The myth of "poverty" in America is exposed in this Midknight Review post.

Editor's notes: Did you know that most poverty level families spend twice their stated income? If you make $30,000 per year, as a family, you are in the top 7% of the world's population as relates to wealth. If you are a homeless "bum" in the United States, you have access to a higher level of wealth and social benefits than 90% of the world's population. More than 80% of the world's population lives on less than $10 per day per person. The top three richest nations in the world based on per capita income are these : Number One - Tiawan; Number Two - U.S. and Number three - Japan. 35 million Americans live below the "poverty line" according to the Census Bureau. 97% of poor households own a color TV; 46% own their own homes; only 2.6% of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year and 2% of poor families say they "often" do not have enough to eat during the year; the average consumption of vitamins and protein is the same for poor and middle class children. These facts coupled with the following article will give you a much better idea of poverty in America. As with most of the "facts" used by the neo-Marxist Left to justify the theft of wealth from the working middle class, they are not honest facts.

This article was found in the Washington Post.

Monday, May 31, 2010.

Who is poor in America? This is not an easy question to answer, and the Obama administration would make it harder. It's hard because there's no conclusive definition of poverty. Low income matters, though how low is unclear. Poverty is also a mind-set that fosters self-defeating behavior -- bad work habits, family breakdown, out-of-wedlock births and addictions. Finally, poverty results from lousy luck: accidents, job losses, disability.

Despite poverty's messiness, we've tended to measure progress against it by a single statistic, the federal poverty line. It was originally designed in the early 1960s by Mollie Orshansky, an analyst at the Social Security Administration, and became part of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty. She took the Agriculture Department's estimated cost for a bare-bones -- but adequate -- diet and multiplied it by three. That figure is adjusted annually for inflation. In 2008, the poverty threshold was $21,834 for a four-member family with two children under 18.

By this measure, we haven't made much progress. Except for recessions, when the poverty rate can rise to 15 percent, it has stayed in a narrow range for decades. In 2007 -- the peak of the last business cycle -- the poverty rate was 12.5 percent; one out of eight Americans was "poor." In 1969, another business cycle peak, the poverty rate was 12.1 percent. But the apparent lack of progress is misleading for two reasons.

First, it ignores immigration, which has increased reported poverty. Many immigrants are poor and low-skilled. From 1989 to 2007, about three-quarters of the increase in the poverty population occurred among Hispanics -- mostly immigrants, their children and grandchildren. The poverty rate for blacks fell during this period, though it was still much too high (24.5 percent in 2007). Poverty "experts" don't dwell on immigration, because it implies that more restrictive policies might reduce U.S. poverty.

Second, the poor's material well-being has improved. The official poverty measure obscures this by counting only pre-tax cash income and ignoring other sources of support. These include the earned-income tax credit (a rebate to low-income workers), food stamps, health insurance (Medicaid), and housing and energy subsidies. Spending by poor households from all sources may be double their reported income, reports a study by Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute. Although many poor live hand-to-mouth, they've participated in rising living standards. In 2005, 91 percent had microwaves, 79 percent air conditioning and 48 percent cellphones.

The existing poverty line could be improved by adding some income sources and subtracting some expenses (example: child care). Unfortunately, the administration's proposal for a "supplemental poverty measure" in 2011 -- to complement, not replace, the existing poverty line -- goes beyond these changes. The new poverty number would compound public confusion. It also raises questions about whether the statistic is tailored to favor a political agenda.

The "supplemental measure" ties the poverty threshold to what the poorest third of Americans spend on food, housing, clothes and utilities. The actual threshold -- not yet calculated -- will almost certainly be higher than today's poverty line. Moreover, the new definition has strange consequences. Suppose that all Americans doubled their incomes tomorrow, and suppose that their spending on food, clothing, housing and utilities also doubled. That would seem to signify less poverty -- but not by the new poverty measure. It wouldn't decline, because the poverty threshold would go up as spending went up. Many Americans would find this weird: People get richer but "poverty" stays stuck.

What produces this outcome is a different view of poverty. The present concept is an absolute one: The poverty threshold reflects the amount estimated to meet basic needs. By contrast, the supplemental measure embraces a relative notion of poverty: People are automatically poor if they're a given distance from the top, even if their incomes are increasing. The idea is that they suffer psychological deprivation by being far outside the mainstream. The math of this relative definition makes it hard for people at the bottom ever to escape "poverty."

The new indicator is a "propaganda device" to promote income redistribution by showing that poverty is stubborn or increasing, says the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector. He has a point. The Census Bureau has estimated statistics similar to the administration's proposal. In 2008, the traditional poverty rate was 13.2 percent; estimates of the new statistic range up to 17 percent. The new poverty statistic exceeds the old, and the gap grows larger over time.

To paraphrase the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan: The administration is defining poverty up. It's legitimate to debate how much we should aid the poor or try to reduce economic inequality. But the debate should not be skewed by misleading statistics that not one American in 100,000 could possibly understand. Government statistics should strive for political neutrality. This one fails.

How will the 2010 Congressional elections work out -- a predictive analysis from Midknight Review.

Senate race: If you go to RealClearPolitics, you will find a review of the Senate midterm elections. Their review gives a potential 8 seats to the GOP. At least 2 of those seats are considered "toss ups." The GOP needs to win 10 seats to take control of that house.

In the House
, there are 58 Democrat seats that are in doubt - 35 of these considered "toss-ups." The GOP needs a total gain of 41 seats to take back control of the House. All budgetary proposals must originate in the House of Representatives according to the US Constitution.
With a victory total of 30 seats in the House, the GOP will have a total of 208 votes -- 218 are required to get anything done. With a minority vote of 208 and 10 fiscally conservative democrats, the present idiocy of uncontrolled spending will come to a sudden stop. That does not allow a repeal of present policies in accordance with popular opinion (63% currently want the healthcare bill repealed) but it does mean the end to confiscatory taxation without representation and the legislative tyranny we have seen since Obama has come into power.

In the Senate, a turn over of 9 seats would leave the Senate in the control of the Dems but they would no longer be able to pass legislation with a 51 vote "reconciliation" maneuver as they have done in recent months. A turn over of 4 to 6 seats would put the 60 vote rule back into play in a major way, forcing bipartisan cooperation of most legislation. Understand that the hated "filibuster" is nothing more than the extension of Senate debate over a particular issue. All bills are given a time for discussion. A "filibuster" is officially declared when the Senate votes to end debate and the 60 vote requirement is not attained. You have heard the Left scream about the GOP's misuse of the filibuster in recent months. In fact, there have been no filibusters in the 111th Congress because Harry Reid refused to allow a vote to end debate without full assurance of a 60 vote victory. No vote, no filibuster. Period. If, for example, Reid had called for a vote on the healthcare reform bill at anytime during 2009, the bill would have been defeated and the nation could rest. But he would not allow such a vote. It was Reid and the Obama administration who refused to follow the rules and we now have a bill that will cost more than a trillion dollars in its first decade and 4 to 6 trillion in the second decade.

With that in mind, it is critical that fiscal conservatives return to political power by 2012. 2010 is a start.

A little American flag history

Our flag carries American ideas, American history and American feelings. It is not a painted rag. It is a whole national history. It is the Constitution. It is the Government. It is the emblem of the sovereignty of the people. It is the NATION.

-Henry Ward Beecher, 1861

From its controversial beginnings, the American flag has been an important part of our culture. It has survived over 200 years and two World Wars. The flag has evolved physically and symbolically in times of crisis and achievement. During the Vietnam War, the flag took on conflicting meanings that split the nation, and by the Gulf War, the flag was again a uniting force. September 11, 2001, the flag became a symbol of hope and pride. Though tattered and dirty flying above the rubble of the World Trade Center, it, like our country would prevail.

Unlike other countries, America only has two national symbols, the bald eagle and the American flag. While the bald eagle is internationally recognized, the American flag is a symbol known worldwide. The flag has been the inspiration for holidays, songs, poems, books, artwork and more. It has been used to show nationalism, rebellion and everything in between. The flag is so important that its history tells the story of America itself.

Did Betsy Ross really design the American Flag?
Visit our Flag Blog to find out today!
Page 1 of 1
showing products 1-15 of 15

A brief history about Memorial Day from the folks at

Memorial Day, which falls on the last Monday of May, commemorates the men and women who died while serving in the American military. Originally known as Decoration Day, it originated in the years following the Civil War and became an official federal holiday in 1971. Many Americans observe Memorial Day by visiting cemeteries or memorials, holding family gatherings and participating in parades. Unofficially, at least, it marks the beginning of summer.

Memorial Day was originally known as Decoration Day because it was a time set aside to honor the nation's Civil War dead by decorating their graves. It was first widely observed on May 30, 1868, to commemorate the sacrifices of Civil War soldiers, by proclamation of General John A. Logan of the Grand Army of the Republic, an organization of former sailors and soldiers. On May 5, 1868, Logan declared in General Order No. 11 that:

The 30th of May, 1868, is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers, or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village, and hamlet churchyard in the land. In this observance no form of ceremony is prescribed, but posts and comrades will in their own way arrange such fitting services and testimonials of respect as circumstances may permit.

During the first celebration of Decoration Day, General James Garfield made a speech at Arlington National Cemetery, after which 5,000 participants helped to decorate the graves of the more than 20,000 Union and Confederate soldiers buried in the cemetery.

This 1868 celebration was inspired by local observances of the day in several towns throughout America that had taken place in the three years since the Civil War. In fact, several Northern and Southern cities claim to be the birthplace of Memorial Day, including Columbus, Miss.; Macon, Ga.; Richmond, Va.; Boalsburg, Pa.; and Carbondale, Ill.

In 1966, the federal government, under the direction of President Lyndon Johnson, declared Waterloo, N.Y., the official birthplace of Memorial Day. They chose Waterloo—which had first celebrated the day on May 5, 1866—because the town had made Memorial Day an annual, community-wide event during which businesses closed and residents decorated the graves of soldiers with flowers and flags.

By the late 1800s, many communities across the country had begun to celebrate Memorial Day and, after World War I, observances also began to honor those who had died in all of America's wars. In 1971, Congress declared Memorial Day a national holiday to be celebrated the last Monday in May. (Veterans Day, a day set aside to honor all veterans, living and dead, is celebrated each year on November 11.)

Today, Memorial Day is celebrated at Arlington National Cemetery with a ceremony in which a small American flag is placed on each grave. Also, it is customary for the president or vice-president to give a speech honoring the contributions of the dead and lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. About 5,000 people attend the ceremony annually.

Several Southern states continue to set aside a special day for honoring the Confederate dead, which is usually called Confederate Memorial Day.

Obama decides to violate another American Presidential tradition - he'll skip Arlington. One man says "Fine with me." Maybe he is right.

by Conservative Pup on May 27, 2010

Memorial Day approaches, and, though I’m ever mindful of the tremendous debt I and all Americans owe to the brave men and women who serve in our armed forces, I’m especially aware of it in these days leading up to this great American holiday in which we honor and pay tribute to those who gave all. Fallen soldiers who put their lives on the line for the defense of freedom and in doing so, made the greatest sacrifice, should be remembered and memorialized with grateful hearts all over the country.

Unlike most Americans, I’m not upset that BHO will not be participating in the wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington. I could care less where he goes and what he does on that day. Any tribute he might make would be patently false, meaningless, and I’d just as soon he didn’t participate in that somber and solemn ceremony; it would be demeaning for all in attendance.

We know how little regard and esteem our president has for our military men and women. Why should we complain that he isn’t going to participate in a ceremony which has great meaning for us, but none for him? It would do nothing but turn that touching and poignant ceremony into a charade, another photo op for him.

So, personally, I’m very happy that I won’t have to watch him fake his way through the motions of trying to look noble and sad, respectful and caring. Let him play golf, or tiddlywinks, sleep late, grab a mocha, whatever. I don’t care what he does, as long as he stays away from Arlington on Memorial Day.

Sarah Palin talks briefly and with authority about Arizona.

Understand that there is a Federal law that requires the questioning and detainment of illegal aliens. Federal officers do not have to have a reason to detain and question. THAT is the Federal law. It is already written. Has been on the books for several years. The Federal law is much more regressive and invasive than the Arizona law ever thought about being. (Special thanks to Texas for Sarah Palin).


Obama has decided to use the Arizona law, a law that is not as arduous as the Federal code, to debase conservatives, defeat their cause and win an election. But this is not just about winning an election or even staying in power. It is about the defeat and demise of conservative, patriotic, free market, Constitutionally ordained America. He calls it a "transformation."

And . . . . . . . he believes in open borders. All this and more are reasons why he is using deception and division to tear down. We are thinking that this will back fire on him, but time will tell.

Obama's failure as an administrator has hit the fan - the resulting mess is the Gulf of Mexico.

Well, there he is on his official three hour tour of the Gulf scene. Rather than having planned a series of meetings, giving credence to Gov. Bobby Jindal's solutions for the rescue of his Louisiana coast or taking the lead in dealing with this mess, he does what he does best, squat and talk.

Did you know that he took time to lecture the press on the significance of those little oil clumps ? Ah, another tribute to his intellectual prowess. And in the end, we have this picture - a wannabe administrator not knowing what to do or say, walking around the beach front, waiting for someone to say, "We had better be going, Mr. President."

This is exactly why he doesn't work in the Oval Office . . . . . . he has no clue as to the job of the Chief Administrator. On election day, he must have thought, "This is going to be easy. All I have to do is turn the job of governance over to a select fellowship of people and, wala, I get all the credit." He talked tough about GITMO but had no plan - I mean how hard could closing that prison be ??

We'll leave Iraq in 2010 and claim credit for the [Bush] victory. Another easy slam dunk - but, then, someone succeeded in convincing Obama that at least 50,000 troops would have to stay and he needed a plan for leaving the country.

Afghanistan ? Easy. The Greatest Fighting machine in the world would defeat a rag-tag army and come home. What's hard about that?

Meet with your generals? Why would anyone do that? After all, Obama had determined his strategy for Iraq without and before a single meeting with any of the commanders of that war. The really big problem? Turns out that it is not a good idea to share your plans for retreat with your enemy. So we wait until next July (2011) to see what happens. His Afghan generals are trying to tell us that victory through well announced retreat will not work. But no one of import is listening -- unless, of course, it is the voter in the coming midterm election.

The economy was another area that seemed surprisingly simple. Obama would spend money like a drunken tyrant and the national free market economy would heal itself. By the end of 2009, the nation found itself in financial chaos, the “President” claiming victory over a Bush-caused recession . . . a “jobless” recovery was announced and things have gotten worse.

And now, we have the “squat and talk” photo shoot included in this post. Nothing has changed in 17 months of “administration.” He has no plan so he yells, “Fix the damn hole.” Geeesh.

Imagine for a moment that you are a building contractor. You get a job, hire a crew and send them out to finish the work. Things are fine until a problem arises that needs your attention. The men call and tell you, “Boss, we need your help out here.” Rather than visit the job site to see what the problem is, you stay home, polish your golf clubs and hope that “no news is good news. “ Finally, another phone call and another request for help. Now, you have to do something. So you yell into the phone’s transmitter, “Stop calling me. Just fix the damn problem. This thing is eating me alive. Fix the problem.” Well, of course that cannot work as a job strategy. So, you finally go out to the job site. You walk around looking at “things,” kick clods of dirt with your foot, pick up a loose 16 penny nail and stare at it for awhile, have your wife take some pictures with the crew and go home.

Sounds kind of like the contractor doesn’t know his proverbial from a blown out deep water well head, does it? ---- jds.


Eight reasons why the Democrats cannot win re-election.

Bad news for Obama - BP admits that their "top kill" has failed. Add this to the re-election problems for the Democrats.

Picture left is the floating barge from which BP is trying to shut off the well-head 5100 feet below. This "leak" may remain a problem through the midterm election cycle. Click to enlarge.

1. The Gulf oil spill: Obama cannot change the fact that he took 8 days to say anything about the incident; that he did next to nothing to prevent the oil from drifting onto the Gulf coast shoreline. For 39 days, Obama deferred to BP. We could be talking about 200 million gallons of oil spilled into the Gulf waters by election day.

2. Midknight Review has predicted $4.00 per gallon at-the-pump gas for more than a year. Our country has been there before. Obama is doing nothing to prevent this potentiality. In fact, we now know that he believes that high gas prices along with increased taxes is the most effective course to take when "social engineering" is deemed a desirable action. The problem with his move toward a "green job" economy is that we are more than 20 years away from having made a significant move in that direction. In the meantime . . . . . . well, we just don't know what this Administrative failure is thinking. We are stuck with our dependence on oil for many years in the future. He does not seem to grasp that fact.

3. We believe that the Sestak scandal is just beginning to heat up. This will not go away before the elections. If, in fact, the GOP is able to take back the Senate in November, the Republicans will inherit subpoena power and things suddenly get much worse for this novice administrator and Marxist reformer.

4. The Obama version of the "war on terror" is proving to be a disaster. In April of 2009, he moved responsibility for interrogating captured terrorists from the CIA to the FBI. A "big deal" was made of his new idea for interrogation - the HIG or High Valued Interrogation Groups. These teams were to extract information without using "torture." Talk, talk, talk. It is now June of 2010, 14 months removed from the creation of the HIG and not one team has been assembled, not one terrorist has been questioned by a HIG. "Failure" does not begin to catch the significance of this lapse. It is apparent that Obama is simply not concerned with Islam's war of terror against the United States. Of the 34 terror attacks since 9/11, 10 have occurred on Barack's watch and "luck" is the ONLY reason why hundreds of American's have not died as a result -- pure luck.

Understand that the Muslim world is not impressed by Obama. He and his deputy counterterrorism chief, an idiot named Brennan, often speak of their high regard for Islam/Palestine. Obama secured nearly one billion dollars for aid to the terrorist organization, Hamas, in the Gaza strip and Brennan sees the murderous Hizbullah as a reformed and noble player in the Middle East. And then there was that speech at the University of Cairo -- a school Brennan attended in his younger days. You cannot sell "hope" and not produce. Politically speaking, that is the path to sudden death. Obama has busied himself appeasing the Muslim community. This week, the word went out that he might be changing his course, somewhat, with regard to Israel.

Our point? A disappointed Muslim world is a dangerous circumstance. Will jihad see an increase in homeland terrorist activity because of the frustration Islam feels with regard to Obama and his changing policies ? One successful terrorist attack will put Obama and the do-nothing Dems in danger of experiencing one of the most one sided midterm elections in history.

5. If the economy moves back into a second recession at any level, that news will hurt Obama and the Dems. If unemployment numbers, for example, are on the rise come November, regardless of what they were during the summer months, the Marxist Dems and their little experiment will take a major hit in the midterms. This issue continues to poll high on the charts for Americans. They are scared and hurt and, in November, they will blame Obama for much of their problems. We have all seen polls that show Americans continue to blame Bush more than Obama for the economic crisis. The problem with this is the fact that Bush will not be on the ticket in the coming two elections (2010 and 2012).

6. A sixth consideration that will manifest itself in the coming election is the unquestioned mess Obama has made of our foreign policy. Under his watch, Iran will become a nuclear power - a tribute to Obama's misuse of diplomacy and his willingness to run and hide behind the skirts of a hapless U.N. Security Council. The American electorate will not be fooled. We have Venezuela importing Russian missiles and 5 billion dollars in Russian military aid. We have lost the allegiance of Brazil. Obama sided with the Communists in the Honduran crisis - and failed in that alliance. He wants China to solve the problems in the Korean Peninsula in spite of the fact that we have some 38,000 troops in South Korea. He has done great damage to the peace process in the Middle East. Few even understand what he trying to do in thsy circumstance.

7. We have the issue of immigration. It is a fact that Obama is refusing to enforce Federal law as it relates to border patrol. The problem is complicated by the apparent fact that Obama believes in open borders. When Arizona passed their law, the talk was that this would work against the Republicans in a big way. Just the opposite has happened. Obama can mediate this problem and lessen its effect on the coming elections, but Midknight Review does not believe he has the administrative skills to solve the problem.

8. We have the GITMO issue and his promise to close this prison down by January 22, 2010. That not only did not happen, it is becoming evident that this prison will not be closed at all. Obama's move against waterboarding has been offset by his willingness to kill terrorist via anonymous drone. In fact, it is laughable to believe that the Dems think it is more humane to kill terrorists outright rather than capture and interrogate them. The pressure on this issue will come from the radical Left.

Additional influences working against his re-election: his continuing refusal for transparency; his radical associations - a larger count than any previous president (only Hillary is as radical; Bill is nowhere close); the ever increasing count of broken promises - one wonders what he could say that would be believed; his over-exposure is beyond extreme - in just 17 months, he has made more televised appearances (national or otherwise) than any modern day president dating back to Eisenhower, and is on track to have made more such appearances during his first term than all modern day presidents combined; there is the matter of his tyranny and "thin skinned" nature in dealing with issues; his Messianic tone during the early days of his administration will be remembered ("now is the time the earth begins to cool and the oceans begin to recede; we are the ones we have been waiting for") - such talk seriously works against the man. He no longer uses such tone defaulting to the "tough guy" Chicago attitude he developed as a community revolutionary; the Afghan war is going to be a huge problem if Obama follows through with his promise to pull out of that country by July, 2011 - his generals are telling the nation, today as we write, that the job simply cannot be finished by that time. Pressure from the Left will figure in this Obama negative; his lust for driving this country into debt borders of sheer stupidity. On a ten year projection, Bush spent 3.8 trillion while Obama is on track to spend 24.6 trillion dollars; the Stimulus will been a strong memory with 58 % of the country disapproving; the biggy is the healthcare bill where public opinion for -in support of - its full repeal has grown each month since its passage and now stands at 63% in favor of repeal. Only 35% supports the reform.

Text by John Smithson

An angry president says "no" to partisanship and makes jokes of a very serious situation.

The video is a short one and presents the heart of the Arizona / Obama problem. Beginning on September 9, 2009 and the ObamaTough Guy's joint congressional speech, the Chicago brain trust made it clear that he will not tolerate opposition and dissent. You could tell that he enjoyed saying "we will call you out . . . . " Since, then, he has stoked the fires of division in this country. He likes trouble because it presents him with opportunities to work his community organizer nonsense. He sends his SEIU thugs to bankers' homes. He threatens corporate executives. He steals stockholder financed retirement funds to feed his special interest auto unions. He gives 6, 8, 10 million dollar bonuses to the executives of Fannie and Freddie, government owned mortgage institutions controlling more than half of all mortgages while the obedient press looks on in childish silence.

We run this post because of Obama's latest affront to partisan healing. You need to know what is not reported. Governor Jan Brewer is about to visit Washington D.C. She asked for a meeting with Obama. He told her to take a hike. No meeting. Don't call me, I'll call you. What a guy. Never miss an opportunity to stoke the fire. Always refuse to rise to the level of a healer and leader of this nation.

The fact that he refuses to enforce Federal immigration law, law that has been in the books for several years, is not beside the point. We must never miss the most important consideration of all: Hussein Obama believes in open borders. That's right. He is the president of the wrong country. Take it to the bank: he will never move to shut down the border and THAT is the first step, a prerequisite to any solution to the illegal alien problem.

Finally, the truth about Joe Sestak. The bribe was a non-paying, temporary position ! And cows fly and my mother-in-law still has all her teeth !

This is what Obama and Company would have us to believe about the Sestak bribery case: Rahm Emanuel went to Billy Bob Clinton and asked him to be a grunt man for Obama. Rahm's discussion with Clinton went something like this, "Obama wants you to be his grunt man. Why you and not me ? I haven't a clue. But he wants you to offer Sestak a non-paying temporary position if he will drop out of the race against Specter. How's THAT for a great idea from one of the nation's leading intellectuals? Will you do it for Obama, will you ?"

If you have had to work during the past several days, you might not know what we are talking about. It seems that Representative Sestak was asked, late last summer, to step down from his challenge to Arlen Specter's run for the Democrat nomination for Senator. In February, Sestak revealed, for the first time, that a job offer had been made if he would leave off his challenge to Specter's campaign. Sestak made that statement but refused to offer any other facts until "after the White House had spoken on the subject." After he beat Specter in the Democrat primary two weeks ago, he was asked again, about this matter. He confirmed that he had been asked, that an offer of a job had been presented and that he would have nothing else to say until after the White House had spoken.

Yesterday (May 28), the White House released a statement: Bill Clinton made the offer. His comments to Sestak were only probative and no money was involved. Hours later, Sestak spoke having been advised of these talking points and ended his three month silence. Shazzzzam !! The White House was correct, according to Sestak, and that in the end of matter.

In review:

The bribe was a non paying part-time position and Bill Clinton was Obama's grunt man ??!!! Anybody believe that?! So why didn't Rahm Emanuel make this rather ridiculous but innocuous offer ? And when did Obama and Clinton become such good friends ? And why did it take three months for this explanation to come to light ? And why did Sestak refuse to give a single detail until after the White House had spoken ? Does no one think it strange that Obama has lunch with Bill Clinton one day before the official White House statement is released? Let's not forget that Obama has broken every major campaign promise since being elected [ it's called "lying" ] ; that he comes from Chicago where lying and corruption are more pronounced than in any other city in the nation, bar . . . . . . none and, that he lives in a world (the Democrat Caucus) where lawlessness is the prevailing opinion.

How safe are we when those in charge of counterterrorism activity do not understand Islam ??

The man in the video is our deputy antiterrorism chief, John Brennan. He gave the speech on February 13, 2010 at a public forum co-hosted by the White House Office of Public Engagement and the Islamic Center at New York University.

We are working on finding the translation of his first remarks in this video.

What is spoken in plain English is troublesome enough, however.

But I did spend time as an undergraduate at the American University in Cairo in the 1970s. And time spent with classmates from Egypt, from Jordan, from Palestine, and around the world who taught me that whatever our differences of nationality or race or religion or language, there are certain aspirations that we all share: to get an education. To provide for our families. To practice our faith freely. To live in peace and security. And during a 25-year career in government, I was privileged to serve in positions across the Middle East -- as a political officer with the State Department and as a CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, I saw how our Saudi partners fulfilled their duty as custodians of the two holy mosques of Mecca and Medina. I marveled at the majesty of the Hajj and the devotion of those who fulfilled their duty as Muslims by making that privilege -- that pilgrimage. And in all my travels, the city I have come to love most is Al-Quds -- Jerusalem, where three great faiths come together.

The expressed opinion of Brennan that it is a tenet of Islam that men, everywhere, are to practice their "faith freely" is as preposterous a statement as can be found. This editor has a friend, a missionary of sorts in one of the Middle Eastern nations. It is Arab Muslim. She is Christian and is "free" to do what she does - she is a mental health counselor. She has cautioned all of her friends, however, that her mail is censored and great harm could come to her if letters sent to her are of a critical nature. Midknight Review has a huge mailing list. She is not on that list. It is clear that my friend is not free. In fact, there are no Muslim nations that practice free and open religious expression. What Brennan says in this speech, imbibes the worst kind of deception. The notion that Islam is content with co-existence is a flat out lie and it is in this fact, that the danger of Islam is so great. Those who disagree have simply not read the Koran or listened to the fanatic jihadist population that drives militant Islam.

Near the end of the video quote, Brennan, speaking in English, chooses to use the Arabic word for "Jerusalem" -- al Quds. The appeasers on the Left defend this usage arguing that Brennan was talking to Arab students, that the Muslim name for Jerusalem is perfectly understandable in light of his audience. Nonsense. If he intends to honor his Muslim audience, why not give the entire speech in Arabic ?? The Appeasers forget that Brennan, at this point, is speaking in English. The English word for the Holy City is Jerusalem, not al Quds. His decision to interject a Muslim name for Jerusalem flies in the face of the American Jew and serves warning to Israel that this Administration has taken a pro-Muslim stance to the troublesome issue of Israeli/Palestinian peace.

Our readership should know that both Obama and Brennan have very different opinions concerning Hamas and Hisbullah than did Bush or Clinton. Each of the two organizations were considered terrorist organizations until the advent of these two stooges. Brennan has openly praised Hizbullah and Obama has given Hamas nearly one billion dollars to reconstruct damaged housing in Gaza -- and of course, none of that money will be used to purchase missiles and fund the war effort against Israel.

It is no wonder that Obama has lost 48% of the American Jewish vote. In fact, an internal poll taken of the Israeli people shows that only 6% of that country's population believes Obama is "on their side." These two American leaders are playing with an open flame and threaten the safety of us all. We have said many times in the past and we say it again, before Obama leaves office, he just might get us all killed --- jds.

See what Israel National News has to say about Brennan in this related article.

Midknight Review takes a look at Obama's war on terror.

KSM - no trial has been schedule; no charges has been made.

Editor's notes: According to this Administration, jihad is a good thing and terrorism is not our enemy. Here is a FoxNews story that presents us with a most disturbing reality - an administration in utter denial as to the tenets of the current conflict. Brennan, the nations "counterterrorism" advisor, apparently has never read [even] the opening pages of the Koran. If he had, he would know of the threat Islam is to Jews and Christians, specifically. Understand that there has been 10 terror attacks on this country since Obama took office. "Luck" has proven to be this Administration's best anti-terror weapon. Most are not aware that KSM (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - the master mind of 9/11) has never been charged by this Administration nor has his trial been fixed as regards to time or location. Then, there is the Fort Hood assissine. He killed 13 soldiers and private citizens and wounded 32 others five months ago. There is no schedule for a trial and Obama refuses to release important emails and critical documents to the Senate committee in charge of oversight for the war on terror. Members of that committee are about to issue subpoena's to this Administration to get the documents that should be given to them by rite of effective governance -- jds.

(FoxNews) The president's top counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a "legitimate tenet of Islam," arguing that the term "jihadists" should not be used to describe America's enemies.

During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of "political, economic and social forces," but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in "religious terms."

He repeated the administration argument that the enemy is not "terrorism," because terrorism is a "tactic," and not terror, because terror is a "state of mind" -- though Brennan's title, deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and homeland security, includes the word "terrorism" in it. But then Brennan said that the word "jihad" should not be applied either.

"Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children," Brennan said.

The technical, broadest definition of jihad is a "struggle" in the name of Islam and the term does not connote "holy war" for all Muslims. However, jihad frequently connotes images of military combat or warfare, and some of the world's most wanted terrorists including Usama bin Laden commonly use the word to call for war against the West.

Brennan defined the enemy as members of bin Laden's Al Qaeda network and "its terrorist affiliates."

But Brennan argued that it would be "counterproductive" for the United States to use the term, as it would "play into the false perception" that the "murderers" leading war against the West are doing so in the name of a "holy cause."

"Moreover, describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by Al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism -- that the United States is somehow at war against Islam," he said.

The comment comes after Brennan, in a February speech in which he described his respect for the tolerance and devotion of Middle Eastern nations, referred to Jerusalem on first reference by its Arabic name, Al-Quds.

"In all my travels the city I have come to love most is al-Quds, Jerusalem, where three great faiths come together," Brennan said at an event co-sponsored by the White House Office of Public Engagement and the Islamic Center at New York University and the Islamic Law Students Association at NYU.


Radicalized Muslims are going to build a mosque just 600 feet from the Twin Towers they destroyed. The video shows why it should not happen.

Hit the button that enlarges the video. Turn the sound off - the talking has nothing to do with the video. Sit and watch fellow Americans make decisions the liberal Marxist traitors in our country want us to forget . . . . . and we mean every descriptive word written in this post. WARNING: you will see hundreds of folks jumping to their deaths. Turn your head, if you will, but Midknight Review believes that we owe these folks a last look. Obama and the permissive Left want us to forget -- the four thousand who died that day say are screaming, "Please, please, remember us." Understand that the official death count is just under 3,000. What is all but forgotten is that another 1500 folks disappeared that day, never to be seen again. They were not counted into the death total. Why? The Permissive Left has no conscience for the truth of 9/11. Jerks.

Understand that jihadist Islam (which is 30% of the Muslim population) makes a point of destroying the symbols of those who they have conquered. Remember their take-over of Afghanistan, years ago, and the destruction of hundreds of Buddhist symbols, statues and centers of worship. Let's not forget the Dome of the Rock - a Muslim mosque build precisely on top of the Jewish temple site. They are like dogs pissing on their territory. And now, they intend to build a mosque 600 feet from "Ground Zero." Make no mistake, if they could have build directly on top of the Towers, they would have done so. After this thing is built, Muslims the world over will laugh at the Americans for allowing it to stand. We have often spoken of the "stupid gene" that separates conservatives from their Marxist counterparts. Well, here is another example.

We bring you info from Open Congress on a regular basis. Maybe you should bookmark this page.

Editor's notes: a great service to our readers can be found at "Open Congress. Want to know what lobby gives to which Congressional person? Click on the hyperlink. We give you words from their site and a few of their categories. Important information if you believe that money has something to do with legislative effort. "They" all deny the link. But they all receive money -- some of it rather substantial. Anyone actually believe that campaign contributions have nothing to do with the legislative process?? -- jds


OpenCongress makes it possible to draw connections between campaign contributions, the specific content of bills, and important votes by Members of Congress. Figures below are individual contributions from 2008, which is the most recent data set available because Congress refuses to report its contributions in timely, digital formats. (More detailed info on PAC contributions is coming soon.)

The top-line categories below are Sectors, under which are listed varying numbers of Industries. Under any Industry, click on the name of an Interest Group to view a list of its top recipients in Congress. Click the name of any Senator or Representative to visit his or her profile and view all details on their donors. Not every Interest Group currently has Members associated with it, but we will continue to add new data in order to make government more transparent.

Health Professionals:

Editor's note: cool !!! This is just a sampling of what is available at Open Congress. Knowledge is power.


BELIEVE IT OR NOT: Did Obama offer Sestak a position if he promised to quit the race against Specter? Of course not. Bill Clinton did !!

Your friendly Midknight Review editor and he ain't happy.

In February of this year, Rep. Sestak was offered a position in government if he quit the race against Arlen Specter. THAT is illegal. Since February's announcement, there has been nothing but silence from the White House AND Sestak - as to the details of this circumstance.

In spite of what will be said in the days and weeks to come, do not forget that Sestak was asked, point blank, by FoxNews, "Were you offered a position to step down from the race against Specter." His answer? "Yes." Guaranteed - this admission by Sestak will be reworded to harmonize with the White House version.

Understand that Sestak has made it clear that he would wait to see what the White House had to say before he gives further comment. In other words, Sestak is telling us, " I will take my cue from whatever the White House comes up with."

That lunch Obama had with Bill Clinton before the press conference? It was all about getting their story straight. Before the Pennsylvania primary election of two weeks ago, Obama was not sure Sestak's statement would be a problem. After all, if Sestak had lost to Specter, there would have been no problem. But Sestak won -- complete with the accusation and all.

How does Obama handle this issue? Easy - meet with Clinton. Make sure his story harmonizes with Clinton's. Depend on the notion that Sestak will craft his more formal statement with what is put out by the White House. . . . . . and all is well.

So why did the Administration take so long to come up with this rather simple solution? Why not come out with the "truth" the day following Sestak's claim last February ? Why does Sestak wait to give further details until after the Obama/Clinton lunch and ensuing "formal" statement?

And just how stupid does the Left think we all are ?

Nothing but a bunch of crooks - plain and simple. These people are above the law. They view public opinion as the enemy of their agenda. They have no regard for Constitutional limits, transparency or personal accountability.

Midknight Review thinks this will back fire on Obama. Time will tell. But we expect to see his polling numbers return to record lows --- posted 8:34 am 5/27/10 by jds.

11:51 update (before Sestaks statement - we wait patiently for THAT, as if we do not know what this mouse of a man is going to say)

From the NY Times, we have the official statement - a job offer on a unpaid presidential council, something they had been working on since last year - Bill Clinton being the organizational center piece. Ridiculous but here is the Times statement -- and you can bet the Times will not investigate this claim:

President Obama’s chief of staff used former President Bill Clinton as an intermediary to see if Representative Joe Sestak would drop out of Pennsylvania’s Democratic Senate primary if given a prominent, but unpaid, advisory position, the White House said on Friday.

Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff, asked Mr. Clinton last summer to explore “options of service” on a presidential or senior government advisory board with Mr. Sestak, the White House said in a statement. Mr. Sestak said no and went on to win last week’s primary against Senator Arlen Specter.

The White House disputed Republican claims that the conversations might be illegal or improper. “There was no such impropriety,” Robert F. Bauer, the White House counsel, said in a memo released to reporters. “The Democratic Party leadership had a legitimate interest in averting a divisive primary fight and a similarly legitimate concern about the congressman vacating his seat in the House.”

So, there you have it - Sestak has been given his talking points. Again, the problem is this: the White House could have told us this three months ago. Sestak's claim of bribery was as serious a felony accusation in February as it is now. There was absolutely no reason for delay except as presented above by this editor.

Update: 1:00 pm 5/27/10

Sustak was to have held a press conference about an hour and fifteen minutes ago. So where is Joe Sestak? Why, they are going over every possible question that could be asked. Prepping. That's what is going on behind closed doors. Understand that Sustak is not the brightest bulb in the CFL closet and THAT is why the prep is taking so long -- jds.



Severe hurricane season just around the corner ?? Some say "yes." But doom and gloom has been forecast before and they were wrong.

More bad news for the Gulf: the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA) is forecasting 13 to 23 named storms, 8-14 hurricanes and 3 to 7 category 3 storms for the hurricane season beginning June 1. This is the worst opening forecast in 50 years. Obviously, with all that oil floating around in the Gulf, this is a very serious set of predictions. Those in the Gulf have no choice but to spend mega-bucks to keep the accompanying storm surges from driving the polluted waters into the fresh water outlets along the coastline.

That's the bad news.
Here is the good news.

Since Katrina, there has been a total of 2 category three storms. What most folks have forgotten is the dooms day forecast for the year following Katrina: 17 storms, 9 hurricanes and 7 category 3 hurricanes. Remember how many hurricanes hit the Gulf Coast that year, 2006? None.

This year, however, the ocean waters are 2 to 4 degrees warmer than in 2006 raising concerns that the NOAA's forecast will be much more accurate. All we can do is hope that this prediction comes from the same corp of scientists that manufactured the global warming scare --- jds.

A view of a typically busy but inconsequential day for Mr. Obama.

Want to know what the Chief Novice does during a typical day while the Gulf, the Middle East and the Korean Peninsula are all going to hell in a hand basket?

1. Meet with the NCAA men’s basketball champion Duke Blue Devils at the White House to honor their 2009-2010 championship season in the Rose Garden.

[While this was going on, MMS was undergoing a shake up Obama knew nothing about]

2. He then took a photo shoot with the U.S. World Cup soccer team.

3. He had a private have lunch with President Clinton in the Private Dining Room just before prepared remarks about BP and the third press conference of his term in office.

4. Delivered remarks on the BP oil spill and the conclusions of his ordered 30-day safety review .

5. Held a 60 minute press conference in which he admitted ignorance of an early morning MMS change of personnel because of a busy A.M. schedule - you know, photo shoots with basketball teams and soccer champions and that ever important lunch date with Billy Boy Clinton.

In the afternoon, Mr. Obama held a meeting with President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia in the Oval Office.

Later in the afternoon, Obama, the Vice President and Michelle Obama were hosts for a reception in honor of Jewish American Heritage in the East Room.

Afterward, in the evening, the First Family will travel to Chicago, Illinois for a four-day Memorial Day weekend vacation that does not include an appearance at Arlington Cemetery - the first president in our memory to avoid Arlington on Memorial weekend. Understand that ALL of the major decisions in this "administration" are made for Obama by others. His racist Democrat handlers are in "hog heaven." Finally, a president who does not care what "they" do to line their pockets and steal the wealth of this nation, all in the name of social justice. Doesn't care? Heck, he doesn't even know what they are doing -- jds.


Another Lefty decides to pursue a line of harassment against Palin. We have that here at the Review. It's how these clowns think.

Editor's notes: We join Before it is News in our recommendation to take action against this clown who has decided to harass Governor Palin. The man's email is located at the bottom of this post -- an email address originally supplied to us by the Great One, Mark Levin. Read the article from Before it is News:

It just bit creepy when someone that is investigating you and intends to write a book about you moves next door. Especially if your name is Todd or Sarah Palin. Surely someone is due a little privacy at home right? Tonight Mark Levin took an extraordinary step on Palin's behalf. Levin called Joe McGinniss the erstwhile writer/investigator/author/creeper and asked for an interview on the phone. When Levin did not receive a return call he did something startling-he gave out the email of Joe McGinniss.

Levin pointed out that Liberal Activists are becoming more brazen about upsetting business people and conservatives by going to their homes. Witness SEIU scaring the family of Bank of America Executive Greg Baer recently (upsetting his child). Levin's move is quite interesting. Liberal groups have stalked and provoked their opponents for years. Yet Levin feels it's time to turn the tables on their behavior. I mean, if McGinniss wants to know everything about Palin don't we deserve to know all about him.

Watching kids and wives and husbands at home is not fair game.-especially when it's not an elected official. Levin says its high time to do something about the media's double standard towards the treatment of female Conservatives. I agree and by the way, Mark Levin says the Joe McGinniss' email is: if you would like to say hi to him in Wasilla, Alaska.


Do any of us trust BP ?? What about Obama ?? The pumps are off as are the cameras. Anyone feel good about that ??

Here is a headline that may be more telling that we might suppose:

BP Pauses 'Top Kill' Attempt to Plug Well...
Halts video of leaking pipe, blames dirty lens...

So they turned off the cameras and the pumps. Maybe they turned those cameras back on. But until they do, we all wonder what is really happening. This observer has watched the news most of the day. In the afternoon hours, he thought he saw a darkening of the discharge on the right side of the camera view -- maybe darker mud or . . . . . . was it oil? posted 6:09 pm by jds

Update posted 11:03 pm by jds

Editor's notes: sounds like we had good reason to be suspicious of BP's earlier decision to stop their effort at plugging the well. Rather than writing a review, here is a late evening article that makes it clear that we had good reason to doubt what was or was not happening. Keep in mind that in Obama's press conference, this morning, he made a big deal of the "fact" that he was in charge and on top of what was happening in the case of BP and its effort to solve the problems related to the blown out well. We doubt, however, that he has the slightest idea what is going on before he sits down to read a newspaper or listen to a broadcast of some sort.

Here is the NY Times story: HOUSTON — BP on Thursday night restarted its most ambitious effort yet to plug the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, trying to revive hopes that it might cap the well with a “top kill” technique that involved pumping heavy drilling liquids to counteract the pressure of the gushing oil.

BP officials, who along with government officials created the impression early in the day that the strategy was working, disclosed later that they had stopped pumping the night before when engineers saw that too much of the drilling fluid was escaping along with the oil.

It was the latest setback in the effort to shut off the leaking oil, which federal officials said was pouring into the gulf at a far higher rate than original estimates suggested.. . . . read the full article here.

Editor comments: understand that if this action does not work, Obama is going to pay a huge political price, especially in view of the fact that he is incapable of devising a plan of any kind other than those related to political turmoil and political action organizations. It is clear that he is not an administrator.
For the sake of the Gulf coast, Midknight Review hopes for the best. If this oil gets into the fresh water inlets of the coast marshlands, the entire region's wildlife preserves and fisheries will be damaged beyond repair.

What does Obama fear the most regarding the midterms ? Supoena power !!!

Sestak, a US House of Representative, was offered a job to step down from the primary race against Arlen Specter. Unless he is lying, the accusation describes a felony action by someone in our White House. Sestak first made this accusation in February and has reiterated his claim over and over again, sense then. In a Bloomberg report, these words from Sestak do not help:

When asked about Obama’s news conference comment that nothing "inappropriate" occurred, Sestak said “I think the president’s a pretty legitimate person, but we will find out pretty shortly what they have to say.” These words only add to the mystery.

Understand that there simply is no good reason for Obama to not "call out Sestak" on this matter, if, in fact, the Representative's claim is false. In view of the delayed response, we know that there is a complication of some sort in mounting a denial or Obama would be unequivocal in his parsing of words. In other words, there is something wrong; Obama knows it; and he worries about crafting a response as he anticipates further investigation. Nixon got himself in trouble defending his friends. Obama may be headed down the same course, if not careful.

In the news conference of today, May 27, Obama promised an official response sooner, rather than later, leaving the impression that he was eager to give an answer. Problem is, he and his minions have been stone-walling for three months.

What most people do not understand with regard to the coming election is this: if the GOP wins control of the Senate, they immediately inherit the power of the subpoena; two investigations will come into existence almost instantly - the Sestak matter and the cover-up currently in progress regarding the Fort Hood killings. Take it to the bank, Obama and his bands of misfits are exceedingly worried about the outcome of the midterms -- jds

Our brief review of Obama's pathetic press conference - minutes after the meeting came to an abrupt end.

In his opening response, Obama stressed that the federal Government, his government, is and has been in charge from the first days of the Gulf crisis. He brought up regulations dating back to the Bush days and did so twice, trying to deflect the obvious criticisms implicit in the questions of the press corp. Chip Reid (NBC News), in asking about the "cozy relationships" between oil and government got this response: "There is no evidence that the corruption under the Bush administration occurred after I took office." Are we to believe that the "corruption" under Bush ceased simply because Obama came to power? That is the effect of what he said. He does not refer to the award for safety given to BP or the continuing practice of approving construction without viable inspections DURING HIS ADMINISTRATION.

During the press conference, Obama fully contradicted the criticism of those citizens in the Gulf region, citizens qualified to offer critical analysis, citizens such as Governor Bobby Jindal, fully informed and qualified to make decisions about the coast line of his state. It is obvious that Obama has fully undercut Jindal's authority as governor. In so doing, Hussein O has inadvertently taken on full responsibility for the increasing eco-disaster this oil spill has become.

"We are years off and technological breakthroughs away from moving into a green economy" - Obama. Finally, a moment of truth. The fact is this: green jobs are a full decade in the future. What is devastating in this reality is the realization that his present green-jobs policies are destroying the traditional job market even before green jobs are created to replace those lost jobs.

He claims to not know about Birnbaum's resignation/firing (MMS head) while stating that he is in full control of the crisis and has been from day one. Incredible.

"The easily assessable oil has already been sucked out of the ground" is a statement made by Obama in full denial of the physical penalties inherent in radical environment regulations requiring deep water drilling 40 to 100 miles off our coasts. The failed well at the center of national attention is located 48 miles off coast. Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La) made statements early this morning, before the news conference, on FoxNews, that there remain oil drilling opportunities in shallow waters (1000 deep) and on shore sites.

He made it clear that the 1,200 National Guard troops being sent to the Southern borders are not there to enforce illegal immigration laws -- we add "Federal" immigration laws -- rather, to deal with drug intervention and prosecutions. In other words, he has no intentions of supporting Federal law, much less Arizona law.

At one point, he declared that he did not support boycotts or "not boycotts." After all, he is the "President" of the country - or so he made note.

He was not asked about Sestak until last question, Major Garret from FoxNews. He promised that we would be hearing an official statement on this matter soon, "and I do mean soon." Thanks, Mr O, after 3 months of non-disclosure -- all we can say, "It's about time." Understand that we are left wondering why the silence, the stone walling, the outright lies? Why take 3 months or more (depending upon what "soon" mean) to come up with some sort of explanation. The reason for the delay? Obama and company have committed a felony in making its offer to Sestak. Before a response, they absolutely have to figure out what to say in view a future investigation -- an investigation that will surely come to pass. He is nothing but a Chicago politician, a thug in an empty suit, pretending to be an "administrator." see you in court, O - man !!
It took an hour for this guy to answer questions from perhaps 8 reporters --- after 308 days of official silence. Pathetic. --- jds.