No hope and change in India

Last month, Obama's envoy to the Muslim world, Farah Pandith, visited the India Islamic Cultural Center. Pandith has been assigned to reach out to Muslim communities, who will supposedly extend an olive branch to America now that George W. Bush is no longer in office.

But when Pandith was asked tough questions about American military involvement in the Middle East and the conflict over Kashmir, the cat got her tongue. The Indian press was unimpressed. One article, posted at the Indian blog Kashir Watch, absolutely tore her to pieces.

She came. She saw. She, er, left. Breaking hopes and dreams, this decorous US representative for Muslim world Farah Pandit left, failing to inspire during her three day visit. Even while interacting with selected group of journalists and intelligentsia off-record, she avoided crucial questions on Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq in a brazen tactless manner. In contrast, her accomplice Uzra Zeya, Political Minister-counselor in US Embassy displayed typical diplomatic acumen to cover Pandit’s uninspiring and un-diplomatic persona.

Her ardour got finally punctured at the only public function arranged for her at the India Islamic Culture Centre (IICC), which was devoid of any intellectual content. All manner of camera teams, scribblers, acolytes and stargazers had assembled for an audience to seek glimpse and hear President Obama’s envoy, a purported hope for new world.

...

From her interaction with Muslim journalists to interacting with students in Jamia Millia Islamia Farah Pandit repeated the clich “to build partnerships with Muslim communities across the globe on the basis of mutual interest and mutual respect.”

President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are more than serious about establishing good relations with the Muslim communities on the basis of mutual interest and mutual respect. We are engaging young Muslim generation in dialogues and conversations to build trust and remove misunderstandings, said Kashmir-born Farah Pandit. Asked how she thinks President Barack Obama’s outreach effort to the Muslim world is successful, she said: We have continued our efforts to reach to the Muslim communities and build relations and remove misconceptions. We are not ticking box to list success points.

She took several questions from the journalists, most of them were from Urdu media, but carefully avoided political issues when repeatedly asked why the US needed to launch such outreach efforts and a special portfolio of United States Special Representative to Muslim Communities. When asked specifically if the move is an admission that some of its foreign policies have gone wrong, she again did not answer clearly.

One-fourth of the world population is Muslim, so United States wants to build partnership with Muslim communities across the planet on the basis of mutual interest and mutual respect, she again repeated at IICC during her 5-minute speech. “Since I assumed office last September I have been crisscrossing the Muslim world. I have visited Nigeria, Indonesia, Iraq and many other Muslim countries. For us New Delhi is as much important as any Muslim country because India has third largest Muslim population in the world,” said she who had reached the venue after visiting Jamia Millia Islamia where she gave a lecture on “Muslims in the US.” “As more than 25% of the world population is below the age of 30, we want to engage youth of the Muslim community,” she said.

Earlier welcoming Farah Pandit, IICC President and businessman Sirajuddin Qureshi said that turning clash of civilizations into dialogue between civilizations is the hallmark of Obama’s regime. If the US could play effective role in resolving Palestine-Israel conflict, it will be welcomed by the Muslim world. “I am proud of being Indian and Muslim. I assure you of our full support to Obama’s vision,” he said. Prof. Akhtarul Wasey of Jamia Millia Islamia said the world Muslims have now high expectation from President Obama after his speeches in his inauguration, in Turkey and Egypt where he gave clear indication of shift in US approach to the Muslim world. “Now they are awaiting the day when Iraq and Afghanistan will be completely free of foreign occupation,” he said.

Ghulam Nabi Qazi, Vice Chancellor, Jamia Hamdard, said that he being a scientist wants evidence to accept anything. “If things are changing because of Obama’s outreach efforts, they must be seen happening,” he said and urged the Obama Government to normalize visa process for Muslims in India who want to visit US. He narrated his personal incident wherein he, despite holding a diplomatic passport, “was not given visa last year because he was Ghulam Nabi Qazi.” If President Obama could do something on this front, it will bring great change, he said.

Not a single word on Kashmir. When finally our Kashmiri friend Sultanpuri managed to break cordons and convey salutations form her cousins, which he was specially carrying from Srinagar, she just smiled and left. Sultanpur’s camera remained hung his shoulders without recording his rubbing of shoulders with the prima donna of President Obama.

Looks like the Muslim world isn't just going to roll over for Obama after all.

Tyranny in Lloyd's Venezuelan utopia

FCC watcher Seton Motley has a great piece up at Newsbusters about just how Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd's Venezuelan media paradise is shaping up. Lloyd has lauded Hugo Chavez for seizing control of his country's TV and radio stations.

Here's the latest out of Venezuela from the AP:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Friday defended the arrest of a major TV channel owner, calling him a criminal and denying the government is carrying out an assault on press freedom.

The back-to-back arrests this week of two government opponents - including the owner of Venezuela's only remaining anti-Chavez TV channel - have drawn accusations that Chavez is growing increasingly intolerant and authoritarian as his popular support has slipped.

Click here to read Motley's Newsbusters analysis.

EPA seizes control of coasts

The EPA made a stunning power grab this morning that went virtually unnoticed in the press.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) today officially accepted the proposal to designate waters off the North American coasts as an Emission Control Area (ECA) – a move that will result in cleaner air for millions of Americans. Large ships that operate in ECAs must use dramatically cleaner fuel and technology, leading to major air quality and public health benefits that extend hundreds of miles inland. The ECA was proposed in March 2009 and the IMO adopted it in the fastest possible timetable.

...

Enforcing the stringent ECA standards will reduce sulfur content in fuel by 98 percent - slashing particulate matter emissions by 85 percent, and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions by 80 percent. To achieve these reductions, tougher sulfur standards will phase in starting in 2012, ultimately reaching no more than 1,000 parts per million by 2015. Also, new ships must use advanced emission control technologies beginning in 2016 which will help reduce NOx emissions.

This is the most sweeping environmental regulation yet by the EPA and its effects on the shipping industry could be devastating. Most of the ships that enter our waters are from other countries -- in other words, free trade. But if foreign nations have to pay exorbitant amounts of money to cut emissions on their ships, they may just decide trade isn't worth it after all. Regardless, the effect on American imports can only be detrimental.

In fact, we already know how this will play out. Buried in a short New York Times item on the EPA this morning was this bit of news.

In waters off California, where an emissions control zone extending 24 nautical miles from the coastline went into effect last year, cargo ships have been going out of their way to avoid the control area.

Now Obama's EPA has extended that emissions control zone in a loop around the entire country. It's now impossible for a ship to get in or out of U.S. and Canadian waters if it's polluting too much. What if the ships that went out of their way to avoid California's stringent rules now go out of their way to avoid American waters altogether? What if they decide it's just not worth it?

The health police cometh

Along with countless others, we've been warning for months that socialized health care will mean socialized health. When every is paying for everyone else's medical bills, your personal fitness will become everyone else's business. Consequently, the state will crack down on unhealthy habits to try to save money.

Health care reform passed a week and a half ago and it's already happening. The FDA has announced strict new regulations on tobacco that will go into effect June 22.

The rules prohibit

sales of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco to individuals younger than age 18;

sales of cigarette packages with fewer than 20 cigarettes;

sales of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco in vending machines, self-service displays or other impersonal modes of sale, except in very limited situations;

free samples of cigarettes;

tobacco brand name sponsorship of any athletic, musical, or other social or cultural event, or any team or entry in those events;

gifts or other items in exchange for buying cigarettes or smokeless tobacco products; and

sale or distribution of items, such as hats and tee shirts, with tobacco brands or logos.

The new regulations also limit distribution of smokeless tobacco products and require that audio advertisements use only words with no music or sound effects.

In other words, tobacco companies are essentially no longer allowed to advertise their product, unless they want to pay for the equivalent of a radio public service announcement. Regulations on cigarette PR were already tight, but this latest clampdown makes it almost impossible for tobacco companies to do business. Congress also passed an anti-smoking bill last year that outlawed sweetened and light cigarettes, among other changes. Couple that with punitive state and federal excise taxes that have driven cigarette costs in New York up to $11 per carton, and you have an industry where it's almost illegal to sell a product.

Despite the fact that Obama is a former smoker and has struggled with quitting himself, his administration seems hell-bent on just making smoking illegal, period. It's the next logical bend on the road to socialized medicine.

Sebelius gets in on the intimidation game

Looks like the entire White House has gone to war with American business over health care reform. Last week, the insurance industry pointed out that the ObamaCare bill didn't require them to cover children. Alarms were quickly sounded across Pennsylvania Avenue and Capitol Hill.

Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday.

However, if a child is accepted for coverage, or is already covered, the insurer cannot exclude payment for treating a particular illness, as sometimes happens now.

That an error like this could slip through simply proves that no Democrat actually bothered to read the bill before it passed, including Obama himself. Democrats attacked Republicans constantly by drawing the cloak of The Children around them. The implication was that conservatives who opposed ObamaCare for any reason were opposing children's health. It took the insurance companies to point out that they completely forgot to extend the ban on preexisting conditions to children without health care.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius was not pleased...with the insurance companies for embarrassing her. She fired off a threatening letter to Karen Ignagni, head of the insurers' trade association.

Unfortunately recent media accounts indicate that some insurance companies may be seeking to avoid or ignore a provision in the new law that prohibits insurance companies from excluding children with pre-existing conditions from coverage.

Health insurance reform is designed to prevent any child from being denied coverage because he or she has a pre-existing condition. Leaders in Congress have reaffirmed this in recent days in the attached statement.

Sebelius indicated she would provide additional regulations in the coming weeks to clarify that all children with pre-existing conditions must be covered.

But the insurance companies weren't planning on further denying coverage. If they wanted to, they wouldn't have announced the loophole to the entire American press. They were merely seeking clarification on a new regulation. Sebelius can beat up the insurers all she wants, but she might try actually reading the bill next time.

Rahm, Jarrett bully businesses

Last week, several businesses announced that they would sustain massive losses because of ObamaCare and would likely have to fire workers. These included giants like Caterpillar, Verizon, AT&T, and Deere & Co. Caterpillar announced they would lose $100 million in the first year alone. AT&T put its cost at $1 billion. With polls showing a solid majority of Americans think passage of ObamaCare was a bad thing, the White House can't take this lying down.

"These are Republican CEOs who are trying to embarrass the President and Democrats in general," says a White House legislative affairs staffer. "Where do you hear about this stuff? The Wall Street Journal editorial page and conservative websites. No one else picked up on this but you guys. It's BS."

On Friday White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and Obama senior advisor Valerie Jarrett were calling the CEOs and Washington office heads of the companies that took the financial hits and attacked them for doing so. One Washington office head said that the White House calls were accusatory and "downright rude."

This is political intimidation in its finest form, both of journalists and businessmen. Emanuel is a master of the threatening hissy fit and Jarrett has played her share of hardball politics as well. Still, for a presidential administration to try to shut companies up for something as simple as reporting losses is unprecedented in our history.

And it's not just the White House.

Waxman of California, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak of Michigan released letters they wrote to the executives, saying their plans to record expenses against earnings as a result of the law contradict other estimates. The lawmakers requested the executives appear at hearing Stupak plans on April 21.

“The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern,” Waxman and Stupak, both Democrats, wrote in the letters yesterday. “They also appear to conflict with independent analyses.”

In other words, Waxman is outraged because what his friends at the Center for American Progress said would happen with their "independent analyses" isn't actually going to happen.

The problem here is in Medicare Part D. Previously the government had offered tax subsidies for all companies that offered Part D to their retirees. Businesses like Caterpillar and AT&T quickly signed on, seeing it as a cost-effective way to take care of their retired employees. ObamaCare cuts these subsidies because the president wanted a way to make the bill appear deficit-neutral to the CBO. When Republicans warned that Medicare cuts could hurt seniors and companies, they were shouted down by Obama and company. Now that their warnings are playing out in real life, the White House is desperately trying to cover up the evidence.

Craig Becker supports illegal alien workers

Over the weekend, President Obama announced 15 recess appointments. The most controversial of these is Craig Becker, a former SEIU lawyer. Becker was already in hot water because of his radical legal writings, including a 1993 piece arguing that workers should be forced to unionize. Now Naked Emperor News has dug up audio of Becker from a radio interview in 2001 voicing strong support for illegal alien workers.

BECKER: "SEIU, the largest union, and many of the other large unions now have a very, very progressive position on immigration and immigration reform, which, of course, unfortunately they didn't have 100 years ago. So it has a very great effect who we represent and who we're trying to represent on the politics of the labor movement."

HOST: "Can you be a little more specific about immigration? What do you mean a progressive policy on immigration"

BECKER "Well I think there's been a recognition that employer sanctions and the effort through punitive sanctions to prevent the hiring of aliens who do not have proper work papers has had a very deleterious effect. It's had a discriminatory effect. It's had a very harsh effect on a class of people who are here, who are going to remain here, who are going to keep coming here because of conditions which simply can't be affected through those kind of punitive sanctions. And then we have to have a different approach."

Becker's position seems to confirm what many have suspected for a long time: Unions are less representative of workers than progressive activists. Illegal aliens are horrible for American labor because they take blue-collar jobs and work for less. But instead of fighting for their members, unions are taking the standard progressive position. Obama has indicated that immigration reform will be his next project. It will be interesting to see which side the labor unions come down on.

Also interesting was Becker's contention that illegal immigration has changed who the unions are "trying to represent". Just how many criminal aliens are in the SEIU and AFL-CIO?

Becker's recess appointment places him on the National Labor Relations Board without a proper Senate vote. There he'll be one of five members who will shape labor relations for years to come.

House condemns Obama on Israel

Last week, Barack Obama kicked American-Israeli relations to their lowest point in decades by abandoning Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House. An Israeli aide later said Netayahu had been treated in a way usually reserved for the president of Equatorial Guinea. Obama's actions were so offensive that a heavy majority in the House of Representatives condemned the president over the weekend.

Meanwhile, in Washington, 337 congressmen – three-quarters of the House of Representatives – signed a bipartisan letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing solid support for Israel and the expectation that differences between Jerusalem and Washington will be smoothed over quickly and in private.

“We are writing to reaffirm our commitment to the unbreakable bond that exists between our country and the State of Israel and to express to you our deep concern over recent tension,” the letter read. “A strong Israel is an asset to the national security of the United States and brings stability to the Middle East.

“We are concerned that the highly publicized tensions in the relationship will not advance the interests the US and Israel share. Above all, we must remain focused on the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear weapons program to Middle East peace and stability.”

The letter stated that the US’s unswerving commitment to Israel’s security has been essential in forging previous Israeli-Arab peace agreements, “both because it convinced those who sought Israel’s destruction to abandon any such hope and because it gave successive Israeli governments the confidence to take calculated risks for peace.”

"Deep concern" is fighting words in Capitol Hill's hyper-polite culture. Condemnation of his policy on Israel might be Obama's first, real, bipartisan achievement. The highest signatories were House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor. Blue Dog Democrats also signed en masse.

All this led to some spectacular backtracking by David Axelrod. The president's advisor had previously called Netanyahu's decision to build apartments in East Jerusalem "destructive" to peace and "an insult." Yesterday on CNN, he moderated his rhetoric, insisting that there had been "no snub intended" by the United States and that Israel is a "close, dear and valued friend of the United States, a great ally, and that is an unshakeable bond." All this should serve as a message to moderate Democrat congressmen: If you band together and stand firm, the president will be forced to listen.

Meanwhile, Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, has kept his lips sealed. He can't be happy about the administration's snub though. Emanuel is a former civilian volunteer with the Israeli Defense Forces and has strong connections to Israel. He's also a close friend of Axelrod's, with whom he's likely spoken since Netanyahu's visit.

Clash between two of Obama's czars

One of the downsides about appointing unelected and unaccountable officials is there's usually no one to reign them in. As Obama's treatment of Israel creates tremors throughout his administration, Central Region Czar Dennis Ross and Mideast Peace Czar George Mitchell are having at it.

Sources say within the inter-agency process, White House Middle East strategist Dennis Ross is staking out a position that Washington needs to be sensitive to Netanyahu’s domestic political constraints including over the issue of building in East Jerusalem in order to not raise new Arab demands, while other officials including some aligned with Middle East peace envoy George Mitchell are arguing Washington needs to hold firm in pressing Netanyahu for written commitments to avoid provocations that imperil Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and to preserve the Obama administration's credibility.

Ross is perhaps Obama's sanest czar. A product of the president's "team of rivals" thinking at the beginning of his term, Ross fervently supported the Iraq War and worked as a Fox News contributor. Mitchell is a former Democratic Senate Majority Leader and is widely respected throughout the Middle East. Nevertheless, his comment about staying tough on Israel so Obama doesn't lose "credibility" is very telling. In other words, the president has hurt feelings because Netanyahu announced the apartments' construction in East Jerusalem while Biden was in the country. But it's difficult to see how snubbing the leader of one of America's strongest allies in the White House boosts their credibility.

Either way, Ross will now have to be destroyed by the more radical elements of the Obama Administration. An unnamed official is leading the charge.

“He [Ross] seems to be far more sensitive to Netanyahu's coalition politics than to U.S. interests,” one U.S. official told POLITICO Saturday. “And he doesn't seem to understand that this has become bigger than Jerusalem but is rather about the credibility of this Administration."

So American-Israeli relations are in shambles, the president doesn't care, and the one czar who expresses concern is practically accused of treason.

Messina's history of primary meddling and bribery

As we've reported, Rep. Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania, locked in a heated Democratic primary with White House tool Arlen Specter, has alleged that the Obama Administration tried to bribe him. According to Sestak, Obama's henchmen offered him a high-ranking post in the administration if he dropped his primary challenge to Specter. Many have speculated that the position was Secretary of the Navy, as Sestak is a former admiral. White House press flack Robert Gibbs has refused to deny the allegations on four separate occasions.

We've been wondering for weeks: Who made the bribe? Sestak is almost certainly telling the truth, so who's the culprit? Rahm Emanuel and Patrick Gaspard are likely suspects, but another name has emerged today: Jim Messina. Messina is Obama's deputy chief of staff -- and he has a history of this sort of corruption.

From the September 27, 2009 edition of the Denver Post:

Not long after news leaked last month that Andrew Romanoff was determined to make a Democratic primary run against Sen. Michael Bennet, Romanoff received an unexpected communication from one of the most powerful men in Washington.

Jim Messina, President Barack Obama's deputy chief of staff and a storied fixer in the White House political shop, suggested a place for Romanoff might be found in the administration and offered specific suggestions, according to several sources who described the communication to The Denver Post.

Romanoff turned down the overture, which included mention of a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency, sources said.

Then, the day after Romanoff formally announced his Senate bid, Obama endorsed Bennet.

Romanoff was the Colorado Speaker of the House at the time. The Denver Post spends the rest of the article arguing that such bribery is commonplace in Washington. But that's simply not the case. Even with political mastermind Karl Rove at the helm, George W. Bush's administration never offered anyone a job in exchange for dropping out of a race. Further, according to U.S. Code 18, Section 595, someone who “uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate of the District of Columbia or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under the title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” This is criminal activity.

Messina is essentially Rahm Jr. -- he shares his boss' love of profanity and Machiavellian political tactics. But he's also far less visible than Emanuel, shunning the press and preferring privacy. He seems like the perfect choice to bribe a bothersome Democrat politician.

Rep. Darrell Issa, Republican of California, is threatening to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Sestak flap. If he succeeds, one of Obama's top political henchmen could find himself facing criminal charges.

Hard to believe it, but yes we do

Obama's new housing plan: more government

The new plan is the same as the old plan. Obama announced his big new housing initiative today aimed at stemming the foreclosure crisis. Essentially, the government is going to lean on lenders to decrease the value of loans held by borrowers who are struggling financially.

The administration’s earlier efforts to stem foreclosures have largely been directed at borrowers who were experiencing financial hardship. But the biggest new initiative, which is also likely to be the most controversial, will involve the government, through the Federal Housing Administration, refinancing loans for borrowers who simply owe more than their houses are worth.

About 11 million households, or a fifth of those with mortgages, are in this position, known as being underwater. Some of these borrowers refinanced their houses during the boom and took cash out, leaving them vulnerable when prices declined. Others simply had the misfortune to buy at the peak.

Many of these loans have been bundled together and sold to investors. Under the new program, the investors would have to swallow losses, but would probably be assured of getting more in the long run than if the borrowers went into foreclosure. The F.H.A. would insure the new loans against the risk of default. The borrower would once again have a reason to make payments instead of walking away from a property.

The government tried to run its own lending companies before and you'll recall what happened with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Now they're going to start refinancing loans for struggling families. This is the first government program in memory that forces companies not to collect money that's owed to them. With the economy tough and very few loans going out as it is, what will be the economic impact of forcing lenders to take massive losses?

And then there's this problem.

This much was clear, however: the plan, if successful, could put taxpayers at increased risk. If many additional borrowers move into F.H.A. loans, a renewed downturn in the housing market could send that government agency into the red.

If the program gets bigger, as do most government programs, a substantial portion of the lending section could become tied to the mast of the F.H.A. Any losses would inherently become the government's losses and could require massive injections of cash to keep the F.H.A. afloat -- cash the government doesn't have. In other words, it's just more creep into the economy by a government that doesn't have any money to begin with.

As the House plans to approve a plan to nationalize the entire student loan industry, how long until Obama just nationalizes the entire lending sector?

Relations with America's two strongest allies in shambles

Barack Obama campaigned for president promising to "restore our standing in the world" after eight years of the war on terrorism under George W. Bush. Two years later, the fighting is still raging in Iraq and Afghanistan. But worst of all, Obama has continually snubbed Britain and Israel, our strongest allies in the world. Last week, Joe Biden scolded the Israeli government after they announced the construction of apartments in a contested area of East Jerusalem while he was there. Today Obama made the situation much worse.

For a head of government to visit the White House and not pose for photographers is rare. For a key ally to be left to his own devices while the President withdraws to have dinner in private was, until this week, unheard of. Yet that is how Benjamin Netanyahu was treated by President Obama on Tuesday night, according to Israeli reports on a trip viewed in Jerusalem as a humiliation.

After failing to extract a written promise of concessions on settlements, Obama walked out of his meeting with Netanyahu but invited him to stay at the White House, consult with advisers and “let me know if there is anything new”, a U.S. congressman, who spoke to the Prime Minister, said.

“It was awful,” the congressman said. One Israeli newspaper called the meeting “a hazing in stages”, poisoned by such mistrust that the Israeli delegation eventually left rather than risk being eavesdropped on a White House telephone line. Another said that the Prime Minister had received “the treatment reserved for the President of Equatorial Guinea”.

In the ultra-sensitive world of diplomatic relations, this is an absolute cataclysm. It will affect American-Israeli relations for a long time. Prior to Obama's presidency, Israel and America viewed themselves as natural partners in a fight against a common enemy. George W. Bush supported a Palestinian state and occasionally clashed with the Israelis, but never so arrogantly as this.

It also sheds some light onto why Rahm Emanuel has been dropping lines he might leave the administration. Rahm fought for the Israeli army and is widely known to be a firm supporter of Israel. He must be hopping mad over Obama's deplorable treatment of Israeli diplomats.

America's other closest ally is Great Britain, a country for which Obama has shown disdain from day one. The president insulted the British Prime Minister by giving him a collection of American DVDs, sent back a bust of Winston Churchill in the Oval Office, and sent Hillary Clinton to Argentina to support diplomacy over the Falkland Islands, among many other offenses. The Brits are atwitter over their "special relationship" with America being over.

Obama is a product of the same radical thinking that haunted the 1960s and produced men like Bill Ayers. Through this lens, western white nations like American and the U.K. are the true practitioners of evil in the world. True virtue lies in third-world peoples of color. This is why Obama gave a speech in Cairo sucking up to the Muslim world. It's why he stood alone among western nations in supporting a Marxist coup in Honduras. If this thinking persists, it could harm our diplomacy for a long time.

Wife of ex-con progressive Alinskyite to serve on Obama's debt commission

In order to pretend he cares about the national debt, Obama has appointed a bipartisan commission to tackle the problem. The president appointed several members (including SEIU President Andy Stern) as did congressional Republicans. Today, Nancy Pelosi announced her picks. One of them, Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, is married to a progressive ex-con who wrote an updated version of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.

His name is Robert Creamer. His book, Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, is a pseudo-Marxist handbook for remaking American society. The advice he dispenses draws heavily on the tactics of Alinsky, a communist community organizer who inspired Barack Obama. White House advisor David Axelrod has described Stand Up Straight as a "blueprint" for all progressives. Creamer's ties to Democrats run deep, probably because they're all reading from his book. Here's how Creamer suggested progressives should go about reforming health care.

Create a national consensus that health care is a right

Create a national consensus that the health care system is in crisis

Convince political leaders that they owe their elections to the groundswell of support for universal health care face peril if they fail to deliver on health care in 2009

Need not agree in advance on the components of the plan, but foster a process that can ultimately yield consensus

Focus especially on the mobilization of the labor movement and the faith community

Generate emotion: fear, revulsion, anger, disgust

Creamer's tactics were used part and parcel in the recent ObamaCare debate.

Creamer is also a convict. In 2004, he was indicted for writing fake checks to the tune of $2.3 million. Creamer immediately pleaded guilty to the charge and agreed to repay the money. He served five months in prison and another 11 months under house arrest for his crime.

Schakowsky's politics closely mirror those of her husband. She's essentially a socialist, supporting greater government intervention in the economy at virtually every turn. She openly supported the public option during the recent health care debate in the hopes that it would produce a single-payer system. She's mired in the same Chicago cesspool as Barack Obama; Rod Blagojevich even mulled over appointing her to the president's former Senate seat. She also tried to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. What she brings to the table on debt reduction remains unclear. No doubt she'll stand firmly against cutting any social programs or government waste, taking the advice of her radical husband.

Obama secures $1.15 billion in reparations for black farmers

In 1999, the USDA agreed to pay $1 billion to 16,000 black farmers. A judge had ruled that the agency had a 50-year history of discriminating against African-Americans, back when virtually every agency was discriminating against African-Americans. But that wasn't enough for the black farmers and one former senator.

Critics argued that more than 70,000 farmers were shut out of the lawsuit. In 2008, then-Sen. Barack Obama and Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley got a law passed to reopen the case, and the settlement talks moved forward.

The USDA and the farmers reached a deal last month to award another $1.25 billion for the rural blacks. All this is to make amends for a grievance that occurred decades ago and that was solved 11 years ago. Now the government has to find a way to pony up over a billion dollars before the imposed deadline of March 31. If the money isn't appropriated in time, both parties could walk away from the table and the case could rage on. The black farmers, who were initially demanding $2.5 billion but settled, are likely to do just that. With staggering amounts of debt piling up and the Congress in paralysis after the health care debate, Obama needs to find a way to shove his latest affirmative action payout through and fast.