/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Alaska State Senator John Cowdery, 78, pleaded guilty December 19 to conspiring to bribe another Alaska state legislator, Acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew Friedrich of the Criminal Division announced.
Cowdery admitted to conspiring to offer more than $10,000 in campaign contributions to another Alaska state senator (State Senator A) in exchange for State Senator A's support of oil tax legislation during the 2006 Alaska state legislative session.
Cowdery pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Ralph Beistline in Anchorage to one count of conspiracy to commit bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds. In court documents, Cowdery admitted to conspiring with Bill J. Allen, the former chief executive officer of VECO Corporation (VECO), a now-defunct multinational oil field services company, and Richard L. Smith, a former VECO vice president, to offer at least $10,000 in purported campaign contributions to State Senator A in exchange for State Senator A's support of a proposed petroleum profits tax, or PPT, that VECO wanted the Alaska state legislature to pass in 2006. Cowdery admitted that he and Allen met State Senator A on June 25, 2006, at an Anchorage restaurant to offer State Senator A the bribe. Cowdery admitted that he and Allen specifically conditioned receipt of the bribe, which State Senator A did not accept, on State Senator A's support for the PPT legislation sought by VECO and Allen. Allen and Smith both pleaded guilty to multiple federal corruption charges in May 2007 and both are awaiting sentencing.
At sentencing, Cowdery faces a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. As part of a plea agreement with Cowdery, the government has agreed to recommend a sentence of six to 12 months of home confinement. Sentencing has been scheduled for March 10, 2009.
Including Cowdery's guilty plea and those of Allen and Smith, there have been ten criminal convictions to date arising out of the ongoing investigation into public corruption in the state of Alaska. Thomas T. Anderson, a former elected member of the Alaska House of Representatives, was convicted in July 2007 and sentenced to five years in prison for extortion, conspiracy, bribery and money laundering for soliciting and receiving money from an FBI confidential source in exchange for agreeing to perform official acts to further a business interest represented by the source. Peter Kott, a former speaker of the Alaska House of Representatives, was convicted in September 2007 and sentenced to six years in prison for extortion, bribery and conspiracy. Victor H. Kohring, a former elected member of the Alaska House of Representatives, was convicted at trial in November 2007 for attempted extortion, bribery and conspiracy, and was sentenced to three and a half years in prison. In March 2008, James A. Clark, chief of staff to a former governor of Alaska, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit honest services mail and wire fraud. Former Anchorage lobbyist William Bobrick pleaded guilty in May 2007 to felony public corruption charges. U.S. Sen. Theodore F. Stevens was convicted at trial on Oct. 27, 2008, of making false statements regarding his required U.S. Senate financial disclosures for 2001 through 2006. Former Alaska businessman William Weimar was sentenced to six months in prison on Nov. 12, 2008, after pleading guilty on Aug. 12, 2008, to conspiracy to commit honest services mail and wire fraud and structuring financial transactions.
This case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Nicholas A. Marsh and Edward P. Sullivan of the Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section, headed by Chief William M. Welch II, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joseph W. Bottini and James A. Goeke from the District of Alaska. The ongoing investigation is being led by the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Friday, December 19, 2008
Bush Bails Out Autos
President Bush announced he will use executive power to bailout the U.S. automakers in a plan similar to the legislation which died in the Senate.
Transcript of speech:
BUSH: Good morning.
For years, America's automakers have faced serious challenges; burdensome costs, shrinking share of the market and declining profits. In recent months, the global financial crisis has made these challenges even more severe.
Now, some U.S. auto executives say that their companies are nearing collapse and that the only way they can buy time to restructure is with help from the federal government. It's a difficult situation that involves fundamental questions about the proper role of government.
On the one hand, government has the responsibility not to undermine the private enterprise system. On the other hand, government has a responsibility to safeguard the broader health and stability of our economy.
Addressing the challenges in the auto industry requires us to balance these two responsibilities. If we were to allow the free market to take its course now, it would almost certainly lead to disorderly bankruptcy and liquidation for the automakers.
Under ordinary economic circumstances, I would say this is the price that failed companies must pay. And I would not favor intervening to prevent the automakers from going out of business. But these are not ordinary circumstances.
In the midst of a financial crisis and a recession, allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action. The question is how we can best give it a chance to succeed.
Some argue the wisest path is to allow the auto companies to reorganize through Chapter 11 provisions of our bankruptcy laws and provide federal loans to keep them operating while they try to restructure under the supervision of a bankruptcy court.
But given the current state of the auto industry and the economy, Chapter 11 is unlikely to work for American automakers at this time. American consumers understand why. If you hear that a car company is suddenly going into bankruptcy, you worry that parts and servicing will not be available and you question the value of your warranty.
With consumers hesitant to buy new cars from struggling automakers, it would be more difficult for auto companies to recover. Additionally, the financial crisis brought the auto companies to the brink of bankruptcy much faster than they could have anticipated. And they have not made the legal and financial preparations necessary to carry out an orderly bankruptcy proceeding that could lead to a successful restructuring.
The convergence of these factors means there is too great a risk that bankruptcy now would lead to a disorderly liquidation of American auto companies. My economic advisers believe that such a collapse would deal an unacceptably painful blow to hardworking Americans far beyond the auto industry. It would worsen a weak job market and exacerbate the financial crisis. It could send our suffering economy into a deeper and longer recession.
And it would leave the next president to confront the demise of a major American industry in his first days of office.
The more responsible option is to give the auto companies an incentive to restructure outside of bankruptcy and a brief window in which to do it. And that is why my administration worked with Congress on a bill to provide automakers with loans to stave off bankruptcy while they develop plans for viability.
This legislation earned bipartisan support from majorities in both houses of Congress. Unfortunately, despite extensive debate and agreement that we should prevent disorderly bankruptcies in the American auto industry, Congress was unable to get a bill to my desk before adjourning this year.
This means the only way to avoid a collapse of the U.S. auto industry is for the executive branch to step in. The American people want the auto companies to succeed and so do I.
So today I'm announcing that the federal government will grant loans to all the companies under conditions similar to those Congress considered last week. These loans will provide help in two ways. First, they will give automakers three months to put in place plans to restructure into viable companies which we believe they are capable of doing.
Second, if restructuring cannot be accomplished outside of bankruptcy, the loans will provide time for companies to make the legal and financial preparations necessary for an orderly Chapter 11 process that offers a better prospect of long-term success and gives consumer confidence that they can continue to buy American cars.
Because Congress failed to make funds available for these loans, the plan I'm announcing today will be drawn from the financial rescue package Congress approved earlier this fall. The terms of the loans will require auto companies to demonstrate how they would become viable.
They must pay back all their loans to the government and show that their firms can earn a profit and achieve a positive net worth. This restructuring will require meaningful concessions from all involved in the auto industry — management, labor unions, creditors, bond holders, dealers, and suppliers.
In particular, automakers must meet conditions that experts agree are necessary for long-term viability, including putting their retirement plans on a sustainable footing, persuading bond holders to convert their debt into capital that companies need to address immediate financial shortfalls, and making their compensation competitive with foreign automakers who have major operations in the United States.
If a company fails to come up with a viable plan by March 31st, it would be required to repay its federal loans. The automakers and unions must understand what is at stake and make hard decisions necessary to reform.
These conditions send a clear message to everyone involved in the future of American automakers. The time to make hard decisions to become viable is now. Or the only option will be bankruptcy.
The actions I'm announcing today represent a step that we wish were not necessary. But given the situation, it is the most effective and responsible way to address this challenge facing our nation. By giving the auto companies a chance to restructure, we will shield the American people from a harsh economic blow at a vulnerable time and we will give American workers an opportunity to show the world, once again, they can meet challenges with ingenuity and determination and bounce back from tough times and emerge stronger than before.
Thank you.
President Bush Discusses Administration's Plan to Assist Automakers
9:01 A.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. For years, America's automakers have faced serious challenges -- burdensome costs, a shrinking share of the market, and declining profits. In recent months, the global financial crisis has made these challenges even more severe. Now some U.S. auto executives say that their companies are nearing collapse -- and that the only way they can buy time to restructure is with help from the federal government.
This is a difficult situation that involves fundamental questions about the proper role of government. On the one hand, government has a responsibility not to undermine the private enterprise system. On the other hand, government has a responsibility to safeguard the broader health and stability of our economy.
Addressing the challenges in the auto industry requires us to balance these two responsibilities. If we were to allow the free market to take its course now, it would almost certainly lead to disorderly bankruptcy and liquidation for the automakers. Under ordinary economic circumstances, I would say this is the price that failed companies must pay -- and I would not favor intervening to prevent the automakers from going out of business.
But these are not ordinary circumstances. In the midst of a financial crisis and a recession, allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action. The question is how we can best give it a chance to succeed. Some argue the wisest path is to allow the auto companies to reorganize through Chapter 11 provisions of our bankruptcy laws -- and provide federal loans to keep them operating while they try to restructure under the supervision of a bankruptcy court. But given the current state of the auto industry and the economy, Chapter 11 is unlikely to work for American automakers at this time.
American consumers understand why: If you hear that a car company is suddenly going into bankruptcy, you worry that parts and servicing will not be available, and you question the value of your warranty. And with consumers hesitant to buy new cars from struggling automakers, it would be more difficult for auto companies to recover.
Additionally, the financial crisis brought the auto companies to the brink of bankruptcy much faster than they could have anticipated -- and they have not made the legal and financial preparations necessary to carry out an orderly bankruptcy proceeding that could lead to a successful restructuring.
The convergence of these factors means there's too great a risk that bankruptcy now would lead to a disorderly liquidation of American auto companies. My economic advisors believe that such a collapse would deal an unacceptably painful blow to hardworking Americans far beyond the auto industry. It would worsen a weak job market and exacerbate the financial crisis. It could send our suffering economy into a deeper and longer recession. And it would leave the next President to confront the demise of a major American industry in his first days of office.
A more responsible option is to give the auto companies an incentive to restructure outside of bankruptcy -- and a brief window in which to do it. And that is why my administration worked with Congress on a bill to provide automakers with loans to stave off bankruptcy while they develop plans for viability. This legislation earned bipartisan support from majorities in both houses of Congress.
Unfortunately, despite extensive debate and agreement that we should prevent disorderly bankruptcies in the American auto industry, Congress was unable to get a bill to my desk before adjourning this year.
This means the only way to avoid a collapse of the U.S. auto industry is for the executive branch to step in. The American people want the auto companies to succeed, and so do I. So today, I'm announcing that the federal government will grant loans to auto companies under conditions similar to those Congress considered last week.
These loans will provide help in two ways. First, they will give automakers three months to put in place plans to restructure into viable companies -- which we believe they are capable of doing. Second, if restructuring cannot be accomplished outside of bankruptcy, the loans will provide time for companies to make the legal and financial preparations necessary for an orderly Chapter 11 process that offers a better prospect of long-term success -- and gives consumers confidence that they can continue to buy American cars.
Because Congress failed to make funds available for these loans, the plan I'm announcing today will be drawn from the financial rescue package Congress approved earlier this fall. The terms of the loans will require auto companies to demonstrate how they would become viable. They must pay back all their loans to the government, and show that their firms can earn a profit and achieve a positive net worth. This restructuring will require meaningful concessions from all involved in the auto industry -- management, labor unions, creditors, bondholders, dealers, and suppliers.
In particular, automakers must meet conditions that experts agree are necessary for long-term viability -- including putting their retirement plans on a sustainable footing, persuading bondholders to convert their debt into capital the companies need to address immediate financial shortfalls, and making their compensation competitive with foreign automakers who have major operations in the United States. If a company fails to come up with a viable plan by March 31st, it will be required to repay its federal loans.
The automakers and unions must understand what is at stake, and make hard decisions necessary to reform, These conditions send a clear message to everyone involved in the future of American automakers: The time to make the hard decisions to become viable is now -- or the only option will be bankruptcy.
The actions I'm announcing today represent a step that we wish were not necessary. But given the situation, it is the most effective and responsible way to address this challenge facing our nation. By giving the auto companies a chance to restructure, we will shield the American people from a harsh economic blow at a vulnerable time. And we will give American workers an opportunity to show the world once again they can meet challenges with ingenuity and determination, and bounce back from tough times, and emerge stronger than before.
Thank you.
END 9:08 A.M. EST
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. For years, America's automakers have faced serious challenges -- burdensome costs, a shrinking share of the market, and declining profits. In recent months, the global financial crisis has made these challenges even more severe. Now some U.S. auto executives say that their companies are nearing collapse -- and that the only way they can buy time to restructure is with help from the federal government.
This is a difficult situation that involves fundamental questions about the proper role of government. On the one hand, government has a responsibility not to undermine the private enterprise system. On the other hand, government has a responsibility to safeguard the broader health and stability of our economy.
Addressing the challenges in the auto industry requires us to balance these two responsibilities. If we were to allow the free market to take its course now, it would almost certainly lead to disorderly bankruptcy and liquidation for the automakers. Under ordinary economic circumstances, I would say this is the price that failed companies must pay -- and I would not favor intervening to prevent the automakers from going out of business.
But these are not ordinary circumstances. In the midst of a financial crisis and a recession, allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action. The question is how we can best give it a chance to succeed. Some argue the wisest path is to allow the auto companies to reorganize through Chapter 11 provisions of our bankruptcy laws -- and provide federal loans to keep them operating while they try to restructure under the supervision of a bankruptcy court. But given the current state of the auto industry and the economy, Chapter 11 is unlikely to work for American automakers at this time.
American consumers understand why: If you hear that a car company is suddenly going into bankruptcy, you worry that parts and servicing will not be available, and you question the value of your warranty. And with consumers hesitant to buy new cars from struggling automakers, it would be more difficult for auto companies to recover.
Additionally, the financial crisis brought the auto companies to the brink of bankruptcy much faster than they could have anticipated -- and they have not made the legal and financial preparations necessary to carry out an orderly bankruptcy proceeding that could lead to a successful restructuring.
The convergence of these factors means there's too great a risk that bankruptcy now would lead to a disorderly liquidation of American auto companies. My economic advisors believe that such a collapse would deal an unacceptably painful blow to hardworking Americans far beyond the auto industry. It would worsen a weak job market and exacerbate the financial crisis. It could send our suffering economy into a deeper and longer recession. And it would leave the next President to confront the demise of a major American industry in his first days of office.
A more responsible option is to give the auto companies an incentive to restructure outside of bankruptcy -- and a brief window in which to do it. And that is why my administration worked with Congress on a bill to provide automakers with loans to stave off bankruptcy while they develop plans for viability. This legislation earned bipartisan support from majorities in both houses of Congress.
Unfortunately, despite extensive debate and agreement that we should prevent disorderly bankruptcies in the American auto industry, Congress was unable to get a bill to my desk before adjourning this year.
This means the only way to avoid a collapse of the U.S. auto industry is for the executive branch to step in. The American people want the auto companies to succeed, and so do I. So today, I'm announcing that the federal government will grant loans to auto companies under conditions similar to those Congress considered last week.
These loans will provide help in two ways. First, they will give automakers three months to put in place plans to restructure into viable companies -- which we believe they are capable of doing. Second, if restructuring cannot be accomplished outside of bankruptcy, the loans will provide time for companies to make the legal and financial preparations necessary for an orderly Chapter 11 process that offers a better prospect of long-term success -- and gives consumers confidence that they can continue to buy American cars.
Because Congress failed to make funds available for these loans, the plan I'm announcing today will be drawn from the financial rescue package Congress approved earlier this fall. The terms of the loans will require auto companies to demonstrate how they would become viable. They must pay back all their loans to the government, and show that their firms can earn a profit and achieve a positive net worth. This restructuring will require meaningful concessions from all involved in the auto industry -- management, labor unions, creditors, bondholders, dealers, and suppliers.
In particular, automakers must meet conditions that experts agree are necessary for long-term viability -- including putting their retirement plans on a sustainable footing, persuading bondholders to convert their debt into capital the companies need to address immediate financial shortfalls, and making their compensation competitive with foreign automakers who have major operations in the United States. If a company fails to come up with a viable plan by March 31st, it will be required to repay its federal loans.
The automakers and unions must understand what is at stake, and make hard decisions necessary to reform, These conditions send a clear message to everyone involved in the future of American automakers: The time to make the hard decisions to become viable is now -- or the only option will be bankruptcy.
The actions I'm announcing today represent a step that we wish were not necessary. But given the situation, it is the most effective and responsible way to address this challenge facing our nation. By giving the auto companies a chance to restructure, we will shield the American people from a harsh economic blow at a vulnerable time. And we will give American workers an opportunity to show the world once again they can meet challenges with ingenuity and determination, and bounce back from tough times, and emerge stronger than before.
Thank you.
END 9:08 A.M. EST
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Pelosi Statement on White House Plan to Aid Domestic Auto Industry
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today in response to the White House plan to give General Motors and Chrysler a bridge loan while they restructure their companies to become viable:
"The President's announcement this morning provides an opportunity for the American automakers to become viable and competitive while securing millions of jobs. The auto companies and all other parties now must engage in comprehensive negotiations that will require all parties to make concessions.
"The White House proposal unfortunately singles out workers and clearly puts them at a disadvantage before negotiations have even begun. It is essential that the development of the restructuring plans proceed in a fair and equitable manner, that the necessary sacrifice be mutual, and all laws governing fuel efficiency, emissions and improvements in automotive technology be preserved.
"The binding conditions contained in today's White House plan largely reflect those negotiated between the White House and the Congress and passed by the House last week. These conditions require strong protections for taxpayers, tough accountability measures for the industry, and a thorough restructuring plan that sets out a roadmap to viability.
"Congress stands ready to work with all parties during this difficult restructuring to restore the domestic auto industry, help revitalize the national economy, and secure millions of U.S. jobs."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
"The President's announcement this morning provides an opportunity for the American automakers to become viable and competitive while securing millions of jobs. The auto companies and all other parties now must engage in comprehensive negotiations that will require all parties to make concessions.
"The White House proposal unfortunately singles out workers and clearly puts them at a disadvantage before negotiations have even begun. It is essential that the development of the restructuring plans proceed in a fair and equitable manner, that the necessary sacrifice be mutual, and all laws governing fuel efficiency, emissions and improvements in automotive technology be preserved.
"The binding conditions contained in today's White House plan largely reflect those negotiated between the White House and the Congress and passed by the House last week. These conditions require strong protections for taxpayers, tough accountability measures for the industry, and a thorough restructuring plan that sets out a roadmap to viability.
"Congress stands ready to work with all parties during this difficult restructuring to restore the domestic auto industry, help revitalize the national economy, and secure millions of U.S. jobs."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Government Programs Die Hard
America's largest third party is warning against the institution of new government programs in the wake of the current economic crisis. "Government programs tend to linger with disastrous economic consequences," says Libertarian Party spokesperson Andrew Davis.
"Congress needs to exercise extreme caution when considering any new government programs that are intended to act as a remedy for economic decline," says Davis. "The New Deal taught us that government programs die hard, and we're still suffering from the leftovers of FDR's administration."
"Government got us here, and more government will not get us out," observes Davis.
The Libertarian Party blames the current economic crisis on government's intervention in the economy, and worries about the economic impact of exploding government expenditures.
"Out of every four dollars of economic activity, one of those is from government spending," Davis notes. "Not since World War II have we seen the federal share of the economy at this level. This will have severe economic consequences down the road if we don’t look for options to this economic crisis other than more government spending."
According to an article published on Dec. 10, 2008 in USA Today, the federal share of the economy was at its highest in 1943 and 1944, at 44 percent.
"Trying to solve this economic crisis by risking another one in the future is not sound, sensible, responsible policy," says Davis. "There are several other options for economic relief that don't involve increasing government, such as tax cuts, deregulation and an avoidance of anything resembling a bailout."
The Libertarian Party has recently focused on the spending plans of the incoming Obama administration, which includes plans for the largest public works project since the 1950s. The cost is projected to reach more than $500 billion dollars.
"It's understandable that in these hard economic times that people are looking for answers and solutions," Davis explains. "However, history has taught us that government solutions only worsen problems, and do nothing to expedite recovery. The federal government has already put taxpayers at an incredible risk for trillions of dollars with the last bailout. Any further action will just dig that hole even deeper."
"It's absolutely immoral to strap future generations of taxpayers with this level of debt," says Davis.
The platform of the Libertarian Party states "a free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner," adding that the only role of government in the economy is to "protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
"Congress needs to exercise extreme caution when considering any new government programs that are intended to act as a remedy for economic decline," says Davis. "The New Deal taught us that government programs die hard, and we're still suffering from the leftovers of FDR's administration."
"Government got us here, and more government will not get us out," observes Davis.
The Libertarian Party blames the current economic crisis on government's intervention in the economy, and worries about the economic impact of exploding government expenditures.
"Out of every four dollars of economic activity, one of those is from government spending," Davis notes. "Not since World War II have we seen the federal share of the economy at this level. This will have severe economic consequences down the road if we don’t look for options to this economic crisis other than more government spending."
According to an article published on Dec. 10, 2008 in USA Today, the federal share of the economy was at its highest in 1943 and 1944, at 44 percent.
"Trying to solve this economic crisis by risking another one in the future is not sound, sensible, responsible policy," says Davis. "There are several other options for economic relief that don't involve increasing government, such as tax cuts, deregulation and an avoidance of anything resembling a bailout."
The Libertarian Party has recently focused on the spending plans of the incoming Obama administration, which includes plans for the largest public works project since the 1950s. The cost is projected to reach more than $500 billion dollars.
"It's understandable that in these hard economic times that people are looking for answers and solutions," Davis explains. "However, history has taught us that government solutions only worsen problems, and do nothing to expedite recovery. The federal government has already put taxpayers at an incredible risk for trillions of dollars with the last bailout. Any further action will just dig that hole even deeper."
"It's absolutely immoral to strap future generations of taxpayers with this level of debt," says Davis.
The platform of the Libertarian Party states "a free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner," adding that the only role of government in the economy is to "protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Congressional Quarterly's 2008 Annual Vote Studies Report Now Available
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Congressional Quarterly Inc., the nation's premier provider of news, analysis and information on Congress, politics and public policy, today announced the release of its Annual Vote Studies Report for 2008. CQ has studied the voting behavior of members of Congress for more than half a century, in particular assessing how often lawmakers side with members of their own caucus on votes when the two parties divide, and how often they back the president on votes where he has demonstrated a clear position.
Published in the Dec. 15, 2008, issue of CQ Weekly (www.cqweekly.com), the CQ Vote Studies report adheres to a specific and consistent methodology to deliver conclusive findings. The findings are unique because CQ's approach is quantitative, unlike other vote studies that rely largely on the judgment of their reporters and editors.
"CQ takes a more empirical approach and calculates how often members actually vote with their party or the president," said Mike Riley, editor and senior vice president of CQ. "We don't try to establish a litmus test or ideological labels because it is easy to poke holes in the legitimacy of that sort of analysis. What we're looking for is something that more closely represents how members might characterize their own votes.
Riley added, "We find that a whole host of players -- political campaigns, the media and academia, to name a few -- rely heavily on our analysis. We are pleased to be able to provide this information, and feel it is consistent with CQ's long-standing mission of providing accurate, non-partisan information on Congress and politics."
The past year showed a continuation of the high level of partisanship that has divided Capitol Hill for more than a decade. And with the Democrats in charge in this highly polarized environment, President Bush achieved far less than he enjoyed during the first six years of his presidency, although he was able to prevail on big occasions with a combination of compromise and procedural clout.
As CQ reporter Shawn Zeller writes in the story accompanying the 2008 party unity study, "Eight years ago, George W. Bush arrived in Washington promising to bring a central claim of his presidential campaign -- 'I'm a uniter, not a divider' -- to bear in his dealings with Congress. He leaves next month having presided over the most polarized period at the Capitol since Congressional Quarterly began quantifying partisanship in the House and Senate in 1953. That reality is reflected both in the relatively high percentage of party unity votes -- those that pit a majority of Republicans against a majority of Democrats -- and in the increasing propensity of individual lawmakers to vote with their fellow partisans."
Among the central findings of CQ's party unity study:
House Democrats voted on average with the majority of their caucus 92 percent of the time, tying the high-water mark for cohesion that they set last year.
House Republicans stuck together 87 percent of the time, a figure higher than a year ago, and just below their record of 91 percent, reached three times: in 1995, 2001 and 2003.
Senate Democrats voted as a unified caucus 87 percent of the time, a shade below their all-time high of 89 percent reached in 1999 and 2001.
Senate Republicans stuck together 83 percent of the time, higher than in 2007, though below their high mark of 94 percent set in 2003.
CQ's study of presidential support in 2008 found that President Bush had the second worst year of his presidency. As CQ reporter Richard Rubin writes in the story accompanying the study, "Bush should have been the ultimate lame duck, a president with no ability to press his agenda in Congress or to prevent members of his party from abandoning White House policies to save their careers. For the most part, that's exactly what happened."
Among the central findings of CQ's presidential support study:
Bush prevailed on just 47.8 percent of roll call votes on which he took a clear position, the eighth-lowest score in the 56-year history of the survey, although higher than Bush's 38.3 percent success rate in 2007.
As moderate GOP lawmakers fled from the president, the average House Republican supported Bush just 64 percent of the time. That's down 8 percentage points from a year ago and the lowest for a president's party since 1990. Bush's average support score of 70 percent among GOP senators also was the lowest for a president's party since 1990.
Democrats voted with Bush far less often than they had when the Republicans were in charge and could set the agenda. House Democrats voted with Bush just 16 percent of the time on average -- just above their 2007 support score of 7 percent and the second lowest for any president. Democratic senators supported Bush on 34 percent of roll call votes, down from their average support score of 37 percent a year ago.
The Party Unity study examined all roll call votes where a majority of one party voted against a majority of the other party. During the second session of the 110th Congress, there were 367 such votes in the House (53 percent of all votes), and 111 in the Senate (52 percent). The Presidential Support study was based on 80 House votes and 54 Senate votes for which CQ editors determined that Bush had taken a clear position prior to the vote. Overall in 2008, there were 688 such roll call votes in the House (not counting two quorum calls where lawmakers are only allowed to vote "present") and 215 in the Senate.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Published in the Dec. 15, 2008, issue of CQ Weekly (www.cqweekly.com), the CQ Vote Studies report adheres to a specific and consistent methodology to deliver conclusive findings. The findings are unique because CQ's approach is quantitative, unlike other vote studies that rely largely on the judgment of their reporters and editors.
"CQ takes a more empirical approach and calculates how often members actually vote with their party or the president," said Mike Riley, editor and senior vice president of CQ. "We don't try to establish a litmus test or ideological labels because it is easy to poke holes in the legitimacy of that sort of analysis. What we're looking for is something that more closely represents how members might characterize their own votes.
Riley added, "We find that a whole host of players -- political campaigns, the media and academia, to name a few -- rely heavily on our analysis. We are pleased to be able to provide this information, and feel it is consistent with CQ's long-standing mission of providing accurate, non-partisan information on Congress and politics."
The past year showed a continuation of the high level of partisanship that has divided Capitol Hill for more than a decade. And with the Democrats in charge in this highly polarized environment, President Bush achieved far less than he enjoyed during the first six years of his presidency, although he was able to prevail on big occasions with a combination of compromise and procedural clout.
As CQ reporter Shawn Zeller writes in the story accompanying the 2008 party unity study, "Eight years ago, George W. Bush arrived in Washington promising to bring a central claim of his presidential campaign -- 'I'm a uniter, not a divider' -- to bear in his dealings with Congress. He leaves next month having presided over the most polarized period at the Capitol since Congressional Quarterly began quantifying partisanship in the House and Senate in 1953. That reality is reflected both in the relatively high percentage of party unity votes -- those that pit a majority of Republicans against a majority of Democrats -- and in the increasing propensity of individual lawmakers to vote with their fellow partisans."
Among the central findings of CQ's party unity study:
House Democrats voted on average with the majority of their caucus 92 percent of the time, tying the high-water mark for cohesion that they set last year.
House Republicans stuck together 87 percent of the time, a figure higher than a year ago, and just below their record of 91 percent, reached three times: in 1995, 2001 and 2003.
Senate Democrats voted as a unified caucus 87 percent of the time, a shade below their all-time high of 89 percent reached in 1999 and 2001.
Senate Republicans stuck together 83 percent of the time, higher than in 2007, though below their high mark of 94 percent set in 2003.
CQ's study of presidential support in 2008 found that President Bush had the second worst year of his presidency. As CQ reporter Richard Rubin writes in the story accompanying the study, "Bush should have been the ultimate lame duck, a president with no ability to press his agenda in Congress or to prevent members of his party from abandoning White House policies to save their careers. For the most part, that's exactly what happened."
Among the central findings of CQ's presidential support study:
Bush prevailed on just 47.8 percent of roll call votes on which he took a clear position, the eighth-lowest score in the 56-year history of the survey, although higher than Bush's 38.3 percent success rate in 2007.
As moderate GOP lawmakers fled from the president, the average House Republican supported Bush just 64 percent of the time. That's down 8 percentage points from a year ago and the lowest for a president's party since 1990. Bush's average support score of 70 percent among GOP senators also was the lowest for a president's party since 1990.
Democrats voted with Bush far less often than they had when the Republicans were in charge and could set the agenda. House Democrats voted with Bush just 16 percent of the time on average -- just above their 2007 support score of 7 percent and the second lowest for any president. Democratic senators supported Bush on 34 percent of roll call votes, down from their average support score of 37 percent a year ago.
The Party Unity study examined all roll call votes where a majority of one party voted against a majority of the other party. During the second session of the 110th Congress, there were 367 such votes in the House (53 percent of all votes), and 111 in the Senate (52 percent). The Presidential Support study was based on 80 House votes and 54 Senate votes for which CQ editors determined that Bush had taken a clear position prior to the vote. Overall in 2008, there were 688 such roll call votes in the House (not counting two quorum calls where lawmakers are only allowed to vote "present") and 215 in the Senate.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Members of Congress Due to Award Themselves $4,700 Raise in 2009
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Members of Congress are slated to receive a $4,700 pay raise beginning in January, increasing their annual salaries to $174,000. The increase for 535 House and Senate members would cost taxpayers more than $2.5 million.
That salary alone, which excludes all other outside income and spousal wages, ranks each lawmaker in the top six percent of American households.
Congress automatically gets a pay raise each year, and has to introduce legislation to prevent the increase. Although legislation to halt the Congressional raise has been introduced, the most supported bill (H.R. 5087) has just 34 co-sponsors, far short of the 218 necessary for passage.
"As lawmakers make a big show of forcing auto executives to accept just $1 a year in salary, they are quietly raiding the vault for their own personal gain," said Daniel O'Connell, chairman of The Senior Citizens League (TSCL). "This money would be much better spent helping the millions of seniors who are living below the poverty line and struggling to keep their heat on this winter."
According to a Congressional Record Service dated November 26, 2008, lawmakers will receive a 2.8 percent increase in pay next year, from $169,300 to $174,000.
Meanwhile, a senior receiving average benefits will get a $63 monthly increase to just $1,153 per month next year, bringing their annual total to $13,836. An estimated 12 percent of all seniors are living at or below the poverty line, and one-third of all beneficiaries depend on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income.
The Senior Citizens League supports three bills - H.R. 5087, H.R. 5091, and H.R. 6417 - which would prevent the pay raise from automatically going into effect. TSCL encourages its members to contact their Members of Congress and ask them to support those bills.
With 1.2 million supporters, The Senior Citizens League (www.SeniorsLeague.org) is one of the nation's largest nonpartisan seniors groups. The Senior Citizens League is an affiliate of The Retired Enlisted Association.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
That salary alone, which excludes all other outside income and spousal wages, ranks each lawmaker in the top six percent of American households.
Congress automatically gets a pay raise each year, and has to introduce legislation to prevent the increase. Although legislation to halt the Congressional raise has been introduced, the most supported bill (H.R. 5087) has just 34 co-sponsors, far short of the 218 necessary for passage.
"As lawmakers make a big show of forcing auto executives to accept just $1 a year in salary, they are quietly raiding the vault for their own personal gain," said Daniel O'Connell, chairman of The Senior Citizens League (TSCL). "This money would be much better spent helping the millions of seniors who are living below the poverty line and struggling to keep their heat on this winter."
According to a Congressional Record Service dated November 26, 2008, lawmakers will receive a 2.8 percent increase in pay next year, from $169,300 to $174,000.
Meanwhile, a senior receiving average benefits will get a $63 monthly increase to just $1,153 per month next year, bringing their annual total to $13,836. An estimated 12 percent of all seniors are living at or below the poverty line, and one-third of all beneficiaries depend on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income.
The Senior Citizens League supports three bills - H.R. 5087, H.R. 5091, and H.R. 6417 - which would prevent the pay raise from automatically going into effect. TSCL encourages its members to contact their Members of Congress and ask them to support those bills.
With 1.2 million supporters, The Senior Citizens League (www.SeniorsLeague.org) is one of the nation's largest nonpartisan seniors groups. The Senior Citizens League is an affiliate of The Retired Enlisted Association.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Richard Viguerie: In Dangerous Times, New York Needs a Real U.S. Senator
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The naming of Caroline Kennedy to a U.S. Senate seat from New York "would be a foolish, frivolous appointment," Richard A. Viguerie said. "It would show, once again, that many of our leaders simply don't take their responsibilities seriously."
Viguerie, Chairman of ConservativeHQ.com, noted "The country is facing a collapse in the trust and confidence necessary for the economy to function. Wall Street self-dealers are getting bailed out by their old friends with taxpayers' money. Top leaders in government and the private sector are being exposed as con men.
"Meanwhile, we face challenges around the world, from the likes of Putin and Chavez and the governments of Iran and China. And we face the likelihood, within the next five years, of a terrorist attack that could kill thousands of people -- with New York perhaps the most likely target.
"Yet the political establishment is putting forth, as a U.S. Senator from New York, a person whose qualification is her last name," Viguerie said.
"Once again, politicians are acting like politicians -- basing a decision this important on politics: Who can help get votes for Governor Paterson? Who will best hold the seat? Who can raise the most money?
"How about these questions: Who can help protect New York and the rest of the country from attack? Who can help people recover the value of their homes? Who can help people keep their jobs?
"How about a successful business person, or someone else who has shown the ability to run a large, complex organization and bring projects in on time and under budget? How about someone who has challenged the political orthodoxy on important issues, and won? How about someone who has some significant qualifications for the job, other than being born into the right family?
"Isn't anybody in the political establishment connected to reality?" Viguerie asked.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Viguerie, Chairman of ConservativeHQ.com, noted "The country is facing a collapse in the trust and confidence necessary for the economy to function. Wall Street self-dealers are getting bailed out by their old friends with taxpayers' money. Top leaders in government and the private sector are being exposed as con men.
"Meanwhile, we face challenges around the world, from the likes of Putin and Chavez and the governments of Iran and China. And we face the likelihood, within the next five years, of a terrorist attack that could kill thousands of people -- with New York perhaps the most likely target.
"Yet the political establishment is putting forth, as a U.S. Senator from New York, a person whose qualification is her last name," Viguerie said.
"Once again, politicians are acting like politicians -- basing a decision this important on politics: Who can help get votes for Governor Paterson? Who will best hold the seat? Who can raise the most money?
"How about these questions: Who can help protect New York and the rest of the country from attack? Who can help people recover the value of their homes? Who can help people keep their jobs?
"How about a successful business person, or someone else who has shown the ability to run a large, complex organization and bring projects in on time and under budget? How about someone who has challenged the political orthodoxy on important issues, and won? How about someone who has some significant qualifications for the job, other than being born into the right family?
"Isn't anybody in the political establishment connected to reality?" Viguerie asked.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Gingrich Calls on RNC to Pull 'Destructive' Ad
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Chairman of American Solutions for Winning the Future, today sent a letter to RNC Chairman Mike Duncan urging him to pull down a web advertisement attempting to link President-elect Barack Obama and disgraced Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.
Text of the letter is as follows:
Dear Chairman Duncan,
I was saddened to learn that at a time of national trial, when a president-elect is preparing to take office in the midst of the worst financial crisis in over seventy years, that the Republican National Committee is engaged in the sort of negative, attack politics that the voters rejected in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles.
The recent web advertisement, "Questions Remain," is a destructive distraction. Clearly, we should insist that all taped communications regarding the Senate seat should be made public. However, that should be a matter of public policy, not an excuse for political attack.
In a time when America is facing real challenges, Republicans should be working to help the incoming President succeed in meeting them, regardless of his Party.
From now until the inaugural, Republicans should be offering to help the President-elect prepare to take office.
Furthermore, once President Obama takes office, Republicans should be eager to work with him when he is right, and, when he is wrong, offer a better solution, instead of just opposing him.
This is the only way the Republican Party will become known as the "better solutions" party, not just an opposition party. And this is the only way Republicans will ever regain the trust of the voters to return to the majority.
This ad is a terrible signal to be sending about both the goals of the Republican Party in the midst of the nation's troubled economic times and about whether we have actually learned anything from the defeats of 2006 and 2008.
The RNC should pull the ad down immediately.
Sincerely,
Newt Gingrich
Chairman, American Solutions
Former Speaker of the House of Representatives
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Text of the letter is as follows:
Dear Chairman Duncan,
I was saddened to learn that at a time of national trial, when a president-elect is preparing to take office in the midst of the worst financial crisis in over seventy years, that the Republican National Committee is engaged in the sort of negative, attack politics that the voters rejected in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles.
The recent web advertisement, "Questions Remain," is a destructive distraction. Clearly, we should insist that all taped communications regarding the Senate seat should be made public. However, that should be a matter of public policy, not an excuse for political attack.
In a time when America is facing real challenges, Republicans should be working to help the incoming President succeed in meeting them, regardless of his Party.
From now until the inaugural, Republicans should be offering to help the President-elect prepare to take office.
Furthermore, once President Obama takes office, Republicans should be eager to work with him when he is right, and, when he is wrong, offer a better solution, instead of just opposing him.
This is the only way the Republican Party will become known as the "better solutions" party, not just an opposition party. And this is the only way Republicans will ever regain the trust of the voters to return to the majority.
This ad is a terrible signal to be sending about both the goals of the Republican Party in the midst of the nation's troubled economic times and about whether we have actually learned anything from the defeats of 2006 and 2008.
The RNC should pull the ad down immediately.
Sincerely,
Newt Gingrich
Chairman, American Solutions
Former Speaker of the House of Representatives
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Treasury Secretary to Stop AIG Bailout Financing of Terrorist Activities
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A federal lawsuit was filed December 15 against U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr. and the Federal Reserve Board to stop all bailout funds from going to American International Group, Inc. ("AIG"). According to the lawsuit, the U.S. government, through its ownership of AIG, is not only violating the Constitution, but also promoting and financing the destruction of America using American tax dollars.
The basis of the lawsuit is that AIG intentionally promotes Shariah-compliant businesses and insurance products, which by necessity must comply with the 1200 year old body of Islamic cannon law based on the Quran, which demands the conversion, subjugation, or destruction of the infidel West, including the United States. To help achieve these objectives and with the aid of federal tax dollars, AIG employs a three-person Shariah Advisory Board, with members from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Pakistan. According to AIG, the role of its Shariah authority "is to review [its] operations, supervise its development of Islamic products, and determine Shariah compliance of these products and [its] investments."
Of particular significance is the Pakistani Board member, Dr. Muhammed Imran Ashraf Usmani. Dr. Usmani is the son and devoted disciple of Sheik Mufti Taqi Usmani, the leading authority on Shariah financing who, in 1999, authored a book dedicating an entire chapter on why a Western Muslim must engage in violent jihad against his own country - even if Muslims are given equality and freedom to practice their religion and to proselytize.
The lawsuit was filed in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of Kevin J. Murray, a former Marine infantryman who served two tours of duty in Iraq. Murray is represented by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and David Yerushalmi, an associated attorney who specializes in litigation and is an expert on Shariah law (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1105101) and Shariah compliant financing. Mr. Yerushalmi also serves as general counsel to the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C.
According to the lawsuit, use of taxpayer funds to acquire ownership of a business that intentionally promotes, endorses, supports, and funds Shariah-based Islamic religious practices violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, "This lawsuit not only raises significant constitutional issues, it also shines a light on serious national security issues that our own government has created by direct financial support and ownership of a business that supports anti-American, radical Islamic activities. Make no mistake, there is an internal cultural jihad underway against our great nation, and I fear that many of our political leaders are unwittingly complicit in it."
On September 11, 2001, Islamic terrorists, guided by principles of Shariah-mandated jihad against "infidels," attacked and killed thousands of innocent American civilians. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. went on the offensive by engaging Islamic terrorists overseas in Iraq and in Afghanistan. As in the past when our Nation faced great crisis, American servicemen were called to action, and Kevin Murray answered the call. From March to October 2003, Murray - a U.S. Marine - was deployed overseas in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Yet today, Murray's federal tax dollars are being used to advance the very cause of global jihad he and his fellow servicemen were placed in harm's way to overcome. Shariah explicitly demands the murder of infidels like Kevin Murray and the destruction of the United States, which Murray took an oath to defend. Shariah is the same law that is used to justify beheadings, stonings, and amputation for petty crimes in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Sudan, which Americans deplore.
Nevertheless, AIG acknowledges and boasts its promotion of Shariah law and Shariah-based business practices. AIG itself describes "Sharia" as "Islamic law based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet [Mohammed]."
In further support of the federal government's endorsement of Shariah, the U.S. Treasury department co-sponsored a seminar in November of this year entitled "Islamic Financing 101" (http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/-AnnouncementonIslamicFinan ce.pdf) to promote Shariah financing among American institutions. The Seminar was jointly sponsored by Harvard University, one of the many American universities and colleges receiving millions of dollars from oil-producing countries to influence their Middle East programs, which are often staffed with professors who are anti-American, anti-Israeli, and pro-Islamic.
"It is clear," said Thompson, "oil money is purchasing the sovereignty of the United States and whatever loyalty to America these greedy financial institutions, corporations, and universities have left. It's up to the American people to take back their country from those who so easily betray its interests."
The federal lawsuit challenges that portion of the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" that appropriated $40 billion in taxpayer money to fund and financially support the United States government's majority ownership interest in AIG, which engages in Shariah-based Islamic religious activities that are anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, and anti-American.
According to the lawsuit, through the use of taxpayer funds, the U.S. government acquired a majority (79.9%) ownership interest in AIG, and as part of the bailout, Congress appropriated and expended an additional $40 billion of taxpayer money to fund and financially support AIG and its financial activities. AIG, which is now a government owned company, engages in Shariah-compliant financing, which subjects certain financial activities, including investments, to the dictates of Islamic law and the Islamic religion. This specifically includes any profits or interest obtained through such financial activities.
An important element of Shariah-compliant financing is a form of obligatory charitable contribution called zakat, which is a religious tax for assisting those that "struggle [jihad] for Allah." The amount of this tax is between 2.5% and 20%, depending upon the source of the wealth. The zakat religious tax is used to financially support Islamic "charities," some of which have ties to terrorist organizations that are hostile to the United States and all other "infidels," which includes Christians and Jews.
The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, recently convicted for providing material support to Islamic terrorist organizations, is an example of an Islamic "charity" that qualifies for receipt of the zakat. Thus, as a direct consequence of the taxpayer funds appropriated and expended to purchase and financially support AIG, the U.S. government is now the owner of a corporation engaged in the business of collecting religious taxes to fund interests adverse to the United States, Christians, Jews, and all other "infidels" under Islamic law
Continued Thompson, "This lawsuit is as much about protecting constitutional principles as it is about protecting our national security and preventing another 9/11 - whether it be overt through flying planes into buildings or covert through appropriating taxpayer money to fund an Islamic cultural jihad."
The lawsuit seeks a court order to stop the taxpayer funding of AIG and its Islamic-based businesses and activities.
The Thomas More Law Center has been involved in several cases dealing with the insidious threat of radical Islam. Law Center attorney Robert Muise, who is handling this case involving AIG, is also one of the Law Center's attorneys defending LtCol Jeffrey Chessani, USMC, the senior officer charged in the so-called "Haditha Massacre" case. Those charges were dismissed by a military judge, and the government has appealed that ruling. Muise is also representing former Marine Jesse Nieto, whose anti-Islamic terrorism message was recently banned by military authorities at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune because of some unknown complaints.
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America's Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
The basis of the lawsuit is that AIG intentionally promotes Shariah-compliant businesses and insurance products, which by necessity must comply with the 1200 year old body of Islamic cannon law based on the Quran, which demands the conversion, subjugation, or destruction of the infidel West, including the United States. To help achieve these objectives and with the aid of federal tax dollars, AIG employs a three-person Shariah Advisory Board, with members from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Pakistan. According to AIG, the role of its Shariah authority "is to review [its] operations, supervise its development of Islamic products, and determine Shariah compliance of these products and [its] investments."
Of particular significance is the Pakistani Board member, Dr. Muhammed Imran Ashraf Usmani. Dr. Usmani is the son and devoted disciple of Sheik Mufti Taqi Usmani, the leading authority on Shariah financing who, in 1999, authored a book dedicating an entire chapter on why a Western Muslim must engage in violent jihad against his own country - even if Muslims are given equality and freedom to practice their religion and to proselytize.
The lawsuit was filed in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of Kevin J. Murray, a former Marine infantryman who served two tours of duty in Iraq. Murray is represented by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and David Yerushalmi, an associated attorney who specializes in litigation and is an expert on Shariah law (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1105101) and Shariah compliant financing. Mr. Yerushalmi also serves as general counsel to the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C.
According to the lawsuit, use of taxpayer funds to acquire ownership of a business that intentionally promotes, endorses, supports, and funds Shariah-based Islamic religious practices violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, "This lawsuit not only raises significant constitutional issues, it also shines a light on serious national security issues that our own government has created by direct financial support and ownership of a business that supports anti-American, radical Islamic activities. Make no mistake, there is an internal cultural jihad underway against our great nation, and I fear that many of our political leaders are unwittingly complicit in it."
On September 11, 2001, Islamic terrorists, guided by principles of Shariah-mandated jihad against "infidels," attacked and killed thousands of innocent American civilians. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. went on the offensive by engaging Islamic terrorists overseas in Iraq and in Afghanistan. As in the past when our Nation faced great crisis, American servicemen were called to action, and Kevin Murray answered the call. From March to October 2003, Murray - a U.S. Marine - was deployed overseas in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Yet today, Murray's federal tax dollars are being used to advance the very cause of global jihad he and his fellow servicemen were placed in harm's way to overcome. Shariah explicitly demands the murder of infidels like Kevin Murray and the destruction of the United States, which Murray took an oath to defend. Shariah is the same law that is used to justify beheadings, stonings, and amputation for petty crimes in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Sudan, which Americans deplore.
Nevertheless, AIG acknowledges and boasts its promotion of Shariah law and Shariah-based business practices. AIG itself describes "Sharia" as "Islamic law based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet [Mohammed]."
In further support of the federal government's endorsement of Shariah, the U.S. Treasury department co-sponsored a seminar in November of this year entitled "Islamic Financing 101" (http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/-AnnouncementonIslamicFinan ce.pdf) to promote Shariah financing among American institutions. The Seminar was jointly sponsored by Harvard University, one of the many American universities and colleges receiving millions of dollars from oil-producing countries to influence their Middle East programs, which are often staffed with professors who are anti-American, anti-Israeli, and pro-Islamic.
"It is clear," said Thompson, "oil money is purchasing the sovereignty of the United States and whatever loyalty to America these greedy financial institutions, corporations, and universities have left. It's up to the American people to take back their country from those who so easily betray its interests."
The federal lawsuit challenges that portion of the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" that appropriated $40 billion in taxpayer money to fund and financially support the United States government's majority ownership interest in AIG, which engages in Shariah-based Islamic religious activities that are anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, and anti-American.
According to the lawsuit, through the use of taxpayer funds, the U.S. government acquired a majority (79.9%) ownership interest in AIG, and as part of the bailout, Congress appropriated and expended an additional $40 billion of taxpayer money to fund and financially support AIG and its financial activities. AIG, which is now a government owned company, engages in Shariah-compliant financing, which subjects certain financial activities, including investments, to the dictates of Islamic law and the Islamic religion. This specifically includes any profits or interest obtained through such financial activities.
An important element of Shariah-compliant financing is a form of obligatory charitable contribution called zakat, which is a religious tax for assisting those that "struggle [jihad] for Allah." The amount of this tax is between 2.5% and 20%, depending upon the source of the wealth. The zakat religious tax is used to financially support Islamic "charities," some of which have ties to terrorist organizations that are hostile to the United States and all other "infidels," which includes Christians and Jews.
The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, recently convicted for providing material support to Islamic terrorist organizations, is an example of an Islamic "charity" that qualifies for receipt of the zakat. Thus, as a direct consequence of the taxpayer funds appropriated and expended to purchase and financially support AIG, the U.S. government is now the owner of a corporation engaged in the business of collecting religious taxes to fund interests adverse to the United States, Christians, Jews, and all other "infidels" under Islamic law
Continued Thompson, "This lawsuit is as much about protecting constitutional principles as it is about protecting our national security and preventing another 9/11 - whether it be overt through flying planes into buildings or covert through appropriating taxpayer money to fund an Islamic cultural jihad."
The lawsuit seeks a court order to stop the taxpayer funding of AIG and its Islamic-based businesses and activities.
The Thomas More Law Center has been involved in several cases dealing with the insidious threat of radical Islam. Law Center attorney Robert Muise, who is handling this case involving AIG, is also one of the Law Center's attorneys defending LtCol Jeffrey Chessani, USMC, the senior officer charged in the so-called "Haditha Massacre" case. Those charges were dismissed by a military judge, and the government has appealed that ruling. Muise is also representing former Marine Jesse Nieto, whose anti-Islamic terrorism message was recently banned by military authorities at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune because of some unknown complaints.
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America's Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)