pressure groups such as Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's Nature Conservancy. In tax year 2003, Citigroup's foundation gave 20 times more money to groups on the left than to groups on the right, according to Capital Research Center's 2006 study of Fortune 100 foundation giving. (Foundation Watch, August 2006.)
Citigroup's foundation has given a staggering $1.4 million to the alarmist World Resources Institute, as well as $509,000 to ACORN in recent years. The ACORN funding included a $500,000 grant to ACORN's American Institute for Social Justice, which offers Saul Alinsky-style training in community organizing. Other donations to liberal groups include the Aspen Institute ($762,500), Rainbow/PUSH Coalition ($750,000), Nature Conservancy ($380,000), Rainforest Alliance ($200,000), and the Council on Foreign Relations ($50,000).
For her part, former ACORN national board member Marcel Reid never believed the council would accomplish anything. Reid and board member Karen Inman were expelled from ACORN by chief organizer Bertha Lewis for asking too many questions about the $1 million embezzlement perpetrated by ACORN founder Wade Rathke's brother and then covered up for eight years.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/11/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
The Mayor is using a straw-man argument that conveniently provides him with an opportunity to politicize the terrorist attack as part and parcel with America's love of guns.
Mayor Daley, and other politicians, like to blame gun violence on the guns themselves because that is so much easier than admitting any inconvenient (politically incorrect) truths which might be revealed if they were to place blame where it belongs.
Kids murdering each other in the inner city? That's because of guns, not the War On Drugs which turns poor children into black market drug distributing gang members.
Islamists murdering people while shouting Allah Akbar? That's because of guns, not the Jihad being perpetrated globally against all so called "infidels".
They blame guns because guns don't vote.
Taking Mayor Daley at face value for a moment, is he seriously arguing for increased gun control on a military base? If there had been more guns around, this ticking Jihad bomb could have been put down a lot faster than he was.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/11/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The best rebuttal to this was that instead of gun control, obviously America needed strict psychiatrist control. Look at the facts: had he not been a psychiatrist, he would not have been on Fort Hood in the first place.
Clearly there is a relationship between psychiatrism and mass killing. If it wasn't for the intensive lobbying by the American Psychiatric Association, we would have long ago had a much safer society.
Perhaps psychiatrists should be prevented from firing guns by making them wear boxing gloves.
#2
...Or if we didn't have radical Imans preaching the destruction of the USA. Do we not prosecute under sedition and treason laws anymore or has PC won out?
#3
So, Mayor Daley that explains all the gun murders and wounding in your fine city where you've virtually ban the gun. It only proves where guns are not made available to the good citizens, those who have no respect for law or authority will bloodily run amok.
More than 200 amendments were rejected by the House Rules Committee ahead of Saturday's vote on the Democrats' health care bill, including 11 that would have required members of Congress and other government officials to be enrolled in the same federal insurance plan proposed for the American people.
Critics of the health care bill said they offered the 11 amendments -- including some that would require the president, vice president, and Supreme Court justices to give up their Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) to enroll in the 'public option' or Medicaid -- to showcase the problems with the massive legislation.
"If Congress forces our constituents into a public option plan over time, then members of Congress should be expected to do the same," Rep. Howard McKeon (R-Calif.) told CNSNews.com.
The House Rules Committee attempt was the second time McKeon had tried to amend the Democrats' health plan to include legislators in the public option.
"Democrats voted down a similar amendment, 21-18, in the Ways and Means Committee during the July markup of HR 3200," McKeon said. "It became apparent then that Democrats are afraid of being put on a government-run health care program, but that fear does not extend to the welfare of their own constituents."
The public option in the House bill would be a government health insurance agency run by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and available through the federal Health Insurance Exchange.
"This is one of those classic hypocritical moments for the Democrats," Matt Lavoie, spokesman for Rep. Wally Herger (R-Calif.), told CNSNews.com. "They simply don't want to put up with the public option that they are preparing to inflict on the American public."
But Vincent Morris, communications director for the Democrat-controlled House Rules Committee, told CNSNews.com that the amendments were rejected because no one, including Congress, will be forced to sign on to government-run health care.
"The reason we didn't support those amendments is because the public option was created precisely to give the American people a choice between private and public [insurance], Morris said. "Given that all Americans have a choice about whether to join the public option, we thought it didn't make any sense to force members of Congress to join."
Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) said he proposed his amendment because the bill does not fix the problems with the already government-run Medicaid program. His amendment "would make members of Congress a mandatory covered population under Title XIX of the Social Security Act (Medicaid) without consideration of any other asset or qualification test."
Posted by: Fred ||
11/11/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
That sounds like they just told us we can eat cake!
We all know what happened last time a better offered cake.
A report by California Attorney General Jerry Brown's office says a spokesman secretly recorded phone calls with five reporters, even though he was explicitly warned not to do so. Chief Assistant Attorney General Dane Gillette reports that Scott Gerber was repeatedly warned that California law requires both parties to give consent before a conversation is recorded. Gerber, 33, resigned last week after one of the secret recordings came to light.
The report released Monday says Gerber recorded six interviews with five reporters from April to October, including three with reporters from The Associated Press.
It says Brown and other senior staff members did not know about the secret recordings. The report says no crime occurred, concluding that an on-the-record interview with a reporter is not a confidential communication.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/11/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Attorney General Jerry Brown has relied on a stealth fundraising campaign and his near universal name recognition to wipe out the field seven months ahead of California's Democratic primary for governor.
That has left the 72-year-old political icon, who already has served two terms as California governor, as the party's presumed candidate for governor in 2010, even though Brown has not officially declared.
It's not the position in which the majority party in a state as diverse as California had expected to find itself, just a year after a grassroots groundswell helped give Barack Obama the biggest margin of victory in a California presidential election since at least World War II.
The seeming inevitability of Brown's candidacy has left some Democrats nervous about what his campaign might produce. He is famously independent, often unpredictable and his views are not as well known as his name to many of today's voters. He has also mostly stayed out of the debate about the state's massive fiscal crisis.
"There's a whole generation who have no idea who he is, and there's a lot of activists who have no clue on how he'd balance the budget because he hasn't articulated it," said Steve Maviglio, a Sacramento-based Democratic consultant. "That's why there's a level of nervousness about Jerry Brown being our only choice."
The Democratic Party and California's electorate have grown increasingly diverse in the years since Brown last served as governor 26 years ago. The party's legislative caucus is relatively young and is dominated by Hispanics, blacks and Asians.
Another unknown is how Brown would fare against a deep-pocketed Republican such as Meg Whitman, the former chief executive of eBay, who is a fresh face on the political scene and is aggressively targeting women voters. Some Republicans already have signaled part of their campaign strategy, casting Brown as a political insider who represents California's past, not its future.
The Democrats' unexpected position heading into the 2010 governor's race prompted a lament from former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, who wrote in his weekly newspaper column that some Democrats are asking: "Can't we find someone with a newer paint job?"
Brown's seven-to-one fundraising advantage and 20-point lead in public opinion polls forced San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom out of the race last month. Newsom, 42, who was best known for approving same-sex marriages in his famously liberal hometown, was the favorite among younger Democrats.
Some Newsom supporters may wonder whether Brown will represent their interests, while other voters are too young to remember his two terms as governor from 1975 to 1983 and are simply unfamiliar with him. Brown remains popular with public employee unions, who helped him collect $7.3 million through the first half of the year.
The state's political landscape also has changed in the decades since Brown last served as governor. The independent voters who comprise 20 percent of the electorate can swing an election and would likely consider a centrist Republican.
Another concern is that Brown has not officially announced his candidacy and has not detailed his views on critical topics, although he has signaled he will oppose tax increases.
Steven Glazer, a political adviser to Brown, said Brown will have time for politics later.
"I'm very confident he will make a decision to run, but he's focused on doing his job as attorney general right now," Glazer said.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/11/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
White House communications director Anita Dunn will step down from her post at the end of the month and Dan Pfeiffer, her deputy, will take over, according to sources familiar with the move.
Dunn, a longtime Democratic media consultant, took over the job on an interim basis earlier this year when Ellen Moran abruptly left the post to take a job at the Commerce Department. Dunn will return to Squier Knapp Dunn, the consulting firm where she is a partner, but will remain as a consultant to the White House on the communications and strategic matters.
The move will be formally announced later today.
On Oct. 11, speaking on CNN, Dunn attacked Fox News as "a wing of the Republican Party." Her comments sparked a fresh battled between the White House and the network. In response to the criticism, Fox News executive Michael Clemente said in a statement that Obama's aides had decided to "declare war on a news organization."
A source inside the White House, who was not authorized to speak about strategy meetings, said at the time that Dunn went out front against Fox first and foremost because it was her job, but also because it potentially gave the administration the opportunity to distance itself from the flap with the Roger Ailes-led news channel once she leaves the communications job.
Pfeiffer began working for Obama in 2007 following Sen. Evan Bayh's (Ind.) decision not to pursue the presidency. He served a stint as the traveling press secretary for Obama's presidential bid but eventually took a slot overseeing the campaign's communications operation.
Prior to Obama, Pfeiffer worked for Sen. Tim Johnson's (S.D.) re-election race in 2002 and on then Sen. Tom Daschle's (S.D.) unsuccessful bid in 2004.
The passing of the baton from Dunn to Pfeiffer had long been expected within White House circles as she had made clear when she took the job that the "interim" in her title was meant to be taken literally.
Unlike when Moran left, the transition should be somewhat seamless as Dunn and Pfeiffer are longtime confidantes -- having worked closely in Daschle's political orbit for years.
The turnover in the communications director slot is the only change in Obama's senior staff with 10 months (or so) of his presidency having passed.
Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff and former Illinois Congressman, has made clear he would like to return to elected office at some point in the not-too-distant future and, if past presidencies are any guide there will be some further turnover in the senior staff over the next year or so.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/11/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Getting pretty crowded under that Obama bus. I think she took her copy of Mao's Little Read Book with her.
The private homes that New London, Conn., took away from Suzette Kelo and her neighbors have been torn down. Their former site is a wasteland of fields of weeds, a monument to the power of eminent domain. But now Pfizer, the drug company whose neighboring research facility had been the original cause of the homes' seizure, has just announced that it is closing up shop in New London.
To lure those jobs to New London a decade ago, the local government promised to demolish the older residential neighborhood adjacent to the land Pfizer was buying for next-to-nothing. Suzette Kelo fought the taking to the Supreme Court, and lost. Five justices found this redevelopment met the constitutional hurdle of "public use."
The Hartford Courant reports:
Pfizer Inc. will shut down its massive New London research and development headquarters and transfer most of the 1,400 people working there to Groton, the pharmaceutical giant said Monday. Pfizer is now deciding what to do with its giant New London offices, and will consider selling it, leasing it and other options, a company spokeswoman said.
Scott Bullock, Kelo's co-counsel in the case, told me: "This shows the folly of these redevelopment projects that use massive taxpayer subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare and abuse eminent domain." More Here
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
11/11/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Shows me that the Supremes can't tell a bullshit artist from a honest person.
Sarah Palin is not the only person to have a best-seller this fall before it hit the presses. Glenn Beck's "The Christmas Sweater" book for children comes out this week and its publisher said it will open at No. 1 in the New York Times list of best-selling children's books -- his fifth book to make No. 1. The publisher said in a press release: "Simon & Schuster, believes that Beck has become the only author in history to ever have #1 New York Times bestsellers debut on these four different lists: hardcover fiction (The Christmas Sweater), hardcover nonfiction (Arguing with Idiots and An Inconvenient Book), nonfiction paperback (Glenn Beck's Common Sense), and now with The Christmas Sweater: A Picture Book, children's picture books."
Mark Levin, Michelle Malkin, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Beck, Palin and the rest have sold tons of books this year. Conservatives are responsible for the clearing of forests. And the left is wetting itself over this.
Oh this is sweet.
Mark Levin, Michelle Malkin, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Beck, Palin and the rest have sold tons of books this year. Conservatives are responsible for the clearing of forests.
And the left is wetting itself over this.
The Huffington Post asked: "Should The New York Times create a separate bestseller list for conservative blockbusters? Think of the history: we have a children's bestseller list because of "Harry Potter" -- Harry was knocking adult books off the top spots on the hardcover fiction list so publishers complained. The same thing must be true for Beck, Palin, Cheney, Bush (George W. and Laura), Malkin and others."
Boo hoo hoo. This upset them more than Fox News dominating the cable news channels.
Maybe we need a fairness doctrine so that when you buy a conservative book you must also buy a liberal book.
It is so tough to be someone's intellectual superior when he is out-reading you.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/11/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Maybe we need a fairness doctrine so that when you buy a conservative book you must also buy a liberal book.
#5
I'm sure that Nancy Pelosi's book is gonna be huge when it comes out!
Oh, it did? And it tanked. Why wasn't I told that? Uh...well...Ted Kennedy's last book did pretty good, right? What was that? Only peaked at #71 on Amazon? And Barbara Boxer barely cracked 10,000 in sales? Oh my. At least there aren't too many copies of Jimmah Cahtah's books in the bargain bin this week...
#10
Oh, it did? And it tanked. Why wasn't I told that? Uh...well...Ted Kennedy's last book did pretty good, right? What was that? Only peaked at #71 on Amazon? And Barbara Boxer barely cracked 10,000 in sales? Oh my. At least there aren't too many copies of Jimmah Cahtah's books in the bargain bin this week...
Oh, they're not best sellers - commercially. But the book advance and the unions and advocacy groups friends and relatives who buy who buy hundreds of copies (a la Jim Wright) more than makes up for the lack of sales to the lumpenproletariat.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd on Tuesday called for sweeping new government powers to prevent another economic collapse, protect consumers and dismantle failing institutions.
According to a Gallup poll released Wednesday, 48 percent of voters said they would back a Republican, while 44 percent said they would support a Democrat, if the 2010 House elections were held today.
Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.) on Tuesday signaled he would not support a measure to raise the country's debt ceiling unless lawmakers first established a bipartisan commission to oversee deficit spending.
Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio (R) said on Monday that he would welcome the endorsement of ex-Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska). 
More than 200 amendments were rejected by the House Rules Committee ahead of Saturday's vote on the Democrats' health care bill, including 11 that would have required members of Congress and other government officials to be enrolled in the same federal insurance plan proposed for the American people.
Attorney General Jerry Brown has relied on a stealth fundraising campaign and his near universal name recognition to wipe out the field seven months ahead of California's Democratic primary for governor.
White House communications director Anita Dunn will step down from her post at the end of the month and Dan Pfeiffer, her deputy, will take over, according to sources familiar with the move.
The private homes that New London, Conn., took away from Suzette Kelo and her neighbors have been torn down. Their former site is a wasteland of fields of weeds, a monument to the power of eminent domain. But now Pfizer, the drug company whose neighboring research facility had been the original cause of the homes' seizure, has just announced that it is closing up shop in New London.
Sarah Palin is not the only person to have a best-seller this fall before it hit the presses. Glenn Beck's "The Christmas Sweater" book for children comes out this week and its publisher said it will open at No. 1 in the New York Times list of best-selling children's books -- his fifth book to make No. 1. The publisher said in a press release: "Simon & Schuster, believes that Beck has become the only author in history to ever have #1 New York Times bestsellers debut on these four different lists: hardcover fiction (The Christmas Sweater), hardcover nonfiction (Arguing with Idiots and An Inconvenient Book), nonfiction paperback (Glenn Beck's Common Sense), and now with The Christmas Sweater: A Picture Book, children's picture books."
