Print
E-mail
'New York Times' Spiked Obama Donor Story
 |
| The New York Times building is shown in New York on June 2008. The Times pulled a story about Barack Obama’s campaign ties to ACORN. (Frank Franklin II/Associated Press) |
Congressional Testimony: ‘Game-Changer’ Article Would Have Connected Campaign With ACORN
By Michael P. Tremoglie, The Bulletin
A lawyer involved with legal action against Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) told a House Judiciary subcommittee on March 19 The New York Times had killed a story in October that would have shown a close link between ACORN, Project Vote and the Obama campaign because it would have been a “a game changer.”
Heather Heidelbaugh, who represented the Pennsylvania Republican State Committee in the lawsuit against the group, recounted for the ommittee what she had been told by a former ACORN worker who had worked in the group’s Washington, D.C. office. The former worker, Anita Moncrief, told Ms. Heidelbaugh last October, during the state committee’s litigation against ACORN, she had been a “confidential informant for several months to The New York Times reporter, Stephanie Strom.”
Ms. Moncrief had been providing Ms. Strom with information about ACORN’s election activities. Ms. Strom had written several stories based on information Ms. Moncrief had given her.
During her testimony, Ms. Heidelbaugh said Ms. Moncrief had told her The New York Times articles stopped when she revealed that the Obama presidential campaign had sent its maxed-out donor list to ACORN’s Washington, D.C. office.
Ms. Moncrief told Ms. Heidelbaugh the campaign had asked her and her boss to “reach out to the maxed-out donors and solicit donations from them for Get Out the Vote efforts to be run by ACORN.”
Ms. Heidelbaugh then told the congressional panel:
“Upon learning this information and receiving the list of donors from the Obama campaign, Ms. Strom reported to Ms. Moncrief that her editors at The New York Times wanted her to kill the story because, and I quote, “it was a game changer.”’
Ms. Moncrief made her first overture to Ms. Heidelbaugh after The New York Times allegedly spiked the story — on Oct. 21, 2008. Last fall, she testified under oath about what she had learned about ACORN from her years in its Washington, D.C. office. Although she was present at the congressional hearing, she did not testify.
U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., the ranking Republican on the committee, said the interactions between the Obama campaign and ACORN, as described by Ms. Moncrief, and attested to before the committee by Ms. Heidelbaugh, could possibly violate federal election law, and “ACORN has a pattern of getting in trouble for violating federal election laws.”
He also voiced criticism of The New York Times.
“If true, The New York Times is showing once again that it is a not an impartial observer of the political scene,” he said. “If they want to be a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, they should put Barack Obama approves of this in their newspaper.”
Academicians and journalism experts expressed similar criticism of the Times.
“The New York Times keeps going over the line in every single campaign and last year was the worst, easily,” said Mal Kline of the American Journalism Center. “They would ignore real questions worth examining about Obama, the questions about Bill Ayers or about how he got his house. Then on the other side they would try to manufacture scandals.”
Mr. Kline mentioned Gov. Sarah Palin was cleared by investigators of improperly firing an Alaska State Trooper, but went unnoticed by The Times.
“How many stories about this were in The New York Times,” he asked.
“If this is true, it would not surprise me at all. The New York Times is a liberal newspaper. It is dedicated to furthering the Democratic Party,” said Dr. Paul Kengor, professor of Political Science at Grove City College. “People think The New York Times is an objective news source and it is not. It would not surprise me that if they had a news story that would have swayed the election into McCain’s favor they would not have used it.”
ACORN has issued statements claiming that Ms. Moncrief is merely a disgruntled former worker.
“None of this wild and varied list of charges has any credibility and we’re not going to spend our time on it,” said Kevin Whelan, ACORN deputy political director in a statement issued last week.
Stephanie Strom was contacted for a comment, and The New York Times’ Senior Vice President for Corporate Communications Catherine Mathis replied with an e-mail in her place.
Ms. Mathis wrote, “In response to your questions to our reporter, Stephanie Strom, we do not discuss our newsgathering and won’t comment except to say that political considerations played no role in our decisions about how to cover this story or any other story about President Obama.”
Michael P. Tremoglie can be reached at mtremoglie@thebulletin.us
Heather Heidelbaugh, who represented the Pennsylvania Republican State Committee in the lawsuit against the group, recounted for the ommittee what she had been told by a former ACORN worker who had worked in the group’s Washington, D.C. office. The former worker, Anita Moncrief, told Ms. Heidelbaugh last October, during the state committee’s litigation against ACORN, she had been a “confidential informant for several months to The New York Times reporter, Stephanie Strom.”
Ms. Moncrief had been providing Ms. Strom with information about ACORN’s election activities. Ms. Strom had written several stories based on information Ms. Moncrief had given her.
During her testimony, Ms. Heidelbaugh said Ms. Moncrief had told her The New York Times articles stopped when she revealed that the Obama presidential campaign had sent its maxed-out donor list to ACORN’s Washington, D.C. office.
Ms. Moncrief told Ms. Heidelbaugh the campaign had asked her and her boss to “reach out to the maxed-out donors and solicit donations from them for Get Out the Vote efforts to be run by ACORN.”
Ms. Heidelbaugh then told the congressional panel:
“Upon learning this information and receiving the list of donors from the Obama campaign, Ms. Strom reported to Ms. Moncrief that her editors at The New York Times wanted her to kill the story because, and I quote, “it was a game changer.”’
Ms. Moncrief made her first overture to Ms. Heidelbaugh after The New York Times allegedly spiked the story — on Oct. 21, 2008. Last fall, she testified under oath about what she had learned about ACORN from her years in its Washington, D.C. office. Although she was present at the congressional hearing, she did not testify.
U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., the ranking Republican on the committee, said the interactions between the Obama campaign and ACORN, as described by Ms. Moncrief, and attested to before the committee by Ms. Heidelbaugh, could possibly violate federal election law, and “ACORN has a pattern of getting in trouble for violating federal election laws.”
He also voiced criticism of The New York Times.
“If true, The New York Times is showing once again that it is a not an impartial observer of the political scene,” he said. “If they want to be a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, they should put Barack Obama approves of this in their newspaper.”
Academicians and journalism experts expressed similar criticism of the Times.
“The New York Times keeps going over the line in every single campaign and last year was the worst, easily,” said Mal Kline of the American Journalism Center. “They would ignore real questions worth examining about Obama, the questions about Bill Ayers or about how he got his house. Then on the other side they would try to manufacture scandals.”
Mr. Kline mentioned Gov. Sarah Palin was cleared by investigators of improperly firing an Alaska State Trooper, but went unnoticed by The Times.
“How many stories about this were in The New York Times,” he asked.
“If this is true, it would not surprise me at all. The New York Times is a liberal newspaper. It is dedicated to furthering the Democratic Party,” said Dr. Paul Kengor, professor of Political Science at Grove City College. “People think The New York Times is an objective news source and it is not. It would not surprise me that if they had a news story that would have swayed the election into McCain’s favor they would not have used it.”
ACORN has issued statements claiming that Ms. Moncrief is merely a disgruntled former worker.
“None of this wild and varied list of charges has any credibility and we’re not going to spend our time on it,” said Kevin Whelan, ACORN deputy political director in a statement issued last week.
Stephanie Strom was contacted for a comment, and The New York Times’ Senior Vice President for Corporate Communications Catherine Mathis replied with an e-mail in her place.
Ms. Mathis wrote, “In response to your questions to our reporter, Stephanie Strom, we do not discuss our newsgathering and won’t comment except to say that political considerations played no role in our decisions about how to cover this story or any other story about President Obama.”
Michael P. Tremoglie can be reached at mtremoglie@thebulletin.us
 |
 |
|
| Gregg Sets GOP Tone On Federal Budget | New Stem-Cell Breakthrough May Bring About Health-Care Revolution |
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of thebulletin.us.
kenny1960 wrote on Mar 30, 2009 7:08 PM:
" Anyone who thinks the NY Times is not in the tank for the Democratic party needs to see a doctor...SOON . That newspaper gave up being objective back in the 1960's. Now it is the official mouthpiece if the DNC. Of course they would cover up any story that does not show the " Messiah " in a glowing light. It is because of news outlets like the NY Times that there is a whole generation of children that do not have a clue of what happened to Ted Kennedy back in 1968. Instead todays youth are fed the party line about ol Ted being the Liberal Lion in winter, But if it would have been George Bush that left the scene of a accident that resulted in the death of a woman whom was not his wife it would be required reading in school to graduate. I am sick of media bias, I trust no newspapers at all, Nor the empty smiling suits and skirts on TV. They have lied to me for the last time. The only reason I would buy a NY Times is to use it to line the bottom of my cats litter box or wrap a dead fish in it. "
crazy96863 wrote on Mar 30, 2009 8:15 PM:
" The editorial staff at the Times are absolutely kidding themselves if they think people can't see through their BS; just look at their circulation. They might get a few more readers if they just admit they are coocoo for Obama; if you are going to be biased, it is OK... Just be adults and admit it.
Or they can continue running themselves into the ground which is pretty much what they deserve. A bunch a liberals nuts who are self destructing. Suckers. "
Or they can continue running themselves into the ground which is pretty much what they deserve. A bunch a liberals nuts who are self destructing. Suckers. "
crazy96863 wrote on Mar 30, 2009 8:18 PM:
" I bet they have enough dirt on Obama to force a resignation within the month. Lets see it already. "
Stephen Macklin wrote on Mar 30, 2009 8:50 PM:
" "olitical considerations played no role in our decisions"
I'm sure they didn't give the politics a monent's consideration - it's just an automatic reflex. "
I'm sure they didn't give the politics a monent's consideration - it's just an automatic reflex. "
rlw wrote on Mar 31, 2009 8:39 AM:
" This article is full of distortions and bias. For example:
1. Mal Kline is NOT an academic (as cited above). (Attending college for a few years does not qualify
2. The American Journalism Center is not an academic institution.
3. The NY TImes DID report on the Ayers story and on the results of the Sarah Palin inquiry.
4. Mrs. Palin was found to have "abused power" and was cited for a "failure to cooperate" by the same commission that said she was guilty of no crime. HArdly an "exoneration."
5. This story, while compelling, is unsubstantiated. Good journalism relies on more than one source. The Times is flawed but would have been irresponsible to run this story based on one source. "
1. Mal Kline is NOT an academic (as cited above). (Attending college for a few years does not qualify
2. The American Journalism Center is not an academic institution.
3. The NY TImes DID report on the Ayers story and on the results of the Sarah Palin inquiry.
4. Mrs. Palin was found to have "abused power" and was cited for a "failure to cooperate" by the same commission that said she was guilty of no crime. HArdly an "exoneration."
5. This story, while compelling, is unsubstantiated. Good journalism relies on more than one source. The Times is flawed but would have been irresponsible to run this story based on one source. "
gahusker wrote on Mar 31, 2009 9:20 AM:
" Listen, The New York Times is just another arm of the unholy alliance. "
rlw wrote on Mar 31, 2009 9:23 AM:
" The bias in this article is pronounced.
1. Mal Kline is not an academic. He attended college for a few years.
2. Sarah palin was not "cleared." She was found to have "abused power" and to have been "non-cooperative." She was merely not guilty of a crime.
3. The Times did not spike this story. It just did not have sufficient sourcing to run it. It's called "journalistic standards."
4. The TImes DID run Bill Ayers stories. It DID cover the Sarah Palin legislative hearing results.
5. "could possibly violate federal election law" does not constitute an indictment. It is a mild and highly qualified statement of opinion."
6. The American Journalism Center is not an academic institution or staffed by "experts." It is a training organization for first year interns.
The TImes has problems, no doubt. Its chearleading for the Iraq war was shoddy journalism at its worst. But it is not unique in its laziness. For another example, one need look no further than...here. "
1. Mal Kline is not an academic. He attended college for a few years.
2. Sarah palin was not "cleared." She was found to have "abused power" and to have been "non-cooperative." She was merely not guilty of a crime.
3. The Times did not spike this story. It just did not have sufficient sourcing to run it. It's called "journalistic standards."
4. The TImes DID run Bill Ayers stories. It DID cover the Sarah Palin legislative hearing results.
5. "could possibly violate federal election law" does not constitute an indictment. It is a mild and highly qualified statement of opinion."
6. The American Journalism Center is not an academic institution or staffed by "experts." It is a training organization for first year interns.
The TImes has problems, no doubt. Its chearleading for the Iraq war was shoddy journalism at its worst. But it is not unique in its laziness. For another example, one need look no further than...here. "
texplanner wrote on Mar 31, 2009 12:51 PM:
" What I don't understand is why people will continue to go to the New York Times only, then act surprised when the newspaper refuses to print the truth, or anything against the Chosen One or the Democratic Party. There are other newspapers, and hedging your bet by informing 2 groups increases the possibility that it will be published somewhere.
For the Times to say "political considerations played no role in our decisions about how to cover this story or any other story about President Obama.”, they were simply providing the basis for most people to believe that this paper will print anything that benefits their candidate, and nothing that will hurt him, even if he helps destroy our country. "
For the Times to say "political considerations played no role in our decisions about how to cover this story or any other story about President Obama.”, they were simply providing the basis for most people to believe that this paper will print anything that benefits their candidate, and nothing that will hurt him, even if he helps destroy our country. "
puncher75 wrote on Mar 31, 2009 7:09 PM:
" Once again The Bulletin breaks a huge story. Well done!!!!!! You are the only investigative newspaper around. Your best days are ahead of you. "
RLM357 wrote on Apr 1, 2009 12:27 AM:
" In Case you forgot, Obama gave 1.4 Million Dollars to ACORN in the stymulus Bill. WHY? As a Payback for padding the Votes! "
RLM357 wrote on Apr 1, 2009 12:40 AM:
" Leave us not forget that Obama's Stymulus Bill gave ACORN 1.44 Million Of our Taxpayer's Dollars ! "
kentl99 wrote on Apr 1, 2009 2:15 AM:
" NYT, along with WP, can be relied on full stop. There are other print media that can also be trusted to give professional reporting. It's obvious that The Bulletin is not among them. Reread the article: The charges are from a person, Anita Moncrief, conveniently absent from the House hearing. Ms. Heidelbaugh "attests" to she-said, she-said and Rep. Sensenbrenner uses jumps on this hearsay attack Obama, ACORN and NYT.
This is another case of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy's misinformation and innuendo project.
Wake up, Dittoheads, or you may be one of Lincoln's "fooled all the time" folks. "
This is another case of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy's misinformation and innuendo project.
Wake up, Dittoheads, or you may be one of Lincoln's "fooled all the time" folks. "
trochilus wrote on Apr 1, 2009 3:28 AM:
" With respect to number 2. contained in the comment by rlw, above, Sarah Palin was indeed cleared of the politically charged legislative "probe" in the trooper firing.
The findings by the State's Personnel Board was released one day before the November election, too late to undo the damage caused by the legislative panel's skewed findings earlier on.
From the CNN story, filed at 7:21 pm on the day before the election:
November 3rd, 2008
2nd probe clears Palin in trooper case
Posted: 07:21 PM ET
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (CNN) — Alaska’s Personnel Board concluded Monday that Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin did not violate ethics law by trying to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from the state police, contradicting an earlier investigation’s findings.
“There is no probable cause to believe that the governor, or any other state official, violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act in connection with these matters,” Timothy Petumenos, the Anchorage lawyer hired to conduct the probe, wrote in his final report.
http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/03/2nd-probe-clears-palin-in-trooper-case/
. . .
Obviously, rlw is just another partisan willing to continue to smear Sarah Palin, based only on cheap political motivation.
As for the Obama story, rlw gives us no no basis for his (or her) claim that the New York Times did not spike the Obama story. This Bulletin story is the first real proof that they did refuse to pursue the story for political reasons.
The New York Times proved beyond all doubt that they lacked serious journalisttic standards during the 2008 election, when they reported their vicious and baseless story about Senator McCain and the lobbyist. "
The findings by the State's Personnel Board was released one day before the November election, too late to undo the damage caused by the legislative panel's skewed findings earlier on.
From the CNN story, filed at 7:21 pm on the day before the election:
November 3rd, 2008
2nd probe clears Palin in trooper case
Posted: 07:21 PM ET
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (CNN) — Alaska’s Personnel Board concluded Monday that Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin did not violate ethics law by trying to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from the state police, contradicting an earlier investigation’s findings.
“There is no probable cause to believe that the governor, or any other state official, violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act in connection with these matters,” Timothy Petumenos, the Anchorage lawyer hired to conduct the probe, wrote in his final report.
http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/03/2nd-probe-clears-palin-in-trooper-case/
. . .
Obviously, rlw is just another partisan willing to continue to smear Sarah Palin, based only on cheap political motivation.
As for the Obama story, rlw gives us no no basis for his (or her) claim that the New York Times did not spike the Obama story. This Bulletin story is the first real proof that they did refuse to pursue the story for political reasons.
The New York Times proved beyond all doubt that they lacked serious journalisttic standards during the 2008 election, when they reported their vicious and baseless story about Senator McCain and the lobbyist. "
dtw wrote on Apr 1, 2009 10:26 AM:
" uh mike, ever hear of this little tool called Google?
Report Backs Palin in Firing of Commissioner
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/us/politics/04palin.html?_r=1
so much for the "american journalism center" and its credibility. you might want to check what your sources say before printing them. what's probably what the nytimes reporter did with the stuff she got from that acorn woman.
this whole story is ridiculous. somebody told somebody about something somebody else told a reporter, who declined to report on it. and this is why obama won?
please. your side lost. get over it.
dtw "
Report Backs Palin in Firing of Commissioner
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/us/politics/04palin.html?_r=1
so much for the "american journalism center" and its credibility. you might want to check what your sources say before printing them. what's probably what the nytimes reporter did with the stuff she got from that acorn woman.
this whole story is ridiculous. somebody told somebody about something somebody else told a reporter, who declined to report on it. and this is why obama won?
please. your side lost. get over it.
dtw "
Mad Dawg wrote on Apr 1, 2009 10:32 AM:
" rlw:
(2) So if an investigative body concludes without trial that some one is non-cooperative and abusive, we must conclude that the body is correct? It's not enough to avoid being indicted or charged, one must have no one saying nasty things about one? See your point (5).
(3) You KNOW that Times has no other sources or evidence?
I would venture that bias is not confined to the TImes or to this article. The Times is innocent in your view, until proven guilty, but Palin is non-cooperative and abusive on the say-so of a committee and we are biased on your say-so.
Goose - gander - good. Not a lot of credibility at the Times or among her defenders. "
(2) So if an investigative body concludes without trial that some one is non-cooperative and abusive, we must conclude that the body is correct? It's not enough to avoid being indicted or charged, one must have no one saying nasty things about one? See your point (5).
(3) You KNOW that Times has no other sources or evidence?
I would venture that bias is not confined to the TImes or to this article. The Times is innocent in your view, until proven guilty, but Palin is non-cooperative and abusive on the say-so of a committee and we are biased on your say-so.
Goose - gander - good. Not a lot of credibility at the Times or among her defenders. "
paddy wrote on Apr 1, 2009 10:54 AM:
" It's encouraging to read erudite comments by 'rlw' who does his research and presents the facts. Most of the folks here ate simple 'sheeple' who believe anything they are told by any republican with a pen and paper. So sad they are too lazy to get the facts themselves but perhaps 'rlw' can enlighten you. "
BothSidesNow wrote on Apr 1, 2009 11:12 AM:
" RLW, Let's seperate fact from fiction here. If you followed the Palin story with an open mind you would have seen through the farse. She was investigated by the official agency in Alaska and cleared completely. This investigation began before she was nominated to run as VP. Once she was chosen by McCain however, the democrats in the Alaska leg. decided to run their own investigation. Although they could find no wrong doing, they decided that she abused her power. Of course it was not a legitimate investigative committee, and it was completely run by the opposing political party. The official state run ethics investigation found her to be completely right in her actions. Only the kangaroo court run by the democrats claimed she abused her power. "
Dan G. wrote on Apr 1, 2009 1:50 PM:
" I have no respect for any journalist anyore. They have turned into a bunch of scabs on a dirty dog. Obama has lied left and right and the press knows all about it. Obama will either be shot or be forced to resign in about a year when even the stupid democrats realize what a liar the 'man' is. I love seeing the newspaper folding. They all deserve it. "
Dan G. wrote on Apr 1, 2009 1:56 PM:
" Obama and his 'in the pocket' journalists have lost all respect of the people. Obama has lied left and right and the journalists know all about every lie that phony president has uttered. Either somebody will shoot Obama or he will be forced to resifne as soon as the stupid democrats realize what he is doing to this country. He is now just a scab on a dog and I'm waiting for the time he gets scratched. When he is deposed of a Black man will NEVER be elected to that position again. "
Mary wrote on Apr 1, 2009 2:11 PM:
" rlw, by your standards, Watergate may nave not been broken. After all, wasn't "Deep Throat" the source, and this was an ANONYMOUS source! The NYT has written plenty of hatchet pieces on Republicans without much in the way of a source, period!!!
Your attempt to discredit the article holds no credibility. Selective reading should not be viewed as objective. Did you read the part about testimony under oath? Did you read the part where Ms. Moncrief was present but NOT asked to testify during the congressional hearings? Why was that, I wonder!! Surely it wouldn't be because congress is now Democrat controlled. "
Your attempt to discredit the article holds no credibility. Selective reading should not be viewed as objective. Did you read the part about testimony under oath? Did you read the part where Ms. Moncrief was present but NOT asked to testify during the congressional hearings? Why was that, I wonder!! Surely it wouldn't be because congress is now Democrat controlled. "
rawdibob wrote on Apr 1, 2009 2:42 PM:
" rlw
"5. This story, while compelling, is unsubstantiated. Good journalism relies on more than one source. The Times is flawed but would have been irresponsible to run this story based on one source. "
OH, I get it now. That must be why the NYT ran that front page hit piece alledging an affair between McCain and a lobbyist.
PS. Haven't you heard that Koolaid can make you go blind? "
"5. This story, while compelling, is unsubstantiated. Good journalism relies on more than one source. The Times is flawed but would have been irresponsible to run this story based on one source. "
OH, I get it now. That must be why the NYT ran that front page hit piece alledging an affair between McCain and a lobbyist.
PS. Haven't you heard that Koolaid can make you go blind? "
Joanne38 wrote on Apr 1, 2009 2:45 PM:
" People should be informed more about the real Obama. Not enough of our media is doing that. I just found this out this week. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BELIEVE THIS. IT WAS SENT TO ME & I
WONDERED, IS THIS POSSIBLE? SO I LOOKED IT UP IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER. SURE ENOUGH THERE IT WAS.
BELOW IS A LINK TO THE FEDERAL REGISTER WHERE IT WAS
ENTERED.
www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2009-02-04-E9-2488
President Barack Obama has signed an executive order presidential
determination allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to settle in
the United States at American taxpayers' expense. Sure, what can go wrong
when we allow hundreds of thousands of people who have been, as Mark Steyn
memorably described, "marinated" in a "sick death cult," who voted for
Hamas, and 55% of whom support suicide bombing/murders in the United States
.
By executive order, President Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure of
$20.3 million in migration assistance to the Palestinians. Egypt won't take
them. Jordan won't take them. Syria won't take them. Saudi Arabia won't take
them. All of the Arab countries - every one of them - has allowed the
Palestinians to fester for over 60 years. Meanwhile, generation after
generation have become more and more radicalized. Their lives are
unproductive - they "live" to die as martyrs - yearning for the rewards of
the world beyond.
The "presidential determination" will allow hundreds of thousands of
Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States . The
determination was signed on January 27 and appeared in the Federal Register
on February 4.
President Obama's decision, according to the Register, was necessitated by
"the urgent refugee and migration needs" of the "victims."
Few on Capitol Hill took note that the order provides a free ticket replete
with housing and food allowances to individuals who have displayed their
overwhelming support of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the
parliamentary election of January 2006.
Let's review some of Barack Obama's most recent actions since he was
inaugurated a little more than two weeks ago:
* His first call to any head of state as president was to Mahmoud Abbas,
leader of Fatah party in the Palestinian territory.
* His first one-on-one interview with any news organization was with Al
Arabia television.
* He ordered Guantanamo Bay closed and all military trials of detainees
halted..
* He ordered all overseas CIA interrog ation centers closed.
* He withdrew all charges against the masterminds behind the USS Cole and
9/11 .
* Today we learn that he is allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian
refuges to move to and live in the US at American taxpayer expense.
Anyone else seeing a pattern here? "
WONDERED, IS THIS POSSIBLE? SO I LOOKED IT UP IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER. SURE ENOUGH THERE IT WAS.
BELOW IS A LINK TO THE FEDERAL REGISTER WHERE IT WAS
ENTERED.
www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2009-02-04-E9-2488
President Barack Obama has signed an executive order presidential
determination allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to settle in
the United States at American taxpayers' expense. Sure, what can go wrong
when we allow hundreds of thousands of people who have been, as Mark Steyn
memorably described, "marinated" in a "sick death cult," who voted for
Hamas, and 55% of whom support suicide bombing/murders in the United States
.
By executive order, President Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure of
$20.3 million in migration assistance to the Palestinians. Egypt won't take
them. Jordan won't take them. Syria won't take them. Saudi Arabia won't take
them. All of the Arab countries - every one of them - has allowed the
Palestinians to fester for over 60 years. Meanwhile, generation after
generation have become more and more radicalized. Their lives are
unproductive - they "live" to die as martyrs - yearning for the rewards of
the world beyond.
The "presidential determination" will allow hundreds of thousands of
Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States . The
determination was signed on January 27 and appeared in the Federal Register
on February 4.
President Obama's decision, according to the Register, was necessitated by
"the urgent refugee and migration needs" of the "victims."
Few on Capitol Hill took note that the order provides a free ticket replete
with housing and food allowances to individuals who have displayed their
overwhelming support of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the
parliamentary election of January 2006.
Let's review some of Barack Obama's most recent actions since he was
inaugurated a little more than two weeks ago:
* His first call to any head of state as president was to Mahmoud Abbas,
leader of Fatah party in the Palestinian territory.
* His first one-on-one interview with any news organization was with Al
Arabia television.
* He ordered Guantanamo Bay closed and all military trials of detainees
halted..
* He ordered all overseas CIA interrog ation centers closed.
* He withdrew all charges against the masterminds behind the USS Cole and
9/11 .
* Today we learn that he is allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian
refuges to move to and live in the US at American taxpayer expense.
Anyone else seeing a pattern here? "
sanford wrote on Apr 1, 2009 6:44 PM:
" I don't udestand why everyone is so surprised. I knew this the time he said he was running for office. I guess noone lokked at his record for themselves.
The correct name for his party is The Democrat Party. NOT the Democratic Party. It should be called The Democrat Socialist Party. "
The correct name for his party is The Democrat Party. NOT the Democratic Party. It should be called The Democrat Socialist Party. "
Smecker wrote on Apr 1, 2009 11:19 PM:
" We can probably expect "the little emporer" to give the Times bailout money.
That appears to be his mode of operation. "
That appears to be his mode of operation. "
gbar wrote on Apr 5, 2009 2:21 PM:
" To dtw, all America wont get over it for about 10 to fifteen yrs, because BHO, just bankrupted the good old USA. That's thanks to all those 18 to 29 yr old who attended our American socialist liberal schools. The same ones BHO, attended. Those who think they will love socialism/communism, we will soon see if they remain such? "
macscatclaw wrote on Apr 20, 2009 2:05 PM:
" The Democarts are socialist and started to change after John Kennedy Ted got away with murder and can not do any thing wrong now we have Obama who the word thinks is the one, the Messiah as the muslems said i think he's is muslem undercover he will ruin our country and thes young people don't realize what they have asked for there will be another attack on our country. I just found you the bulliten thank god someone beside Fox news is putting something out beside the lies Times CNN ABC NBc is the worst God help us because we have a lot off snakes in Offices of the Gov. "
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
8377793 wrote on Mar 30, 2009 6:49 PM: