Candidate for FBI post has history in scandals ~ By Jerome Corsi

Role in not preventing 9/11

Also, from 1994 to 1997, while serving in the Department of Justice as a deputy attorney general, Gorelick wrote a 1995 memo creating what in time became known as the "Gorelick Wall."

Basically, the Gorelick memo set in stone the Clinton-era doctrine that terrorism was to be regarded as a criminal justice problem. That meant information developed by intelligence agencies was not to be shared with criminal investigative units, including the Department of Justice, largely because the regulations under which intelligence agencies operate did not necessarily protect the civil rights of criminal suspects under U.S. law.

Gorelick's role in writing the memo was not generally known until she was appointed by then-Senate Democratic Party minority leader Tom Daschle to serve as a commissioner on the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, commonly known as the 9/11 Commission.

Her participation as commissioner became controversial when then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission declassified and brought to light the 1995 Department of Justice memorandum authored by Gorelick.

Appearing before the 9/11 Commission, Ashcroft testified, "Although you understand the debilitating impact of the wall, I cannot imagine that the commission knew about this memorandum, so I have declassified it for you and the public to review. Full disclosure compels me to inform you that its author is a member of this commission."

I think that once you read this article by Jerome Corsi, you will understand why the choice of Jamie Gorelick to head up the FBI would be an extremely bad decision by the Obama administration.

After you read Jerome's column, be sure to also read the two stories linked below under RELATED STORIES. First, Ellis Washington will help you understand more about "Gorelick's Wall" and how it helped to undermine our anti-terror efforts. But, it will be the second story that goes way beyond what even Jerome Corsi mentioned in this column. Jack Cashill discusses how Jamie Gorelick hijacked the 1996 Pan Am 800 crash investigation, and possibly assisted in a cover-up of what may have been an act of terrorism.

In all that I've read about Jamie Gorelick, in these stories and many more, I need to tell you that as the Director of the FBI, she would be a severe detriment to this country's national security. With Gorelick, along with Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, and Attorney General Eric Holder, our safety, national security, and freedom would all be in grave danger.

I believe that if Gorelick is Obama's choice for the Director of the FBI job, she would have to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. I think this would be a good time to write your Senators so that we can prevent this possible appointment from ever happening. If you have a twitter account and/or Facebook page, please link to this column, we need to get the word out. It's time to begin informing others. Now!

When I found this article by Jerome Corsi just a few days ago, I almost fell out of my chair, knowing what I did from Jack Cashill's columns and other reading. I doubt any other name that could have been considered for FBI Director would have stunned me any more. And what we should really be concerned about is how it will effect the morale of the current agents! My bet is that most of them are very aware of who Jamie Gorelick is, and what she is about. We are still in a war on terror, and I do not think this is a good time to neuter one more line of our defense. I'm just sayin'...

RELATED STORIES:
Mr. Obama, tear down this Gorelick Wall! ~ By Ellis Washington
The last great coverup ~ By Jack Cashill


Candidate for FBI post has history in scandals

Gorelick's resume includes undermining anti-terror effort, aiding mortgage meltdown

JEROME CORSI

By Jerome Corsi

March 24, 2011 ~ 9:35 pm Eastern

© 2011 WorldNetDaily

JAMIE GORELICK

There are reports that President Obama is considering former Clinton administration official Jamie Gorelick as a possible candidate to be the next chief of the FBI, and critics are erupting with horror at the idea of a person in that position who, as one alleged, "helped to bring us 9/11 and the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

The Wall Street Journal and Fox Nation have reported that Gorelick is on the short list of candidates to take over the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

But if the White House seriously is considering such an appointment, surely discussed as part of the vetting process will be her controversial role as a deputy attorney general under Clinton in not preventing the 9/11 tragedy as well as her role under Clinton as a vice chair at Fannie Mae when the mortgage giant developed catastrophic problems.

Lucrative history at Fannie Mae

In the aftermath of the U.S. government takeover of Fannie and Freddie, attention focused on three prominent Democrats who served as Fannie Mae executives: Franklin D. Raines, former Clinton administration budget director; James Johnson, former aide to Democratic vice president Walter Mondale; and Gorelick.

All three earned millions in compensation while serving as top Fannie Mae executives.

• Raines earned $90 million in his five years as Fannie Mae CEO, from 1999 to 2004;

• Johnson earned $21 million in just his last year serving as Fannie Mae CEO from 1991 to 1998; and

• Gorelick earned an estimated $26 million serving as vice chair of Fannie Mae from May 1997 to May 2003, according to a May 2006 Special Examination of Fannie Mae conducted by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.

All three subsequently were involved in mortgage-related financial scandals concerning their stewardship at Fannie Mae.

In 1998, as Fannie Mae vice chairman, Gorelick received a bonus of $779,625, despite her alleged involvement in a scandal in which Fannie Mae employees falsified signatures on accounting transactions in order to manipulate Fannie Mae books to meet 1998 earning targets. The manipulations allegedly triggered multi-million dollar bonuses for top executives, including Gorelick.

The 1998 bonus reported for then-Fannie Mae Chairman and CEO James Johnson was $1.932 million and for then-chairman designate Franklin Raines was $1.11 million.

In 2001, Gorelick bragged to Business Wire that Fannie Mae had passed in the second quarter of 2001, a year-and-a-half ahead of schedule, its acquisition target to purchase $10 billion of sub-prime mortgage loans under the terms of the Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977 during Jimmy Carter's administration.

"Our approach to lenders is 'CRA Your Way,'" Gorelick explained to Business Wire. "Fannie Mae will buy CRA loans from lenders' portfolios; we'll package them into securities; we'll purchase CRA mortgages at the point of origination; and we'll create customized CRA-targeted securities."

Business Wire noted that through its "American Dream Commitment," Fannie Mae under Gorelick's management pledged to transact before 2010 more than $20 billion in specially targeted CRA business and to finance over $500 billion in CRA business altogether.

Over the course of the past decade, an estimated one-third of loans financed by Fannie Mae were specified to meet Fannie Mae's CRA business goal.

In remarks to the American Bankers Association's National Community and Economic Development Conference in Chicago on Oct. 30, 2000, Gorelick said, "We will take CRA loans off your hands – we will buy them from your portfolios, or package them into securities – so you have fresh cash to make more CRA loans."

The Wall Street Journal reported Sept. 25, 2008, that Gorelick, while yet an executive at Fannie Mae, received from Countrywide Financial Corp. a favor from Countrywide's then-CEO Angelo Mozilo, a "friend of Angelo" refinancing. The favor, in 2003, reportedly was favorable interest for a 10-year, 5 percent fixed-rate deal on a $960,149 mortgage owned by Gorelick.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Gorelick said she had no knowledge of receiving special treatment.

Still, the Wall Street Journal reported Gorelick's mortgage was handled through the Countrywide's VIP lending department in California, and the staff there was aware of her position as a senior Fannie Mae executive, according to statements Robert Feinberg, a former Countrywide employee, made to the newspaper.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Barack Obama's missing year ~ By Jack Cashill

"Like a tourist, I watched the range of human possibility on display," writes Obama of those years, "trying to trace out my future in the lives of the people I saw, looking for some opening through which I could re-enter."

Re-enter what? This seems more the reflection of a soon to be ex-fugitive than that of a metro-sexual happily browsing the Met. Ayers, by the way, uses the phrase "human possibility" twice in his memoir, "Fugitive Days."

Not surprisingly, Boerner has chosen not to return my phone call. As I said on his voice mail, all I wanted to do was clarify whether Obama actually attended class his first year in New York.

You would think we would know this by now.

Now, it isn't like this column by Jack Cashill will prove or help to determine that Obama isn't constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States. But, be aware that you don't want to mistake a sign post for the destination. It's a case where discrepancies in Barack Obama's own testimony regarding his life in "Dreams From My Father" are coming to light, and the apparent inconsistencies, if you should really care, fuel the fires of interest.

In the video shown below in the column, it starts with a picture of Obama sitting with his grandparents in a park in New York. The author of the video contends that the picture was photoshopped (graphic editing) in order to show Obama with his grandparents, but that Obama was added in to a photo with just his grandparents. Some of the writers of comments for the youtube video, however, contend that the 2nd photo, with just the grandparents, was the not the original, and that Obama was photoshopped out of the scene. I can only say one of the photos has been photoshopped, and that is pretty obvious. But, does it really matter which is the original? When you do not know for sure if evidence is solid proof in a court of law, it does add reasonable doubt for either side of a case.

As I said, though, what Jack Cashill wrote about is only a sign post. Of course, the final destination is knowing whether or not the President should be constitutionally qualified to be President or not. And, please notice, I have not ever said that the President was born anywhere else that would disqualify him as a "natural born citizen." As a matter of fact, I've only done my best to provide the full chain of evidence to the best of my abilities, in order for YOU to be the jury, and really, the jury of We the People. I think it is important that you are aware that there is even a question, because that should not have ever happened in the first place if we want to preserve the Constitution of the United States.

It seems to be very wrong, that for whatever reason, the President continues to spend vast sums of money - in the millions - in order to BLOCK us from ever knowing incontrovertible truth. And I believe that anyone that has been trying to learn about, and then keep up with this issue, would have to wonder what the motive for withholding information that could have resolved this long ago. I think Donald Trump is saying the same thing. The real question should be, "Why?" I'm just sayin'...

Barack Obama's missing year

JACK CASHILL

By Jack Cashill

April 07, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

In his definitive 2010 biography of Barack Obama, "The Bridge," New Yorker editor David Remnick features a photograph of a dapper young Barack Obama sitting between his grandparents on a Central Park bench.

The bench is real. The grandparents are real. The wall behind them is real. Barack Obama is not. He has been conspicuously photoshopped in. Who did this and why remains as much a mystery as Obama's extended stay in New York.

Video provided by Bigone5555J on Mar 29, 2011

In late October 2007, the New York Times ran a telling article on Barack Obama headlined, "Obama's Account of New York Years Often Differs From What Others Say."

Given that he was an announced candidate for president, and an underdog at that, the Times expected Obama to welcome the chance to reconcile his account in his memoir, "Dreams from My Father," with the accounts of those who knew him.

"Yet," lamented the newly neutered Times, "he declined repeated requests to talk about his New York years, release his Columbia transcript or identify even a single fellow student, co-worker, roommate or friend from those years."

A campaign spokesman, Ben LaBolt, offered a painfully lame explanation for Obama's reticence, "He doesn't remember the names of a lot of people in his life."

Lame or not, it worked, and it continues to work on a media that have spent more time in the dumpsters of Wasilla than they have investigating the preposterously unknown history of the world's best-known man.

When the media leave holes in a given narrative – in this case, the biography of a presidential candidate – bloggers individually, incrementally and indefatigably strive to fill them in, usually with mixed results.

One hole that remains strangely unfilled in that narrative is the academic year 1981-1982, a year Obama was reportedly a student at Columbia University.

The irrepressible researcher Orly Taitz secured a document through the National Student Clearinghouse on Obama's Columbia attendance.

The document confirms Obama's graduation from Columbia with a political science degree in 1983, but it places him there only in the 1982-1983 academic year.

"As there is no record of Obama residing anywhere else in the United States from September 1981-September 1982, or attending any other university," Taitz infers, "by way of simple deduction it becomes clear that his visit to Pakistan lasted not a month or two, as he claims, but over a year."

Obama's deceptions and studied opaqueness invite such speculation, but Taitz is likely unaware of competing evidence. How valid that evidence is remains to be seen.

Going back, Occidental friend John Drew confirms seeing Obama at a party in Los Angeles in June 1981. "At that time," says Drew, "the future president was a doctrinaire Marxist revolutionary, although perhaps – for the first time – considering conventional politics as a more practical road to socialism."

In "Dreams," Obama gives no account of the following summer. He moves from Los Angeles to New York in August and allegedly lands roughly. No one was present at his Spanish Harlem sublease when he arrives, and Obama sleeps in an alleyway.

Desperate, Obama calls "Sadik," a Pakistani and his one friend in the city, who just happens to be a coke-head and an illegal alien.

When Obama gives up his apartment because of a lack of heat, he and Sadik – in real life, Sohale Siddiqi – move in together, the date unspecified.

Given that "Dreams" proposes to tell the story of Obama's coming to grips with the world around him, his failure to mention a trip to Pakistan that summer raises eyebrows. Nor did Obama mention it in his 2006 book, "Audacity of Hope."

By contrast, Obama devotes considerable attention to an alleged trip to Europe a few years later, his flimsy account of which seems to have been pulled from a Michelin Guide.

In fact, it was not until April 2008 at a San Francisco fundraiser that Obama casually let it be known that he had traveled to Pakistan at all, an admission that took his own spokesman by surprise.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Ayers not joking about Obama book royalties ~ By Jack Cashill

On the following day, Saturday, the Montclair State video hit the Internet. Three days later, I talked about the video on "Fox & Friends." The following day, Donald Trump went on Laura Ingraham's show and repeated the argument I make in "Deconstructing Obama."

"They say 'Dreams of My Father' was genius, and they give [Obama] full credit, and now it's coming out that Bill Ayers wrote it," said Trump, getting everything right but the preposition in the book's title. "That's what started him on this road where he became president."

Trump also repeated a point that Ayers had surprisingly made in the video and that I had reiterated on "Fox & Friends," namely that Obama's second book, "Audacity of Hope," was clearly a lesser effort.

Ayers, in fact, called it "a political hack book." Trump noted that it "was written by a guy that's like a sophomore in high school."

It's all coming together... Well, except for Obama, where it's all falling apart! Jack Cashill said it best in his column, "Why our anti-war president went to war" (March 24), when he wrote:

The one fellow traveler whose opinion Obama fears, however, has yet to speak publicly on the subject. That would be his erstwhile Chicago mentor Bill Ayers.

So, now, the wheels are falling off Obama's presidency. Here is why Jack Cashill thinks that Obama is being outed by the writer of the book that propelled Obama to fame and the status of being a genius:

Obama's success must chafe Ayers even more. He hoped to mold a mayor of Chicago, and instead he ended up with a president whose ambitions would always corrupt his ideology.

The fact that Ayers went public in the first week of our war on Libya, a use of force almost indistinguishable from the Bush administration's, had to irritate Ayers deeply.

And who would have thought that Obama would be getting surrounded by a former terrorist, Bill Ayers, and the new player on the scene for the Republican nomination in 2012, Donald Trump? Is this a parallel universe, or what? Well, it must be, because I doubt the mainstream media would ever attempt to touch this story. Ummm... unless they get upset with Obama, too. 

And while they're at it, maybe the liberals in the press should also be asking Obama for his birth certificate. Maybe that will explain why Obama went to war on Libya.

I think Obama has finally been "Trumped" .... I'm just sayin'....

RELATED STORIES:

• Why our anti-war president went to war ~ By Jack Cashill (WND)

• Ayers affirms he wrote Dreams from my Father ~ By Jack Cashill (American Thinker)

Ayers not joking about Obama book royalties

JACK CASHILL

By Jack Cashill

April 01, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Last week at Montclair State University, after twice claiming authorship of Barack Obama's acclaimed 1995 memoir "Dreams from My Father," Bill Ayers temporarily eased the fears of the literary left by ending his boast with a seeming joke.

"Yeah, yeah," said Ayers when asked for confirmation of his authorship, "and if you help me prove it, I'll split the royalties with you. Thank you very much."

"Bill Ayers Started a Joke, That Started the Whole Word Hyperventilating," ran an all-too-typical headline, this one in Slate. The implication, of course, was that Ayers was taunting the gullible right.

A recent email exchange between a correspondent of mine and Ayers, however, suggests that Ayers may not have been joking at all.

On the morning of March 24, "Jim" emailed Ayers at his University of Illinois at Chicago address: "Jack Cashill's new book makes an overwhelming case that you wrote 'Dreams from My Father.' In addition it recounts an encounter with a blogger, Anne Leary, in October 2009 at Reagan airport where you acknowledged to her that you wrote the book."

Jim continued, "Why don't you just go public with a straightforward statement about your role?"

As it happens, this was the same day Ayers was to speak at Montclair State. Jim was not connected to the group videotaping Ayers at Montclair and knew nothing of its strategy. His email may well have prompted Ayers' videotaped claim of authorship.

Ayers responded politely to Jim an hour later, "As you note in you letter, I did indeed acknowledge that I wrote the book to Anne at Reagan, and over and over since then. So what more do you want me to do?"

Ayers continued, "OK, I'll try again, loudly: I wrote 'Dreams from My Father,' Jim!!! Please, please help me prove it – you seem like a smart guy, and maybe you could find a smart lawyer – and I'll split the royalties with you! xxx Bill."

"It sounds like I hit a nerve, which was not my intention; my apologies," wrote Jim back on Friday, the day after the Montclair State talk and the day before the video hit the Internet.

Added Jim, "I spent some time with Google, and found any number of blogs in the days following your encounter with Anne Leary at Reagan airport. But all those were reports of what she said you said. I could find nothing where a reporter directly interviewed you, and you indicated you were the author.

"If it's your objective to get that word out, I would think it would be reasonably easy to meet with a reputable reporter, make the admission and produce some research notes to back it up. I would think Fox News, perhaps Hannity or O'Reilly, would be interested in doing such an interview."

"No nerve hit, and no apology needed," Ayers responded that same Friday. "I did talk to a reporter directly – Anne Leary. She asked, I answered. She quoted me accurately. And she was cited for weeks by folks like Hannity and O'Reilly, so they acted as if she were reputable. Don't hate on Anne."

Ayers continued, "As for my 'objective' in this – you brought it up, not me, so perhaps it's your objective. Sadly, I don't have any notes, but you read an account that was persuasive to you, so maybe that person has notes. In any case, I repeat: if you or the person who persuaded you or Anne or anyone can PROVE I wrote it, I would be so grateful that I would split the royalties. Please and thank you, Bill."

On the following day, Saturday, the Montclair State video hit the Internet. Three days later, I talked about the video on "Fox & Friends." The following day, Donald Trump went on Laura Ingraham's show and repeated the argument I make in "Deconstructing Obama."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Why our anti-war president went to war ~ By Jack Cashill

Unlike Iraq in 2002, Libya in 2011 is anything but a "no-brainer" for the president of the United States, especially this one.

Military intervention, especially if short and successful, typically raises a president's stock, and Obama can count on his unprincipled minions in the media to support whatever course he takes.

What Obama cannot count on is the hard left. Bellwether Rep. Dennis Kucinich, for instance, is already planning an amendment to defund military action in Libya.

Nation of Islam honcho, Louis Farrakhan, flat out blasted the president. "Who the hell do you think you are?" he asked of Obama on Chicago radio.

This all I need to say, and it is actually a quote from Jack's great column: "For those friends of yours with short attention spans, please share this two-minute animation, which sums up our involvement in Libya."



RELATED STORY:
Ayers affirms he wrote Dreams from my Father ~ By Jack Cashill (3/24/11)


Why our anti-war president went to war

JACK CASHILL

By Jack Cashill

March 24, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

The first time John Drew met Barack Obama, the fashionably dressed, 19-year-old Obama had just disembarked from a friend's "sleek, expensive luxury car."

Drew, Obama and friends then spent the evening discussing anti-colonialism and the imminent Marxist revolution. Although Drew was already in process of shedding these enthusiasms, Obama may never have.

There is something else, however, that Obama has not outgrown, and that is his paradoxical fondness for the trappings of success. Everyone who has known him well knows how ambitious Obama is.

In the skies over Libya, arguably for the first time, President Obama's political ambitions and his anti-war, anti-colonial politics have butted heads in a way that cannot easily be finessed.

"It is indeed his war," John Kass writes bitingly in the Chicago Tribune. "He started it. He gave the order to launch the missiles over the weekend. And now the man who ran for president as an anti-war candidate owns his very own war."

Obama is new to this kind of conflict. For the first 20 years of his adult life – at Occidental, at Columbia, at Harvard, in Chicago – his radical politics only greased his ambitions.

It was not until Obama raised his political sights in 2002 that he began to understand that something might have to give.

In the retelling, the day of reckoning came on Oct. 2, 2002, at an impromptu rally staged by the Chicagoans Against the War in Iraq.

Here, State Sen. Obama gave a speech second in career importance only to the 2004 DNC keynote. This was the speech that enabled his handlers to position him on the credibly sane left flank of naifs like Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, "who took the president at his word" and voted for the war in Iraq.

In the orthodox Obama canon, this was his "Lion King" moment, the occasion on which his principles triumphed over the demands of politics.

At Rick Warren's Saddleback Forum in 2008, Obama would tell the audience that protesting the war was his most "gut-wrenching decision," largely because of its "political consequences."

Obama's official 2008 website attested to the anguish. "As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002," the website claimed, "Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq."

This, of course, was all nonsense. Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendell, in his valuable 2007 biography, "Obama: From Promise to Power," offers a useful corrective.

At the time, as Mendell relates, Obama was keen on taking a shot at the U.S. Senate in 2004. He envisioned as his base of support blacks and lakefront liberals, the former for their votes, and the latter for their money.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

So whose was the L.A. 'mystery missile'? ~ By Jack Cashill

ALERT: Mystery Missile Launch Seen off Calif. Coast 11/09/2010

Video provided by commando602 (November 9, 2010)

Like many events that have happened in our history, last Monday's "mystery missile," as Jack Cashill calls it, has received an official government explanation, though not a very good one in this case. Whether it was the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the explosion of Flight 800, and now the mystery missile launch, many of the "conspiracy theories" tend to sound as plausible, if not more, than how the government explains it.

In this column, Jack tells of various other scenarios that all have the plausible potential of being true explanations. It seems that the government came up with the optical illusion of a contrail explanation very quickly, and very few people have accepted it. So, now what? Well, I call on ALL media - mainstream media, Fox News, bloggers - I mean everybody, keep digging up information and force our government to tell us the truth.... for once. It would really help if the mainstream media quit being the government's public relations firm, and start being real journalists again. Just sayin'...

There was a time when the major media used to do the reporting citizen journalists now do. Today, the media content themselves with recycling White House press releases and dismissing real reporters as "conspiracy theorists."

As the truth reveals itself, stay tuned to WND. We will keep you posted.

So whose was the L.A. 'mystery missile'?

By Jack Cashill

November 18, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010



On Monday evening, Nov. 8, a helicopter-borne Los Angeles news crew shot stunning footage of what appeared to be a missile rising out of the Pacific about 35 miles west of the city.

In the days since, competing theories have crowded the Internet as to what that news crew actually recorded. In a quick survey, nearly half of the technical experts with whom I corresponded were inclined to believe the jet contrail theory given tepid blessing by the Pentagon.

My own research into the destruction of TWA Flight 800 off the coast of Long Island in July 1996, however, has left me forever suspicious of official government explanations.

This is especially true when there is a Democrat in the White House, as there also was in 1996. On these occasions, the media can be impressively incurious.

One alternative theory for a missile scenario deserves attention if only for its compelling logic. In the dissection of any seeming conspiracy, logic precedes logistics. The why of an event matters at least as much as the what.

Try this logic on for size: Last week, President Obama wrapped up his Asian junket with a trip to the G-20 summit in Seoul.

There, as Bloomberg reports, Obama "attacked China's policy of undervaluing its currency." Continuing its military metaphors, Bloomberg adds that the gathering was "marked by clashes." Not without its own ammunition, China "took aim at the Federal Reserve's monetary easing."

Had the Chinese wanted to use more than words to show their ability to strip America of its creature comforts, they could not have chosen a more symbolic way than an EMP – electromagnetic pulse –attack on, say, a cruise ship like the Splendor.

As it happens, the Splendor lost its power early Monday, Nov. 8, some 44 miles offshore and roughly 200 miles south of San Diego. No media report that I could find questioned the official "fire in the engine room" explanation. It may even be true.

Later that same day, however, about 300 miles north, the news crew spotted the apparent missile launch. With the presumed missile launch might the U.S. have been saying to China, "You can take out our cruise ships, but we can take out your country"? Or might China have been saying to the U.S., "We have got you squarely in our crosshairs"?

"Andrew," a retired U.S. Navy fire-control technician platform-certified in the gun and missile systems on board Adams-class guided missile destroyers, argues for the latter.

"What I saw in the recent video concerning the object 30 miles off the coast of California," contends Andrew, "is blatantly a foreign-made, large Cruise or ICBM missile, being launched by a sub-surface aquatic platform."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Shirley Sherrod's perfect scam ~ By Jack Cashill

Jack writes about something I bet that most of my readers at this blog had not heard about. In fact, the background on this story, as Jack is so well known for doing as an investigative reporter, is absolutely fascinating. You would never hear about this in the mainstream news media, I bet. (I don't expect any of the media here in Iowa will put this story on the front pages, being that it involves some shady dealings involving Senator Charles Grassley, Rino-IA and former governor, now Ag Secretary, Tom Vilsack, D-IA). Just sayin'...

Sherrod gave this talk to announce that the FCC had awarded New Communities a radio station in Albany, Ga., still another race-based corporate-welfare boondoggle. Before the award of this station, he added, the Sherrods "had no means of communicating with our people."

The "our people" in question, of course, are black people. This remains Ms. Sherrod's constituency. Why trifle with a poor white farmer when so many rich white taxpayers have so much more to offer?

By Jack Cashill

Posted: August 05, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

The story is told of a USDA employee recently seen moping aimlessly around the agency's corridors. When asked why he was so sad, he answered, "My farmer died."

It has come to that at the United States Department of Agriculture. In 1839, Congress set aside $1,000 to fund a program within the Patent Office for "agricultural purposes." At the time, more than 9,000,000 Americans lived on farms and made up nearly 70 percent of the labor force.

The infusion of government dollars has swelled as the number of Americans on farms has continued to shrink.

This year, the USDA will manage to spend $134 billion on the fewer than 3,000,000 people who live on farms – less than 3 percent of the workforce.

In the last decade, no American has milked the USDA cash cow more successfully than Ms. Shirley Sherrod. As is well enough known, an edited version of Shirley Sherrod's speech before the NAACP provoked national headlines and caused a panicky Obama administration to fire Sherrod from her position as the Georgia director of rural development for the USDA.

When the full version of the speech surfaced, which showed Sherrod merely talking about her racist past, the Obama White House fell all over itself apologizing. In reality, it is Sherrod who should be apologizing.

As we are learning, the story goes well beyond her racist trifling with a poor white farmer and deep into her role as plaintiff in what may be the single greatest scam in U.S. government history.

The larger tale is told in a 2004 book written by Louis March and titled, "Harvest of Lies: The Black Farmer Law Suit Against the U.S. Department of Agriculture."

As March tells the story, it began in the astonishingly corrupt political year of 1996 when the Clinton administration was prepared to do anything – including the sale of our defense hardware to Red China and the suppression of the TWA Flight 800 story – to win re-election.

To co-opt a budding black-farmer protest, Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman commissioned a task force to travel the country and listen to the complaints of black farmers, some of whom were charging a USDA "conspiracy" to foreclose on their lands.

When Glickman reported "a long history of both discrimination and perceptions of unfairness" in the USDA, he inspired those perennial Democratic allies, the trial lawyers, to start rounding up the offended.

That same year, a black farmer named Timothy Pigford, joined by 400 other black farmers, filed a lawsuit against Glickman, claiming that the USDA treated black farmers unfairly in all manner of ways from price-support loans to disaster payments to operating loans. Worse, they charged that the USDA had failed to process any complaints about racial discrimination.

The notion that the Clinton Ag Department had spent four years consciously denying black farmers their due defies everything we know about Clinton's use of race and should have made the media suspicious about Pigford's claims dating back to 1981.

Under terms of the suit, the claimants merely had to show up and say they had been discriminated against. No documentation needed. The USDA, which typically purges paperwork after three years, had to disprove the claim.

Flush with revenue in 1999 and eager to appease this bedrock constituency, the administration settled with the farmers – more realistically, their attorneys – for $50 grand apiece, plus various other perks like tax offsets and loan forgiveness.

After the consent decree was announced, the USDA opened the door to other claimants who had been similarly discriminated against. They expected 2,000 additional claims. They got 22,000 more, roughly 60 percent of whom were approved for this taxpayer-funded lotto.

As March notes, of the 14,561 "black farmers" who were paid by 2004, only about 200 applied for a subsequent priority loan to which they were entitled. Since virtually every small farmer needs to take out a small loan each year, the other 14,361, he surmises, likely never applied for a loan in the first place.

Despite having a year and a half to apply, some 70,000 more alleged claimants – more than twice the number of black farmers – argued that they had not only been discriminated against but also been denied notice of the likely windfall that awaited them.

In 2008, the ever-posturing Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa joined the race hustlers, the trial lawyers and the Democratic vote snatchers to complete the perfect racist scam when he lobbied to give the alleged 70,000 "another bite at the apple." Co-sponsoring the bill was none other than U.S. Sen. Barack Obama.

In February of 2010, the Obama administration settled with the aggrieved 70,000 for $1.25 billion that the government did not have to give. This money, by the way, was finessed out of a defense appropriation bill.

At the time, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the agreement would close a "sordid chapter" in the department's history, a chapter in which no one seems to have been so much as reprimanded.

Out of about $1 billion paid out so far in settlements, the largest amount has gone to the Shirley and Charles Sherrod's New Communities Incorporated, which received some $13 million. As Time magazine approvingly reported this week, an additional $330,000 was "awarded to Shirley and Charles Sherrod for mental suffering alone."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

NAACP, media owe tea party apology ~ By Jack Cashill

Jack Cashill picks apart the column written by William Douglas of the McClatchy Papers, with this headline: "Tea-party protesters scream 'nigger' at black congressman." It turns out that none of it was true. And then, on Tuesday, the NAACP passed a resolution "calling on all people to condemn racism within the tea-party movement."

I personally condemn and repudiate any racism, and I am sure most of the people in the Tea Party Movement do as well. However, after the media and the NAACP made sure that many people would believe the Tea Partiers are racist, they never bothered to mention or condemn the extreme racism from the New Black Panther Party, particularly Malik Zulu Shabazz. As you will see in the video below, Hilary Shelton, a VP at NAACP, said there was also a resolution condemning the NBPP. Oh, really? I see... Then, apparently. THAT was something the mainstream media didn't think was important enough to report. Just sayin'...

RELATED VIDEO:
NAACP accuses Tea Party Movement with Racism

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

Kudos to the St. Louis Tea Party Coalition for passing a resolution of its own, calling the NAACP resolution "a gutter tactic of attempting to silence opponents by inflammatory name-calling."

And kudos to the Kansas City Star for quoting it. Now, if its editors would only put their big-boy pants on and own up to their parent company's role in the original smear.

By Jack Cashill

Posted: July 15, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Blacks will know they have achieved full acceptance in America when the media begin to treat the NAACP as the hack left-wing political group it has obviously become.

Now, alas, my hometown Kansas City Star treats the NAACP meeting here in KC as though it were the 2,000th annual reunion of Jesus and the 12 apostles.

Yesterday's headline reads, "NAACP resolution addresses tea parties." It should have read, "NAACP resolution smears tea parties." In the opening lead, the reader learns that the NAACP passed a resolution overwhelmingly on Tuesday "calling on all people to condemn racism within the tea-party movement."

This presumes, of course, there was racism to condemn. A more inflammatory AP article – "NAACP accuses tea party of tolerating bigotry" – cites the incident that provoked the resolution:

U.S. Reps. John Lewis, Andre Carson and Emanuel Cleaver said some demonstrators, many of them tea-party activists, yelled a racial epithet as the black congressmen walked from House office buildings to the Capitol. Cleaver, D-Mo., also said he was spit on.

This kind of nonsense may have passed muster as news on day one, but let me please reiterate what we have learned since. Please share the following with your local news outlet.

On the afternoon of March 20, the day of the Obamacare protest, Andre Carson walked along with Rep. John Lewis and one other person from the Cannon Office Building across Independence Avenue to the Capitol.

At the Capitol, Carson told reporters what happened en route. Fortunately, the audio exists. As Carson explained, the three were "walking down the steps" of the Cannon Office Building when they "heard 'n-word, n-word,' at least 15 times, hundreds of people, and Capitol Police finally became aware and started protecting us."

When questioned on specifics, Carson reduced the hundreds of people to "maybe 15," who were shouting "Kill the bill, then the n-word." Added Carson for dramatic flair, "Yeah, I expected rocks to come."

On the return to the Cannon Office Building from the Capitol, a larger contingent of the Black Caucus chose to avoid the tunnel, which they would normally take, and brave the racist, would-be rock throwers. They also carried at least three video cameras among them.

The Caucus members passed without incident until they reached the steps of the Cannon Office Building. There, an inattentive Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., flanked by a police officer, walked right in front of a man who had been screaming "kill the bill" through cupped hands for at least the previous 10 seconds.

Cleaver appeared to get caught in the vocal spray. Videos would show a visibly angry Cleaver poke his finger in the man's face.

Roughly 90 minutes after the alleged spitting, William Douglas of the McClatchy Papers posted an article with this inflammatory headline: "Tea-party protesters scream 'nigger' at black congressman."

Douglas appears to have interviewed the "congressman" in question, civil-rights icon John Lewis, but Lewis does not give him what he wants:

Lewis said he was leaving the Cannon Office Building to walk to the Capitol to vote when protesters shouted "Kill the bill, kill the bill," Lewis said.

"I said 'I'm for the bill, I support the bill, I'm voting for the bill,'" Lewis said.

In his very next line, Douglas makes a reference to Andre Carson. "A colleague who was accompanying Lewis said people in the crowd responded by saying 'Kill the bill, then the n-word.'"

Douglas immediately follows the Carson reference with the following:

"It surprised me that people are so mean and we can't engage in a civil dialogue and debate," Lewis said.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., said he was a few yards behind Lewis and distinctly heard "nigger."

"It was a chorus," Cleaver said. "In a way, I feel sorry for those people who are doing this nasty stuff – they're being whipped up. I decided I wouldn't be angry with any of them."

Given the video evidence, we can see Douglas' reporting for the Democratic agitprop it is. Lewis never hears the word "nigger." If he had, Douglas surely would have shared it with the reader.

Curiously, Douglas quotes Carson on the most lethal of the slurs but attributes the quote only to "a colleague." Does Carson have a reputation for lying? Or does Douglas fear that by citing Carson, he admits into evidence his preposterous claim about crowds of screaming bigots? Or both?

Instead, Douglas slides the burden onto the Rev. Cleaver who claims no more than to have heard one person say "nigger" one time, a claim that will be much harder to disprove than Carson's.

Douglas then takes Cleaver's "chorus" quote and makes it sound as though he heard a chorus of slurs when surely Cleaver said no such thing. The reader is left with the impression, however, that Cleaver is "the colleague" who heard "kill the bill, then the n-word."

Douglas also implies that Cleaver was walking with Lewis from the Cannon Office Building to the Capitol when this happened, but he was not.

Cleaver accompanied Lewis only on the way back, which suggests that there should be evidence of racial slurs both coming and going. Despite Andrew Breitbart's offer of a $100,000 reward for such a video, none has emerged either coming or going.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

The last great coverup ~ By Jack Cashill

Jack talks about how different the story of the downing of TWA Flight 800 would have been had it happened just five years later and all of the witness reports had been posted on the internet. Things would have been much different. There may not have been an attack on America on 9/11, had the investigation of the Flight 800 gone differently and been covered as it should have been by the press.

If you haven't read any of Jack's previous stories about TWA Flight 800, the 747 that exploded just off the coast of Long Island on July 17, 1996, I highly recommend it. The story goes deep into possible cover-ups inside the Clinton Administration, all to keep al-Qaeda's war with the United States a highly classified secret. In today's column, for example, you'll read about Jamie Gorlick and Sandy Berger, two of Clinton's top people, that even went to extremes to keep the secret away from the press even well into George W. Bush's first term.

Also among the columns includes work that Jack did while teamed up with Peter Lance, writer of "Triple Cross," and also an excellent investigative reporter. There is so much to this story, you will be amazed at how the stories bring so many other events of the 1990's up through 9/11 all together. Just sayin'...

And lest some messy scraps of information find their way to the committee's Republicans, the Clintons dispatched their most trusted adviser to do a little cleanup work.

Alas, Sandy Berger got caught, but this proved much easier to bury than TWA 800. The Justice Department slapped his wrist on a Friday, the day after Terry Schiavo died and the day before Pope John Paul II did.

The media did not want to know anyhow, and, this time, there would be no eyewitnesses.

By Jack Cashill

Posted: July 08, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

If TWA Flight 800 had exploded off the coast of Long Island in July 2001 as visibly as it had in July 1996, the world would have been told a different story, even if there had been a Democrat in the White House.

On the night of July 17, 1996, and into the early morning hours of the 18th, Bill and Hillary Clinton and Deputy National Security Adviser Sandy Berger huddled fretfully in the family quarters of the White House.

The election they thought was in the bag no longer was.

The air-traffic controllers had already reported. The radar data told a story not easily untold.

And now, eyewitness reports were flooding in. The explosion had taken place right at sunset, just 10 miles off the coast, on a perfect night, with thousands of people looking out over the sea from Long Island's popular south shore.

In 2001, some clever soul would have started collecting their tales on a website before the tide turned, literally and figuratively. And the tales they had to tell!

FBI witness No. 73, an aviation buff, watched a "red streak" with a "light gray smoke trail" move up toward the airliner, and then go "past the right side and above the aircraft before arcking [sic] back down toward the aircrafts [sic] right wing."

She even reported the actual breakup sequence before the authorities figured it out on their own.

High-school principal Joseph Delgado might have posted his comments as well. He would tell the FBI that he had seen an object like "a firework" ascend "fairly quick," then "slow" and "wiggle" then "speed up" and get "lost." Then he saw a second object that "glimmered" in the sky, higher than the first, then a red dot move up to that object, then a puff of smoke, then another puff, then a "firebox."

Mike Wire would surely have gone public. The no-nonsense millwright and U.S. Army vet watched events unfold from the Beach Lane Bridge in Westhampton on Long Island.

Wire had seen a white light traveling skyward from the ground at approximately a 40-degree angle, sparkling and zigzagging before culminating in a massive fireball.

In addition to the testimony, others would have been posting their videos and stills, all of which supported the eyewitness testimony. Others still would have shared the drawings of the incident that they would later give to the FBI.

But in 1996, the Internet was still in its embryonic stages. All information posted thereon was deemed, by the major media at least, suspect and even laughable.

In the absence of an effective Internet, the White House hit upon a control strategy that dazzled in its simplicity and in its sheer nerve.

The Clintons' trusted point person, Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, would take the investigation away from the professionals in the National Transportation Safety Board and give it to the amateurs of the FBI. There was one reason why. The FBI reported to her. The NTSB did not.

This was illegal, of course, but the media had a president to re-elect soon enough, and they were not about to scruple over details.

The second part of the strategy was as simple as the first. The FBI would talk only to The New York Times. This essentially made the Times Gorelick's ministry of propaganda.

Of the 270 eyewitnesses who told the FBI they saw what looked like a missile strike TWA Flight 800, The New York Times would interview exactly none of them.

Fearing perhaps to lose their privileged status and trusting the FBI more than they should have, the Times people followed the FBI lead. The other media, some grudgingly, followed the Times.

Most FBI agents, of course, worked hard and tried to do the right thing. They may have suspected but could not know that their work was being subverted at the top.

As each week passed, the Clintons had to be stunned that so obvious a truth remained so thoroughly ignored. To sustain the lie, however, insiders had to tell more lies still.

The FBI would fabricate a second interview with Witness No. 73. The CIA would fabricate a second interview with Mike Wire. The NTSB would lie outright about what Joseph Delgado saw, but the election came and went without anyone even knowing who these people were.

Gorelick could not have slept easily through all of this, but the lotto was around the corner, and she knew she had the winning ticket. In May 1997, they called her number.

Out of all the likely finance and mortgage experts in America, the Fannie Mae Board picked her, a lawyer with no relevant experience, to be its new vice chair. Gorelick would earn more than $4 million a year for the next six years, and no one in the media asked why.

They did not even ask why when she stepped down. Always the patriot, Gorelick resigned to take one of five Democratic seats on the Sept. 11 Commission.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Obama's Iranian hostage crisis ~ By Jack Cashill

Those geniuses in the Obama Chicago-style thugocracy can't figure out how to plug a hole. Jack explains how those lefties in power that think we can't run our own lives or businesses without their intrusion always seem to run into problems they have no idea how to solve. Jimmy Carter had his 444 days of the Iranian hostage crisis. Yet when Ronald Reagan took the oath of office, the next thing you knew, the hostages were released. Go figure.

Now we have the environmental disaster from the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, and Obama and his geniuses have no clue what to do, except maybe take BP to court. Sorry, but that doesn't save the wildlife and stop the leak and it definitely isn't doing anything for the fishing and tourist industries along the Gulf coast. But it is even worse than what Jack is talking about with the oil spill. I don't see much sign of the economy recovering, either. They are still digging us further and further into the national debt hole. And ObamaCare isn't going to solve the rising cost of health care anytime soon, if EVER! And in the meantime, illegal immigrants are still spilling across the Southern border with Mexico... except maybe not so much in Arizona anymore thanks to their brave action.

Rahm Emanuel's stupid mantra about never letting a crisis go to waste is backfiring. They aren't looking so smart these days. In fact, every time there's a crisis, they seem to know how to make it worse. Maybe it is time for the Republicans to not let a crisis go to waste, and whip the Democrats this November and in 2012, and take back Congress and the White House. Just sayin'...

Like their president, Obama's best and brightest believe that "human beings don't always do what's in their rational best interest ... but with the proper government rules and incentives, society could be dramatically improved."

Now if just a one of these geniuses could plug a damn hole, we might begin to take their claims of improving stuff a little more seriously.

By Jack Cashill

Posted: June 03, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Almost from the day the oil started gushing in the Gulf of Mexico, conservative pundits were describing the problem as "Obama's Katrina."

In a vacuum, this would not have seemed strictly fair, given that there was nothing about the gusher itself or Obama's initial response to it that would have merited his ownership.

Five years earlier, however, Democratic loyalists and their media allies had for the first time in history bestowed ownership of a hurricane on a president, and they did this even before Katrina made landfall.

After the hurricane hit, this same unholy cabal largely exempted the Democratic mayor and governor from responsibility and attributed all their failures, as well as the routine shortcomings of any federal operation, to President Bush personally.

By the time the media finished slicing and dicing Bush, they had people in New Orleans thinking that Karl Rove had blown up the dikes and Bush himself, in the memorable words of singer Kanye West, had given the military "permission to go down and shoot us."

So Republican turn-around in assigning blame is certainly fair play. Besides, if Obama did not deserve blame for the leak itself, he has come to own the administration's futile response.

Critics continue, however, to use the wrong metaphor to describe his pickle. This is no longer "Obama's Katrina." This is "Obama's Iranian hostage crisis." The Katrina folly ended after a few days. Today, on day 40-something and counting, this is the folly that keeps on embarrassing.

Jimmy Carter can sympathize. For the 444 unhappy days after his new Islamic friends seized our embassy and took the workers hostage, the media microscope zoomed in on his presidential warts.

Although Carter was never much fun to begin with, he could allow himself none while his misunderstood buddies humiliated him and us before the world. The crisis eventually cost him the presidency.

Now, this crisis is magnifying the weaknesses of Obama's presidency, one of which is his fatal reliance on what is sometimes called "Maslow's hammer." Said psychologist Abraham Maslow some years back, "It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."

Given that Obama, like so many prominent Democrats – Michelle, both Clintons, Kerry, the late Ted Kennedy, John Edwards – is a lawyer surrounded by other lawyers, the tool he has at hand is the lawsuit.

Accordingly, from day 1, Obama has spent his energy not on fixing the problem, but on fixing the blame. He seems to have no greater goal than finding someone to sue or maybe, if AG Eric Holder gets lucky, even imprison.

But unlike health-care reform or financial regulation, Obama cannot just hold a few hearings, harass a few people and pretend he has solved the problem. This problem is just too real.

Obama's futility has proved particularly corrosive because he promised so much. Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, in fact, has titled his new Obama book, "The Promise."

Although critics on the right, me included, have busied ourselves looking to see who is pulling Obama's strings, I am now convinced that if there is a puppet master, it is Obama himself.

This seems counterintuitive. We naturally look for something larger, something more worthy of our concern. But there is something large afoot here, and that is Obama's super-sized ego.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

The Democrats' media hatchet men ~ By Jack Cashill

Jack Cashill points out that when it comes to the media reporting on the tea parties, their big scam is that it is all about race, which of course, everyone knows, is not the case. Not whatsoever. In fact, the media spin is the same when it comes to the Arizona immigration law recently passed. In fact, ANY TIME there is any dissent about any of Obama's agenda, the media will point out immediately that the dissenters are racist. When is the media establishment going to learn that those of us out here with any common sense think that the race card strategy is really getting old?

As the folks at Eggs and Enlightenment well understood, Cleaver doesn't have to demonize anyone. His hatchet people in the media will do it for him.

Two years ago, Cleaver and the Dems were peddling hope. Today, apparently, all they have left to sell is fear, and the people at McDonald's are beginning to see through it.

By Jack Cashill

Posted: May 06, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Amidst the early morning cacophony at the McDonald's on 14th and Prospect in Kansas City's urban core, Sonny Gibson calls the meeting to order with a gavel that commands attention – the blunt end of a hatchet.

All told, there will be about 50 people in Sonny's audience, perhaps 45 of them black, about half of comparable vintage to Gibson, a veteran local historian.

Gibson leads with a discussion of the issues of the day from all over the world and from all points of view. Despite what the media want you to believe, there is no orthodoxy here.

Although Gibson may wield a literal hatchet, the most dangerous hatchet men are the metaphorical ones who occupy the city's and the nation's newsrooms.

One of their victims has come to McDonald's seeking help. Gibson turns the floor over to him. Jacob Turk, the Republican candidate for Missouri 5th District congressional seat, is clearly distressed.

Backed by the local media, his opponents' people have been spreading the word through the inner city that Turk is a "teabagger" and that tea-party people are little more than soft-core Ku Kluxers.

In trademark blue suit and red tie, the dogged and sincere ex-Marine appeals to his friends at McDonald's. They know him well enough to ignore the smears, and several of those in attendance vouch for Turk's good heart.

About the tea-party movement, they are much more leery. In that I have spoken to tea-party groups in Missouri, Kansas, New Jersey, Florida and California, Turk has asked me to come and set the record straight.

If the movement has a racial "problem," I explain, the problem is that the largely suburban and rural participants are not concerned with race. It is not on their agenda.

The media would have you believe race was their obsession. "Health care," "cap-and-trade," "card check," "debt" – were merely code for race by another name.

The McClatchy Papers report on the Capitol Hill health-care protest of March 20 was an incendiary case in point. Roared the headline, "Tea-party protesters scream 'nigger' at congressman."

Had an extraterrestrial arrived in American a week prior he would have known enough to doubt this accusation. In 2010, even the Aryan Brotherhood would not have risked screaming the N-word on the Capitol steps.

The Kansas City Star, a McClatchy paper, proved more gullible than my extraterrestrial. The Star immediately posted the article with – mercifully – a more benign headline. Still, the body of the article reinforced the original headline.

To stir his readers to outrage, McClatchy hatchet man William Douglas makes iconic civil-rights veteran John Lewis the subject of the abuse. He is the "congressman" alluded to in the headline.

According to Lewis, however, what the protesters shouted was not a racial slur, but "Kill the bill, kill the bill." If Lewis heard anything more derogatory, he does not seem to have told Douglas about it.

Rep. Andre Carson of Indiana, who was walking with Lewis, claimed to have heard "maybe 15 people" dropping the N-bomb. In the age of the ubiquitous video camera, this was a preposterously reckless charge.

Douglas likely knew enough to avoid Carson. He identifies only Turk's opponent, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, as having heard the slur. Note the way Douglas runs these sentences together.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., said he was a few yards behind Lewis and distinctly heard "nigger."

"It was a chorus," Cleaver said. "In a way, I feel sorry for those people who are doing this nasty stuff."

Douglas leaves the impression that Cleaver heard a "chorus" of people shouting racial slurs when Cleaver said no such thing.

As to the "scream," none of the multiple video cameras, including the two held by Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., walking next to Cleaver, recorded anyone screaming any racial slur. The $100,000 award for proof of even a whispered N-word remains unclaimed.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies!