Bloggers

Barry can't catch a break! He shouldn't, mind you, but I'm just saying ...

Would have had the bomb in three years.

My friends at The Jawa Report, the counterterrorism blog that has done heroic work unmasking jihadi operatives online and on YouTube, have an exclusive report on the whistleblower who turned in “Jihad Jane.”

Read the whole thing here — and be sure to send thanks and praise to the vigilant bloggers and watchdogs looking out for us and acting.

Report date: February 19, 2010. Here's the quick overview. The 96-page report is Scribd below. Enjoy! This Investigative Summary sets forth much of the evidence that was developed in the Amerithrax investigation.1 In the fall of 2001, the anthrax letter attacks killed five people and sickened 17 others. Upon the death of the first victim of that attack, agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and the United States Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”) immediately formed a Task Force and spent seven years investigating the crime. The Amerithrax investigation is described below. In its early stages, despite the enormous amount of evidence gathered through traditional law enforcement techniques, limitations on scientific methods prevented law enforcement from determining who was responsible for the attacks. Eventually, traditional law enforcement techniques were combined with groundbreaking scientific analysis that was developed specifically for the case to trace the anthrax used in the attacks to a particular flask of material. By 2007, investigators conclusively determined that a single spore-batch created and maintained by Dr. Bruce E. Ivins at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (“USAMRIID”) was the parent material for the letter spores. An intensive investigation of individuals with access to that material ensued. Evidence developed from that investigation established that Dr. Ivins, alone, mailed the anthrax letters. By the summer of 2008, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia was preparing to seek authorization to ask a federal grand jury to return an indictment charging Dr. Ivins with Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2332a, and related charges. However, before that process was completed, he committed suicide. Aware of the FBI investigation and the prospect of being indicted, Dr. Ivins took an overdose of over-the-counter medications on or about July 26, 2008, and died on July 29, 2008. Administrative and investigative steps taken in the past year toward closure of the investigation confirm the conclusion that Dr. Ivins perpetrated the anthrax letter attacks. 2001 Anthrax Investigation Report

How absurd.  Tuesday on the progressive network, MSNBC, Hardball host Chris Matthews and his guest NY Times' Ethan Bronner suggested that Barack Obamas low popularity in Israel can be attributed to his dark skin and Arabic Middle Name.

Bonner is the Jerusalem Bureau Chief of the Times was asked to rate the popularity of American politicians by Israeli public: 
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let's talk about politics.  Who's more popular: Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden? Put them in order.  Who's the most popular figure?

ETHAN BRONNER: I would say Bill Clinton is the most popular of the four. And I would say Hillary is probably next.

MATTHEWS: The Secretary of State.

BRONNER: That's correct.  And then I would say Joe Biden, and then President Obama.

MATTHEWS: OK, that tells you a lot. So tell me why the President of the United States is so far [inaudible].  Is it his middle name? Hussein?

BRONNER: I would say that there is some level of prejudice about the fact that he had some Islamic background through his stepfather.  But I think it has more to do with the fact that when he came into office a year ago he wanted to recalibrate the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world. And the easiest and clearest way of doing that was to put some distance between the United States and Israel. And he did that, and that made people nervous.  I think there's also some sense here, some degree of racism to be perfectly honest.

MATTHEWS: Yeah, because they see him as a black man. This explanation belies the truth, if either of these men took the time to research the reason the would see that polls reflect that Israelis are not fans of Obama because they perceive him to be anti-Israel. And Obama caused it himself.

He has turned the Israeli populace against him and strengthened the hand of Prime Minister Netanyahu. At the same time he has eroded his own support among American Jews and other US friends of Israel.

It started with his Cairo speech when Obama threw Israel under the bus. When he started to get more involved he showed how little he knew about Israel and how much he sided with the Palestinians. Added to the fact that it broke an agreement the US had with Israel, their insistence on  a freeze on natural growth of present settlements, and the constant public berating of the Jewish State seemed legitimately one-sided by the Israelis, as was his declaration that anybody is allowed to move to  East Jerusalem as long as they weren't Jewish. That is the reason why Israelis are not big fans of Barack Obama.

But the truth doesn't matter to Matthews and the Times Bronner. A simple search at the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) website reveals a long list of false and biased reports under Bronner's bi-line.

The two Hardball haters are voices of the far left progressive movement. The Bronner/ Matthews incident is another example of how the progressives are working to de-legitimize Israel and pro-Israel Democratic Party legislators such Steve Israel and Jerrold Nadler of NY are remaining quiet in fear of angering their progressive President and his power base.Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com

Kyl suggested that the GOP would have enough votes to sustain points of order they might raise against a bill sought under budget reconciliation rules to make changes to the original health bill to win over the votes of House Democrats. "It is a very risky proposition for those Democrats in the House who are nervous about their reelection, and are banking on the Senate banking them out," he said. "It's probably not going to happen." "So things that these House members think are important to put in the bill, to fix what was wrong with the Senate bill -- like a lot of those backroom deals, for example -- not all of those things can be fixed," the Arizona Republican added.

Scroll for updates…March 16 Call to Action

More than half the country says: Start over.

More than 2,000 protesters turned out this morning in St. Louis to counter President Obama’s health care road show, according to the St Louis Globe-Democrat:

Hours before President Barack Obama was scheduled to speak in St. Charles on reforming the nation’s health care system, more than 2,000 people packed a convention ballroom a few miles away to rally against those reforms.

The occasion was a health care town hall meeting to hear Missouri Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder, U.S. Rep. Todd Akin and other members of the Missouri legislature will hold a health care town hall meeting and teleconference at Wednesday morning at the St. Charles Convention Center.

Akin and other legislators took to task the reform bill that is now in conference. Kinder and other state legislators said the President’s health care bill would wreak havoc with state finances and a time when Missouri faces major budget cuts.

“This is the worst bill I have ever seen in Congress,” said Akin, who spoke from Washington D.C. via a video feed. Akin said enacting the federal legislation would destroy health care in America and the federal government’s ability to regulate.

Kinder touched on the same theme. He said the bill may destroy the states finances. He also said he supported resident’s opposition to the bill. “Whatever happens with this bill, I stand with you,” Kinder said. “Whatever happens we have just begun to fight.”

Gateway Pundit liveblogged the event and shares this photo of the standing-room only gathering:

Jim Hoft says “all hands on deck” for the second protest tonight in St. Louis as Obama drums up cash for Sen. Claire McCaskill and the Dems:

The Second Protest planned by the St. Louis Tea Party Coalition is planned for 5:30 on Wednesday night downtown in St. Louis across from the Renaissance Grand hotel. We are meeting at 5:00 PM on 9th and Delmar. WEAR BLACK!

Keep the no-mentum going.

***

Update: What are they up to now? Behold the “Slaughter Solution.”

The twisted scheme by which Democratic leaders plan to bend the rules to ram President Obama’s massive health care legislation through Congress now has a name: the Slaughter Solution.

The Slaughter Solution is a plan by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Democratic chair of the powerful House Rules Committee and a key ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), to get the health care legislation through the House without an actual vote on the Senate-passed health care bill. You see, Democratic leaders currently lack the votes needed to pass the Senate health care bill through the House. Under Slaughter’s scheme, Democratic leaders will overcome this problem by simply “deeming” the Senate bill passed in the House – without an actual vote by members of the House.

Update: March 16 Call to Action from Freedomworks.

Is this a case of smear or transparency?

Josh Rogin at Foreign Policy, The Cable:

Several former Justice Department officials have criticized the group Keep America Safe, which is led by Liz Cheney and William Kristol, for its attacks on the department for hiring lawyers who have defended terror suspects in the past, including one particularly controversial ad calling some of them the “al Qaeda 7.”

“The American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients is at least as old as John Adams’s representation of the British soldiers charged in the Boston massacre,” reads a letter organized by the Brookings Institution’s Benjamin Wittes and signed by David Rivkin, Lee Casey, and Philip Zelikow, among other prominent Republican lawyers.

“To suggest that the Justice Department should not employ talented lawyers who have advocated on behalf of detainees maligns the patriotism of people who have taken honorable positions on contested questions and demands a uniformity of background and view in government service from which no administration would benefit.”

Why does this matter, and go beyond “talented lawyers taking honorable positions” by lawyering up on behalf of “accused” terrorists who wish to kill Americans? Because in the “war on terror”, we may be winning it on the battlefield and in some cases, behind the scenes; but in the court of law, thanks to such organizations as the Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU, America has been on the losing side of 3 of the 4 major war on terror cases that have come before the Supreme Court.

And if these are just honorable, patriotic lawyers doing their honorable duties, then Eric Holder and the Obama Administration really should have no objections to the transparency, should they?

Thomas Joscelyn takes a look at their body of work. Marc Thiessen devotes an entire chapter (“Double Agents”) in Courting Disaster to the lawyers involved in defending al Qaeda terrorists, and their connections to Eric Holder. (See Thiessen’s op-ed in WaPo here; and if you are so inclined, Eugene Robinson’s attack on Liz Cheney and Keep America Safe here).

Andrew McCarthy also weighs in on why this issue matters.

President Barack Obama wants Congress to vote yes or no on a comprehensive reform measure from the Senate. Donnelly likes a lot about the bill, but its language on abortion is a "fatal flaw." For him, it is a deal breaker. "I would not vote for it," he said. He figures there will be a vote within a month or so. The abortion language is unpopular with "a significant" number of congressmen. It has the potential to kill the bill, he said.

Before there was a nationwide, grass-roots Tea Party movement, there was another nationwide, grass-roots movement that brought thousands of Americans to Washington, D.C. They called themselves the “Gathering of Eagles.” I covered two massive, GoE rallies against the Soros-funded, anti-war Left in March 2007 and September 2007. GOE activists continue to expose the transnational progressives, anti-military bullies, and phonies who operate under the “peace” banner.

One of the groups that GOE dogged was Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) — whose members have included bomb-threat bullies and death-threat nutballs who threatened to assassinate me, fake Army vet Jesse MacBeth, and another prominent member who smeared the Young America’s Foundation by faking an anti-Muslim hate flyer and smeared David Horowitz with similar race-card playing flyers, then weaseled out of the attacks by claiming they were “satire.”

The last two incidents involved an IVAW member named Adam Kokesh. He marched in uniform in mock patrols for the anti-war movement, paraded around holding an upside-down American flag (see Jonn Lilyea for more), was arrested for defacing signs, and traveled to Germany to urge soldiers to abandon their posts and seek aid and comfort with his anti-war minions.

Kokesh, believe it or not, is now running as a Republican candidate for Congress in New Mexico. And, believe it or not, he is getting positive exposure on at least one Fox News show. He has the backing of Ron Paul, the Republican Liberty Caucus, and the 9/12 Project.

The New Mexico Republican Party has its head in the sand. If you have friends and family in New Mexico, make sure they know who the real Adam Kokesh is.

He is an anti-war smear merchant in GOP clothing. Spread the word.

Excerpts followed by video: Cantor On Democrats' Circumventing The Will Of The People: “All I can say is, if it was a good bill we’d be voting on it now, and we wouldn’t have to be talking about circumventing the rules. Really, it [reconciliation] will end up circumventing the will of the American people. What we ought to be focused on right now is accomplishing positive health care reform for all Americans. On Health Care Reform: “Some may want to involve Mr. Massa, or not. I think when we are talking about health care, we’ve got a bill that is going to affect every American and there’s no question that if the bill was a good bill we’d have an up-or-down vote right now. What we are talking about is a process that is short circuiting the rules that will try and get the bill passed on a very tight vote, a very partisan vote. Frankly, I think there is a better way we can work together and accomplish something for health care reform. On Former Rep. Massa: “I’m just getting the news like you are, so again, I don’t know the facts of this at all. I know that the American people are sickened by all of this that has gone on, and I think that the best place for this

So here we are in 2010, and the constitutionally mandated census is upon us. After Obama decided that the Commerce Department couldn’t be trusted with it after doing it for 230 some-odd years, as specified by that same constitution, without “oversight” by the Whitehouse, many people are rightfully wary of filling it out, or sending it in at all. Fortunately, the outcry that followed Sen. Judd Gregg’s pushback and subsequent refusal to bow to TheWon’s wishes put the decennial project back where it belongs.

There is still the problem of the over-reach that has slowly stretched the form beyond the original mandate as specified in the constitution. You can tell that they are sensitive to these concerns by the little historical blurb they have after each question. Nevermind the fact that their present “reasons” have little or nothing to do with the original reasons some questions were asked long ago. IE: property ownership, and such. (If you recall, only property owners could vote back then.)

I will give kudo’s for them keeping the form to only 10 questions. (I don’t know about the “long form” some are getting, and from the sound of it, it seems onerous.) I will damn them to hell for spending 14 billion dollars doing it, including the sponsorship of a stock-car, and super-bowl ads.

There is however still some items they have no business asking, and I didn’t answer questions like them 10, 20, or 30 years ago either, so my reasons have nothing to do with Obama. They have NEVER prosecuted anyone for failing to fill it out, or for leaving parts blank. Do fill it out and send it in…it is important.

I have put the 10 questions here, along with my answers.

The Questions on the Form:

How many people were living or staying in this house, apartment, or mobile home on April 1, 2010?

We ask this question to help get an accurate count of the number of people in the household on Census Day, April 1, 2010. The answer should be based on the guidelines in the ‘Start here’ section. We use the information to ensure response accuracy and completeness and to contact respondents whose forms have incomplete or missing information.

Answer: 5

Were there any additional people staying here April 1, 2010 that you did not include in Question 1?

Asked since 1880. We ask this question to help identify people who may have been excluded in the count provided in Question 1. We use the information to ensure response accuracy and completeness and to contact respondents whose forms have incomplete or missing information.

Answer: No

Is this house, apartment, or mobile home: owned with mortgage, owned without mortgage, rented, occupied without rent?

Asked since 1890. Homeownership rates serve as an indicator of the nation’s economy. The data are also used to administer housing programs and to inform planning decisions.

Answer: Left blank

What is your telephone number?

We ask for a phone number in case we need to contact a respondent when a form is returned with incomplete or missing information.

Answer: Left blank

Please provide information for each person living here. Start with a person here who owns or rents this house, apartment, or mobile home. If the owner or renter lives somewhere else, start with any adult living here. This will be Person 1. What is Person 1’s name?

Listing the name of each person in the household helps the respondent to include all members, particularly in large households where a respondent may forget who was counted and who was not. Also, names are needed if additional information about an individual must be obtained to complete the census form. Federal law protects the confidentiality of personal information, including names.

Answer: Person 1 (2,3,4,5)

What is Person 1’s sex?

Asked since 1790. Census data about sex are important because many federal programs must differentiate between males and females for funding, implementing and evaluating their programs. For instance, laws promoting equal employment opportunity for women require census data on sex. Also, sociologists, economists, and other researchers who analyze social and economic trends use the data.

Answer for persons 1 thru 5: Male, female, female, female, male.

What is Person 1’s age and Date of Birth?

Asked since 1800. Federal, state, and local governments need data about age to interpret most social and economic characteristics, such as forecasting the number of people eligible for Social Security or Medicare benefits. The data are widely used in planning and evaluating government programs and policies that provide funds or services for children, working-age adults, women of childbearing age, or the older population.

Answer for persons 1 thru 5: 49, 47, 17, 16, 15. (No dates given)

Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin?

Asked since 1970. The data collected in this question are needed by federal agencies to monitor compliance with anti-discrimination provisions, such as under the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. State and local governments may use the data to help plan and administer bilingual programs for people of Hispanic origin.

Answer: Left blank

What is Person 1’s race?

Asked since 1790. Race is key to implementing many federal laws and is needed to monitor compliance with the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. State governments use the data to determine congressional, state and local voting districts. Race data are also used to assess fairness of employment practices, to monitor racial disparities in characteristics such as health and education and to plan and obtain funds for public services.

Answer: Other/Human

Does Person 1 sometimes live or stay somewhere else?

This is another question we ask in order to ensure response accuracy and completeness and to contact respondents whose forms have incomplete or missing information.
Answer: No

Hoping no doubt to curry favor with passengers beset by lengthy delays Administration bureaucrats set unconscionably high fines for delays. As a result airlines will simply cancel delayed flights

Is anybody in the White House listening? American Voters don't think so. The latest installment of the Rasmussen tracking poll reports that President Obama's approval index has sunk back down to its lowest level ever -21. Just nine days ago on March first that index was at -12. 



Only 22% of Americans strongly approve of the way Obama is handling the presidency 43% strongly disapprove and the numbers are only that positive because amongst the Democrats 42% of Democrats strongly approve (72% of Republicans strongly disapprove). The real danger for Obama is that independents are at a -28, 17% strongly approve and 45% strongly disapprove. Independents are the block that will make or break any political campaign.



Part of the reason for the crash is the President's continued push toward health care and his lack of concentration on the economy. American voters are worried about unemployment and think things are going to get worse.

Thirty-four percent (34%) of Americans expect the unemployment rate in the United States to be higher a year from today. That marks a five-point increase from December,  29% believe the unemployment rate will be lower in a year’s time, unchanged form the previous survey. Another 29% think the level of joblessness will be about the same, a nine-point drop from December.
Think about what has happened in the past nine days and you will see more evidence why the Obama's ratings continue to fall rapidly. The President continues to push the health plan that no one outside of the progressive movement wants. He released the revised version of his healthcare plan, taking nothing substantial from the republican proposals. The CBO released their analysis of Obama's budget and showed he underestimated its deficit effects by over a trillion dollars and the president had begun its work on amnesty for illegal immigrants another unpopular effort, and that's just a start. 

Clearly the voters are trying to send the President a message, clearly he is not listening.Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com

AG Eric Holder expressed views on detainees in amici (friends of court) briefs he signed on to that he was obligated to inform Congress about but failed to.

This is from a joint memo by Senate Whip John Kyl and House Whip Eric Cantor. Everybody these days is talking about the minutiae of parliamentary procedure and what the Dems may or may not try. But this lays out the procedural pitfalls, the effects of shaky levels of trust between the House and Senate, the risk/rewards of certain votes, and the names of Democrats who could be pivotal in bringing it all down. As an example, one of the big problems Dems face is trying to fix substantive problems with the Senate bill through reconciliation. Significantly, it is these very problems that have prevented health care from passing thus far. This means that Democrats probably cannot use the reconciliation bill to make changes to abortion and immigration provisions, or to include the President’s new insurance regulation proposal. At face value, these would appear to violate the Byrd Rule. It also means that provisions that were added to the original House bill to gain the support of certain lawmakers cannot be included in reconciliation. For example, Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) publicly stated that he voted for the House bill only after adding a provision authorizing a new program to benefit medical centers in his district. That provision, which is not in the Senate bill, would appear to be subject to the Byrd Rule point of order. Even the president’s proposal to hold the Social Security trust fund harmless from the impact of his proposed changes may run afoul of the requirement that reconciliation cannot make any changes to the Social Security program. Then there is the tennis-match problem. If a point of order is sustained in the Senate, then the House will have to revote on the Senate bill. If the point of order is sustained and not waived by 60 senators, then the provision is stripped from the bill and the remainder of the bill is sent back to the House. Consider, for example, the last time Congress considered a controversial bill under reconciliation, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. The House passed a conference report on the bill that it believed would survive all Byrd Rule points of order. The Senate ultimately sustained three points of order (one relating to cost sharing for emergency room care). The House then had to revote on the bill minus the three provisions. There is a lot of good stuff in the memo, and if you want a clear picture, go check it out. But it really still all comes down to whether the House passes the Senate bill, which, in light of the foregoing difficulties, is anything but certain. Kyl and Cantor think it comes down to the following 21 Dems who voted "yes" last year who may be on the fence and could flip to "no" on the final vote. Congressman Michael Arcuri (NY) Congressman Marion Berry (AR) Congressman Tim Bishop (NY) Congressman Dennis Cardoza (CA) Congressman Chris Carney (PA) Congressman Jim Costa (CA) Congressman Joe Donnelly (IN) Congressman Steve Driehaus (OH) Congressman Brad Ellsworth (IN) Congressman Gabrielle Giffords (AZ) Congressman Baron Hill (IN) Congressman Paul Hodes (NH) Congressman Dan Maffei (NY) Congressman Harry Mitchell (AZ) Congressman Bill Owens (NY) Congressman Earl Pomeroy (ND) Congressman Mark Schauer (MI) Congressman Kurt Schrader (OR) Congressman Zach Space (OH) Congressman Dina Titus (NV) Congressman Charlie Wilson (OH) Finally, and significantly, the parliamentarians are expected to make a ruling soon on whether the House has to pass the Senate bill first, then have Obama sign it into law before any changes can be made through reconciliation. This will potentially throw sand in the gears because then House Democrats have absolutely no assurance that the Senate will fix anything. After all, once Obama signs the bill, it becomes the law of the land.

Glenn Beck was wrong, its as simple as that.  He wasn't wrong for interviewing Eric Massa because as a TV commentator, showman, and the man responsible for generating  ratings for the Fox News network during the 5-6pm hour, it was Beck's responsibility to do this interview.
Where Glenn Beck was wrong was apologizing for wasting our time at the end of the interview. This interview was no waste of time because it moved the story along, in the end it destroyed the myth that Eric Massa's claims had any viability.
It was classic train-wreck theater. You know that a train is going to end up derailed and on its side,and even feel uncomfortable waiting for it to happen, but you are powerless to stop the carnage. Through the whole experience you are just wondering if the train will wreck itself or will someone push it over.

In the case of today's interview,  it was Massa who self-derailed. It seemed as if Glenn Beck would push him at any moment, you could see the frustration in his face, his manner became more standoffish and suspicious as the hour progressed. At points you wanted Beck to stand up and scream get out of my studio and he certainly seemed as if he was ready to do that at any moment. But that wouldn't have worked as well, letting the former Congressman hang himself was so much more effective.

The Fox News commentator destroyed him with a combination of firmness and kindness, but his biggest blow was at the very beginning, when Beck said
"So if you say that, and it comes out, you know whisper campaigns are whisper campaigns, but if it comes out..., you're one of the most evil bastards I've ever met, if you can say that and look at somebody in the eye.Massa's bold statements of corruption on Sunday melted away today, and we learned his denials of wrongdoing were full of major holes.

Beck repeatedly pressed Massa about his reasons for resignation. If the accusations were false  why he would resign. “I just can’t buy the fact that over tickle fights you would step down,” Beck said. Massa never really answered. 

On Sunday Massa accused House Democratic leaders of conspiring to force him out of Congress in order to pass Obamacare. On Beck’s program today, he said no one forced him to leave. “I wasn’t forced out. I forced myself out. I failed. I didn’t live up to my own codes. I own this.”

Beck kept pushing Massa to tell the audience about the corruption in Congress, but Massa was revealing nothing, just tons of generalities that seemed to come from one of last years Glenn Beck shows, "Don't Vote Party, or Contact Your Congressman" . No matter how hard he was pressed, Massa could not name one  example of illegality that he witnessed. When he kept giving examples of simple lobbying as bribery (maybe should be illegal but isn't) Beck didn't let him get away with it.  “No, it’s not. It’s lobbying money.”

The only time that Beck lost his cool was when Massa said there was nothing he could do to fix the problem as a member of Congress.  “Bullcrap, sir!” the Host responded.

The discussion about the charges against Massa left no doubt that more was on the way.  Beck mentioned the Washington Post report that the ethics comittee was investingating a charge that he groped 3 staffers and Massa said

Yeah, I did! Not only did I grope him I tickled him until he couldn’t breathe and then four guys jumped on top of me. It was my 50th birthday, it was kill the old guy. You can take anything out of context.”Beck's sarcastic retort was "was your wife at that one also?"

According to Wikopedia (not the best source I know) Massa was born on  September 16, 1959 which means that birthday happened before he was elected. Yet Massa gave the indication that it happened in DC because he went on to say that his Chief of Staff got very angry at him for the incident, so he moved into his Congressional Office.

When Beck asked him if he ever touched a staffer in a sexual manner, Massa said “No. No. No. No. No, I did nothing sexual. I did things that were wrong.” He added: “My behavior was wrong. I should never have allowed myself to be as familiar with my staff as I was.”

But at the end of the show,  when the Fox Host asked if there were going to be any Tiger Woods-type text messages revealed, Massa seemed to be already setting up his defense. “I’m sure there’s text messages because we bantered back and forth all the time."

Glenn Beck's interview was perfectly balanced, unlike the claims of the left and fears of the right, he did not embrace Massa's story, instead he looked upon it with doubt and suspicion. The look on his face said, I don't  trust you so  prove it, but Massa wasn't even close.

We were promised that we would  either learn about congressional corruption or we would learn that Massa was a fraud. We found out it was the latter, and at the same time by watching former congressman Eric Massa melting away on the Glenn Beck show, we learned what happens when you tell tall tales and are forced to back them up.  It was uncomfortable to watch, but it was important to see. That in itself was reason enough to make it good television.Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com

During his closed-door, invitation-only Obamacare Road Show appearance before a cherry-picked audience at St. Charles High School in St. Louis today, the president will announce a new anti-fraud initiative:

President Barack Obama is directing federal agencies to expand their use of private audits to detect fraudulent payments to health-care and other federal contractors.

The initiative, which Mr. Obama is set to announce Wednesday on a trip to St. Louis, could allow him to argue that he is serious about cutting health-care costs, a concern of lawmakers who are weighing whether to support the Democrats’ health-care legislation.

Mr. Obama will sign a presidential memorandum directing federal agencies to make more aggressive use of “payment recapture audits,” in which private companies under contract scrub government books to find wrongful payments and are paid a portion of what they find.

Under current law, only certain federal agencies are eligible to use this system. The president is also endorsing legislation to expand their use to other agencies and programs, including Medicaid.

The federal government estimates that it made $98 billion in improper payments last year. The audits are on pace to find $1 billion over the next three years, and the White House said more aggressive use of them could double that to $2 billion.

Of that $1 billion, as much as $750 million is from improper Medicare payments.

More details from the WSJ.

No doubt the kiddie stage props will cheer lustily when Obama unveils it.

But if he were so interested in rooting out fraud and saving taxpayers money, why the hell did he wait more than a year to issue his presidential directive?

And given how Team Obama has waged war on independent watchdogs, how long before these anti-fraud efforts get sabotaged or muzzled by this administration?

Almost three weeks ago, Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak made an astounding revelation. The White House offered a plum job in the administration if he would only drop his primary battle against now Democrat, former Republican, former Democrat, Arlen Specter.

Both Fox News and the Philadelphia Enquirer spoke to unnamed White House officials,  who insisted on “anonymity,” but had denied the congressman’s claim. Sestak, meanwhile, has repeatedly stood by his assertion that the administration offered him a job in exchange for not running against Specter.

Last week White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked the question out in the Instead of answering the question, Gibbs put on his "tap" shoes and danced around the question. He said he would have to “check on it” before he could deny Rep. Joe Sestak’s (D.-Pa.) claim that the administration had offered him a high-ranking job in the administration in exchange for not mounting a primary challenge against incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter. This is not the first time Gibbs has dodged the question. 

Yesterday, Fox White House Reporter, Major Garret of Fox News asked Gibbs about Specter's comments that Sestak needs to prove his claim and that the accusation is “hurting the White House, damaging its reputation.”
But Gibbs again did not have an answer: “I don’t have an update on that, but let me check and get back to you.” Gibbs responded.

When Garret followed-up, “Do you have an evaluation of Sen. Specter’s question?”

Gibbs said, “No.”

An unnamed White House official, speaking on “background,” denied Sestak’s claim to the Philadelphia Inquirer, which had reported that an unnamed White House official, who insisted on “anonymity,” had “vociferously” denied the congressman’s claim.
Sestak, continues to stand by his assertion that the administration offered him a job in exchange for not running against Specter.Strangely it took only 24 hours for the White House to deny Eric Massa's claims of arm twisting, but its almost three weeks into the Sestak scandal and Gibbs hasn't had time to find out if he was offered a bribe not to run?  What is the White House hiding?
 
The controversy started on Feb. 18, when Sestak appeared on “Larry Kane: Voice of Reason,” a public affairs television program on the Comcast Network in Pennsylvania. Kane asked, “Were you ever offered a federal job to get out of this race?”

“Yes,” said Sestak.

“Was it secretary of the Navy?” said Kane.

“No comment, though I would never get out for a deal. I’m in this for the Democratic principles,” said Sestak.

“Okay,” said Kane. “But there was a job offered to you by the White House?”

“Yes, someone offered--” said Sestak.

“It was big, right?” asked Kane.

“It was—let me not comment on it,” Sestak said.

The Philadelphia Inquirer, which had a reporter present when Sestak taped the interview with Kane, reported that Sestak “nodded when asked if the offer was for a high-ranking post.”..On Feb. 19, Martha MacCallum interviewed Sestak on Fox News and asked him about his allegation that the administration had offered him a job in exchange for not running against Specter in the primary.

“The White House now says, you know, on background, that that is not true and that they have no further comment on it, but that it’s not true,” she said. “Your response, sir?”

“I was asked a direct question yesterday, and I answered it honestly,” said Sestak. “There’s nothing more to go in to.”  So what is the answer Mr. Gibbs? If Sestak is full of Bull tell us.  Your non answer is beginning to become an answer in itself.

Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com