The Hard Truth

Journal of Political News & Constitutionalism

Archive for January 2009

Obama’s Treasury Secretary Presided Over Wall Street Collapse As Well As Cheated on His Taxes

leave a comment »

Posted: January 29, 2009
9:35 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 

NEW YORK – While the nomination of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner generated plenty of heat because of his failure to pay income taxes for five years, almost unnoticed amid the controversy is the fact that he presided over the failure of some of the largest banking institutions in the world – institutions he was charged with overseeing and regulating as head of the New York region of the Federal Reserve Bank.

On Nov. 17, 2003, Geithner became the ninth president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank, a position he held until he was nominated by President Obama as treasury secretary.

The Federal Reserve’s charter makes it responsible for the strength of the financial institutions operating in each of its 12 regional districts. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York presides over Wall Street-based financial institutions.

In the current financial crisis, the Federal Reserve has played a major role in responding to the meltdown of banks and investment firms, including some of the nation’s largest.

During Geithner’s tenure as CEO of the New York Fed, he presided over the following major economic failures:

  • March 2008: Investment bank Bear Stearns collapses from losses in subprime mortgage obligations and derivatives transactions; J.P. Morgan Chase buys Bear Stearns in a deal arranged by the Federal Reserve for the dramatically reduced value of $2 a share, with the Federal Reserve guaranteeing J.P. Morgan against $30 billion in Bear Stearns asset losses.
  • September 2008: Wall Street investment bank Lehman Brothers closes doors in bankruptcy after the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve refuse to arrange a merger plan, a bailout or a guarantee program to save the Wall Street giant.
  • September 2008: The Bank of America buys Wall Street investment bank Merrill Lynch in a $50 billion deal that saves Merrill Lynch from having to declare bankruptcy.
  • September 2008: The Federal Reserve extends to insurance giant American International Group, or AIG, an $85 billion loan that saves it from going bankrupt from derivatives loses in a massive $441 billion exposure to credit default swaps.
  • November 2008: Citibank received $45 billion through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, plus Treasury Department, Federal Reserve and FDIC guarantees on $306 billion in troubled assets held by the bank.
  • January 2009: Morgan Stanley takes over Citibank’s Smith Barney investment unit as Citibank unravels the “financial supermarket” conglomerate accumulated when Sandy Weill combined Travelers Insurance, investment bank Smith Barney and Citibank to form Citigroup in the 1990s.

The Obama administration has touted Geithner as a financial wizard uniquely qualified to preside over the U.S. Treasury during this period of economic crisis, despite the obvious failure of the New York Federal Reserve Bank to sustain the solvency of New York financial institutions during his tenure.

Globalists also noted Geithner’s credentials. He worked for Kissinger and Associates for three years in Washington, D.C.

Then, from 1998-2001, he served as under secretary of the treasury for international affairs under Clinton administration treasury secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers.

He is an active member of the Council of Foreign Relations.

Geithner also has previous ties to Obama.

At the Ford Foundation in the early 1980s, Geithner oversaw micro-finance programs in Indonesia, where he reportedly met in person with Obama’s mother. Ann Dunham spent part of her career working in Indonesian micro-finance after she received her Ph.D. in anthropology. 

Advertisements

US State Dept. Employee Files Legal Challenge to Clinton’s Appointment

leave a comment »

Posted: January 30, 2009
12:20 am Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 


A State Department employee has filed a lawsuit today in federal court against newly sworn-in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claiming she is constitutionally ineligible to serve.

Judicial Watch, a public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it is pursuing the complaint in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C, on behalf of U.S. Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David C. Rodearmel.

Rodearmel, a resident of Virginia, maintains Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as secretary of state and that he cannot serve under her because doing so would go against the oath he took as a foreign service officer in 1991 to “support and defend” and “bear true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution of the United States.

“This is not a partisan, political or personal issue,” Rodearmel said in a statement. “I have faithfully served under six prior Secretaries of State of both parties, and under eight Presidents since first taking the oath to uphold the Constitution as a young Army officer cadet. … As a commissioned State Department Foreign Service Officer, a retired Army Reserve Judge Advocate Officer, and as a lawyer, I consider it my Constitutional duty to bring this case to the courts.”

The constitutional quandary arises from a clause that forbids members of the Senate from being appointed to civil office, such as the secretary of state, if the “emoluments,” or salary and benefits, of the office were increased during the senator’s term.

The second clause of Article 1, Section 6, of the Constitution reads, “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.”

As WND has reported, James Madison’s notes on the debates that formed the Constitution explain the reason for the clause. Madison himself argued against “the evils” of corrupt governments where legislators created salaried positions – or increased the salary of positions – and then secured appointments to the comfortable jobs they just created. Others agreed that such tactics were evident in Colonial and British government, and they wrote Article 1, Section 6 to prevent the practice.

According to the lawsuit, the “emoluments” of the office of secretary of state increased as many as three times since Clinton began her second, six-year Senate term in January 2007. On Jan. 1, 2007, the secretary of state’s salary increased to $186,600. In 2008, it increased to $191,300, and on Jan. 1, 2009, it increased again to $196,700.

The complaint states, the court has exclusive jurisdiction over the case under Public Law No. 110-455, 122 Stat. 5036, allowing anyone aggrieved by an action of the U.S. Secretary of State to contest “the constitutionality of the appointment and continuance in office of the Secretary of State on the grounds that such appointment and continuance in office is in violation of article I, section 6, clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution.”

The lawsuit acknowledges that Congress tried to shirk the constitutional exclusion with a “Saxbe fix,” reducing the Clinton’s salary to the level in effect before Jan. 1, but it states that the legislation “does not and cannot change the historical fact that the ‘compensation and other emoluments’ of the office of the U.S. Secretary of State increased during Defendant Clinton’s tenure in the U.S. Senate. …”

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said he hopes the lawsuit will send a loud and clear message to Republicans and Democrats.

“This historic legal challenge should remind politicians of both parties that the U.S. Constitution is not to be trifled with,” he said. “Mrs. Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as the U.S. Secretary of State until at least 2013, when her second term in the U.S. Senate expires. We hope the courts will put a stop to these end runs around the Constitution and affirm the rule of law.”

Kissell’s ‘buy American’ adopted

leave a comment »

By Lisa Zagaroli
lzagaroli@charlotteobserver.com
US NEWS CONGRESS 17 MCT

Representative Larry Kissell of North Carolina’s 8th district fields a phone call from the press as he settles into his new office after being sworn in on the first day of the 111th Congress, January 6, 2009. The new Democratic congressman will be serving on the House Armed Services Committee. (Melissa Golden/MCT)

WASHINGTON Rep. Larry Kissell went back to his textile roots in getting his first amendment as a member of Congress adopted Wednesday.

The freshman Democrat who represents parts of Charlotte and surrounding counties got a “buy American” provision attached to the $819 billion stimulus bill, approved by the House on Wednesday.

The measure would expand a rule that military uniforms be completely made and assembled in the United States to the clothing worn by Transportation Security Administration officers who monitor airports and other transportation systems like trains and subways.

“This is an opportunity to put Americans to work and keep them at work,” Kissell told his colleagues during debate on the House floor. “What could be better than putting our taxpayer money for that purpose and to put uniforms on the people that serve us?”

Kissell worked in the textile industry for 27 years before becoming a high school civics teacher in Montgomery County. In November, he beat longtime GOP Rep. Robin Hayes with a campaign that promised to help create local jobs.

It’s unclear how many jobs are at stake.

A TSA spokeswoman says that while the fabric for the shirts that the agency’s 50,000 security officers wear is already made in the United States, they are assembled in Honduras and Mexico. She wasn’t sure about the manufacturing of the uniform pants.

Kissell downplayed the personal milestone of having his first measure passed. The Senate must also approve the stimulus bill with Kissell’s amendment for it to become law.

“The good feeling is if this goes on and passes … it will help American workers,” he said.

Postmaster General Says Mail Delivery May Be Cut

leave a comment »

Featured Topics:

 

Mail Delivery May Be Cut Back Play Video CBS 3 Philadelphia  – Postmaster General: Mail Delivery May Be Cut Bac

U.S Postmaster Gen. John Potter takes note on Capitol Hill in Washington, AP – U.S Postmaster Gen. John Potter takes note on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2009, while …

WASHINGTON – Massive deficits could force the post office to cut out one day of mail delivery, the postmaster general told Congress on Wednesday, in asking lawmakers to lift the requirement that the agency deliver mail six days a week.

If the change happens, that doesn’t necessarily mean an end to Saturday mail delivery. Previous post office studies have looked at the possibility of skipping some other day when mail flow is light, such as Tuesday.

Faced with dwindling mail volume and rising costs, the post office was $2.8 billion in the red last year. “If current trends continue, we could experience a net loss of $6 billion or more this fiscal year,” Postmaster General John E. Potter said in testimony for a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee.

Total mail volume was 202 billion items last year, over 9 billion less than the year before, the largest single volume drop in history.

And, despite annual rate increases, Potter said 2009 could be the first year since 1946 that the actual amount of money collected by the post office declines.

“It is possible that the cost of six-day delivery may simply prove to be unaffordable,” Potter said. “I reluctantly request that Congress remove the annual appropriation bill rider, first added in 1983, that requires the Postal Service to deliver mail six days each week.”

“The ability to suspend delivery on the lightest delivery days, for example, could save dollars in both our delivery and our processing and distribution networks. I do not make this request lightly, but I am forced to consider every option given the severity of our challenge,” Potter said.

That doesn’t mean it would happen right away, he noted, adding that the agency is working to cut costs and any final decision on changing delivery would have to be made by the postal governing board.

If it did become necessary to go to five-day delivery, Potter said, “we would do this by suspending delivery on the lightest volume days.”

The Postal Service raised the issue of cutting back on days of service last fall in a study it issued. At that time the agency said the six-day rule should be eliminated, giving the post office, “the flexibility to meet future needs for delivery frequency.

A study done by George Mason University last year for the independent Postal Regulatory Commission estimated that going from six-day to five-day delivery would save the post office more than $1.9 billion annually, while a Postal Service study estimated the saving at $3.5 billion.

The next postal rate increase is scheduled for May, with the amount to be announced next month. Under current rules that would be limited to the amount of the increase in last year’s consumer price index, 3.8 percent. That would round to a 2-cent increase in the current 42-cent first class rate.

The agency could request a larger increase because of the special circumstances, but Potter believes that would be counterproductive by causing mail volume to fall even more.

Dan G. Blair, chairman of the Postal Regulatory Commission, noted in his testimony that cutting service could also carry the risk of loss of mail volume. He suggested Congress review both delivery and restrictions it imposed on the closing of small and rural post offices.

The post office’s problem is twofold, Potter explained.

“A revolution in the way people communicate has structurally changed the way America uses the mail,” with a shift from first-class letters to the Internet for personal communications, billings, payments, statements and business correspondence.

To some extent that was made up for my growth in standard mail — largely advertising — but the economic meltdown has resulted in a drop there also.

Potter also asked that Congress ease the requirement that it make advance payments into a fund to cover future health benefits for retirees. Last year the post office was required to put $5.6 billion into the fund.

“We are in uncharted waters,” Potter said. “But we do know that mail volume and revenue — and with them the health of the mail system — are dependent on the length and depth of the current economic recession.”

He proposed easing the retirement pre-funding for eight years, while promising that the agency will cover the premiums for retirement health insurance.

At the same hearing the General Accounting Office agreed that the post office is facing an urgent need for help to preserve its financial strength. But the GAO suggested easing the pre-funding requirement for only two years, with Congress to determine the need for more relief later.

Potter noted that the agency has cut costs by $1 billion per year since 2002, reduced its work force by 120,000, halted construction of new facilities except in emergencies, frozen executive salaries and is in the process of reducing its headquarters work force by 15 percent.

___

On the Net:

U.S. Postal Service: http://www.usps.com

Obama Continues Support of Infanticide

leave a comment »

Posted: January 27, 2009
10:07 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 

 

President Obama’s nominee for deputy secretary of state contends American taxpayers are required to pay for abortions, a position that contradicts the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution.

James B. Steinberg’s written testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was highlighted by Sen. Jim DeMint, a pro-life Republican serving South Carolina.

In a written response to DeMint’s questions, Steinberg said the Mexico City policy — the newly overturned policy that forbade taxpayer subsidization of abortions overseas — “is an unnecessary restriction that, if applied to organizations based in this country, would be an unconstitutional limitation on free speech.”

Not so, said DeMint, pointing out Steinberg’s stance is in direct opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court.

DeMint cited the 1991 Rust vs. Sullivan decision in which the court ruled, “The government has no constitutional duty to subsidize an activity merely because it is constitutionally protected, and may validly choose to allocate public funds for medical services relating to childbirth but not to abortion.”

DeMint had asked: “For more than 30 years the Hyde amendments, which prohibit federal funding for abortion services, have been supported by Republican and Democrat administrations and Congresses. Unfortunately, while this is the domestic policy of the United States, President Obama has vowed to reverse our foreign policy by repealing the Mexico City policy and use the federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortion services overseas. Do you support President Obama’s efforts to lift the Mexico City restrictions? Do you believe our foreign policy should contradict long held domestic policies?”

Steinberg’s complete response was, “President Obama has supported repeal of the Mexico City policy, as has Secretary Clinton. Longstanding law, authored by Senator Jesse Helms, expressly prohibits the use of U.S. funds [for] abortion. The Mexico City policy is an unnecessary restriction that, if applied to organizations based in this country, would be an unconstitutional limitation on free speech.”

Just days ago, Obama imposed an executive order repealing the Mexico City policy that during President Bush’s tenure protected Americans from being required to fund groups that promote and pay for abortions around the globe.

The plan was originated by President Reagan in 1984. It prohibited non-governmental organizations that receive federal funds from providing or promoting abortions in other nations. President Clinton rescinded the rule Jan. 22, 1993, calling it “excessively broad” and “unwarranted.”

But when President Bush took office in January 2001, he immediately issued an executive order reinstituting the pro-life policy.

“It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortion or actively promote abortion,” Bush said.

International Planned Parenthood Federation and other abortion groups refused to conform to the ban. They continued to provide and promote abortions and, consequently, were denied access to funding from U.S. taxpayers.

A Jan. 16 letter from 77 members of Congress posted by Life News had urged Obama to continue the ban.

“[T]his policy is important because it establishes a bright line between family planning activities and abortion, therefore ensuring that United States family planning funds are not co-opted by groups who promote abortion as a method of family planning,” the letter stated. “Such activities would send a wrong message overseas that the United States promotes abortion.”

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council told the Washington Post, “President Obama issued executive orders banning the torture of terrorists but … signed an order that exports the torture of unborn children around the world.”

Perkins noted that Obama vowed at the debate with Republican candidate Sen. John McCain last fall at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church to find “common ground” on the issue of abortion and that he, as president, would work to “reduce the number of abortions.”

“His action today flies in the face of that vow and probably sets a record as the most quickly broken campaign promise ever,” Perkins said.

The Rust vs. Sullivan decision says rules and regulations regarding abortion funding were consistent with the Constitution.

“Indeed, the legislative history demonstrates that Congress intended that Title X funds be kept separate and distinct from abortion-related activities,” the opinion said.

“The regulations do not violate the First Amendment free speech rights of private Title X fund recipients, their staffs, or their patients by impermissibly imposing viewpoint-discriminatory conditions on Government subsidies. There is no question but that [the] prohibition is constitutional, since the government may make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion, and implement that judgment by the allocation of public funds,” the opinion continued.

“Similarly, in implementing the statutory prohibition by forbidding counseling, referral, and the provision of information regarding abortion as a method of family planning, the regulations simply ensure that appropriated funds are not used for activities, including speech, that are outside the federal program’s scope.”

As a state lawmaker in Illinois, Obama opposed mandated physician help for babies who survive abortions.

The president has promised to sign the “Freedom of Choice Act,” a sweeping bill that would abolish pro-life rules and regulations across the nation.

The organization FightFOCA.com, launched to oppose the plan, already has collected 500,000 signatures in opposition.

According to Pastor Rick Scorborough of Vision America, more than 500 state, federal and local laws would be destroyed by the action.

“There are not enough words to convey the seriousness of this piece of legislation. Now is not the time to bury our heads in the sand and hope this will go away. It won’t. If we don’t do something about it, the basic fundamental right to be born will be taken from millions of unborn children, ironically, in the name of ‘freedom,'” Scarborough wrote.

Among the laws that would be overturned are the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, the Hyde Amendment restricting taxpayer funding of abortions inside the U.S., informed consent laws, waiting period laws, parental consent and notification laws, requirements that abortion businesses follow health regulations, a ban on non-physicians doing abortions and bans on abortions of babies who can survive outside the womb.

Written by bkl1

January 28, 2009 at 10:08 am

Free Speech Under Attack; Permitted 2 Hours Per Week

leave a comment »

Posted: January 27, 2009
10:22 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 

 

A college’s ban on free speech – except for two selected hours per week – has been eliminated in a settlement with the Alliance Defense Fund, which took up the cause on behalf of a student threatened with arrest and expulsion for sharing the story of Jesus.

“Christian students shouldn’t have to face jail and expulsion for expressing their beliefs on a public college campus,” said ADF Litigation Staff Counsel Heather Gebelin Hacker.

“We are pleased that Yuba College officials have finally agreed to recognize that its campus policies cannot strip away the free speech rights of students with religious viewpoints,” she said in a statement released yesterday.

As WND reported, a court told Yuba Community College officials to halt their enforcement of rules banning a student’s Christian testimony while the case was being adjudicated.

The dispute arose when student Ryan Dozier brought a lawsuit after he was cited for speaking on the California campus without a permit. He was warned that a second offense could result in his expulsion.

The ADF lawsuit challenged the school’s policies that limited student free speech activities to just two hours per week and required a permit to be obtained two weeks in advance.

It was Feb. 27 of last year when Dozier arrived on campus in Marysville, north of Sacramento, to go to class and share a Christian message with fellow students.

The ADF said Dozier “was approached by a campus police officer, who told him he needed a permit for such activity and that he would be arrested and face expulsion if he continued. The college allows ‘free speech’ only on Tuesdays and Thursdays between 12 p.m. and 1 p.m., with permission required two weeks in advance.”

A few weeks later, Dozier received a certified letter from the school’s chief officer, Paul Mendoza, with a copy forwarded to the chief of police.

“I will, at this point, issue you a written warning to not violate the ‘Student Code of Conduct’ or any rule or college policy pertaining to student conduct, time, place, and manner or other requirements of the college,” the letter said. “Should you violate my directive, you will face further discipline up to and including expulsion from the college. Do not let this happen!

“I trust you will adhere to my directive,” Mendoza wrote.

The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of such directives.

“A student peacefully exercising his First Amendment right to speak on campus is committing no crime,” Hacker explained. “Yuba College is the one running afoul of the law by unlawfully censoring Christian student speech on campus.”

The ADF noted Dozier’s case was on the “Academia’s Top 10 Abuses of 2008” list published by Young America’s Foundation.

Written by bkl1

January 28, 2009 at 9:50 am

Obama Targets Talk Radio to Silence Opposition

with 2 comments

Posted: January 26, 2009
8:29 pm Eastern

 

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 

The White House is promising new reviews of the “obligations” to the government by broadcasters who “occupy the nation’s spectrum” just as the president has targeted conservative talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh for a public attack, raising concerns over the possible restoration of the “Fairness Doctrine,” a policy that failed as unneeded and unconstitutional two decades ago.

Paul Ibrahim of NorthStarWriters.com cited Obama’s warning to congressional Republicans that “you can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done” in suggesting the president has become the “driving force” because a new “systematic” plan to “intimidate and demonize Obama’s opponents.”

That such a campaign was launched only days after Obama’s inauguration is “tremendously perturbing,” he wrote.

“Welcome to the politics of hope ‘n’ change. Obama’s startling attempt to hang Limbaugh’s scalp on the wall is a warning that the new ruler does not want unity – he demands it,” Ibrahim wrote.

On Obama’s agenda, according to his White House website, is the goal to “encourage diversity in media ownership.”

Obama elaborates on the site that his aim is to “encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum.”

The plan apparently aligns with longstanding Democratic suggestions to resurrect the “Fairness Doctrine.”

The policy was abandoned in 1987 under President Reagan when there were 75 radio talk shows in the U.S. Reagan opposed the policy because it required broadcast TV and radio programs to air “opposing views” on political issues, which had the practical effect of virtually eliminating opinion programs.

 

Since abandonment of the Fairness Doctrine, the number of radio talk shows has risen to more than 3,000.

WND founder and editor Joseph Farah long has warned about Democrats’ plans to revive restrictions on the airwaves.

“If the Democrats and their me-too Republican allies are successful at sacking talk radio, there will be no stopping them,” Farah warned. “Broadcast will be first. Then they will go after the Internet with taxes and new regulations and hate-crimes laws. And when they succeed at muzzling dissenting voices there, they will even turn to print. Remember, we are dealing with a neo-fascist mentality here.”

Many fear the Fairness Doctrine would drive talk radio hosts – like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage – out of business.

During the presidential campaign, spokesman Michael Ortiz  indicated Obama thought the debate was “a distraction.”

But author Brad O’Leary examined Obama’s legal and organizational attempts to silence media detractors during the presidential race and came to a different conclusion.

“Barack Obama has shown a stunning lack of tolerance for free speech throughout the course of [his] campaign,” said O’Leary. “His presidency, combined with supermajorities for Democrats in Congress, would almost certainly bring back the so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine’ and allow the Democrats to snuff out any broadcasters with whom they disagree.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., affirmed her support to Human Events reporter John Gizzi for a “Fairness” policy, and Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., told radio host Jim Villanucci, “I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view, instead of always hammering away at one side of the political [spectrum].”

Ibrahim noted the president’s public verbal condemnation of Limbaugh makes clear his “rejection” of the old “Bush” politics.

“You see, President Bush did not launch assaults on private citizens, nor did he ever label anyone as ‘unpatriotic’ for disagreeing with him. Thus, Obama and his friends are now effecting the change they promised. Welcome to their ‘new’ politics,” he wrote.

The National Review’s Byron York said Obama’s criticism of Limbaugh makes it appear he considers the talk host “the true leader of the Republican opposition.”

York said Limbaugh responded that Obama was trying to make the arguments about the radio show instead of Obama’s actual plans.

“To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective,” Limbaugh told York. “Obama’s plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR’s New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts.

“I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing ‘eternal’ power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy,” Limbaugh continued. “If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle.”

Limbaugh added: “One more thing, Byron. Your publication and website have documented Obama’s ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals: ‘Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.'”

Michael G. Franc, writing on the National Review’s “The Corner” blog, noted that attorney general nominee Eric Holder also has refused to commit to opposing to Fairness Doctrine.

Obama’s choice to head his FCC transition team, Democrat Henry Rivera, added to fear in media circles that the Fairness Doctrine might return to silence conservative talk radio.

Brian Maloney of the blog The Radio Equalizer said in his post “Meet Talk’s Executioner” he believes Rivera will use his position to bring back the law for that very purpose.

Rivera, according to Maloney, “is expected to lead the push to dismantle commercial talk radio that is favored by a number of Democratic Party senators. Rivera will play a pivotal role in preventing critics from having a public voice during Obama’s tenure in office.”