Let them win or bring them home - 7 US Troops Killed in 2 South Afghan Bomb Attacks

NATO says seven American service members have died in two separate roadside bomb attacks in southern Afghanistan.
No details were given of Monday's attacks, although eyewitnesses in the southern city of Kandahar said an armored U.S. Army Humvee hit a roadside bomb in the early afternoon. Several bodies were seen being removed from the vehicle, which was on fire.
The deaths bring to 14 the number of U.S. troops killed in action in eastern and southern Afghanistan over the past three days.
A spike in U.S. troop numbers in Afghanistan to over 120,000 has brought increased fighting and a rising death toll. Forty-nine U.S. service members have died in Afghanistan this month.
NATO said it was aware of the incident but could not immediately release any information. Lal Pur district head Syad Mohammad Palawan died when a bomb planted on his car exploded as he was driving into a government compound to attend a meeting of provincial security and political leaders in Jalalabad, capital of Nangarhar province, said police spokesman Ghafor Khan.
Insurgents apparently planned for the bomb to explode inside the compound where it could potentially have caused far greater destruction, Khan said.
Three of Palawan's bodyguards were wounded, Khan said, while the Interior Ministry put the figure at five.
The attack followed a failed assault on two coalition bases in nearby Khost province Saturday, in which more than 30 insurgents were killed. The attacks indicate that militant activity is rising in parts of the east, as coalition forces focus resources on Taliban strongholds in the south.
Security in eastern Afghanistan is critical because the region includes the capital, Kabul, which the insurgents have sought to surround and isolate from the rest of the country. Jalalabad also lies just 35 miles (55 kilometers) west of the Pakistan border, where militants maintain safe havens from which to plan attacks and infiltrate foreign fighters linked to al-Qaida across the rugged mountains.
Shutting down such sanctuaries has been a key demand of the government of President Hamid Karzai, who on Saturday renewed his criticism of coalition strategy in fighting Afghanistan's stubborn insurgency — part of a pattern of greater outspokenness by the Afghan leader as he appeals for support among the beleaguered Afghan public.
In a meeting with visiting German Parliament Speaker Norbert Lammert, Karzai said there was a "serious need" to alter strategy against the Taliban and other groups linked to al-Qaida, the presidential office said.
"There should be a review of the strategy in the fight against terrorism, because the experience of the last eight years showed that the fight in the villages of Afghanistan has been ineffective apart from causing civilian casualties," Karzai was quoted as saying.
Karzai has in the past argued Afghan forces should take the lead in operations to root out insurgents and win support from deeply conservative villagers who harbor a long tradition of suspicion of outsiders. He says personal contact between coalition forces and villagers only breeds resentment, although most Afghan police and soldiers are drawn from northern Uzbeks and Tajiks who are ethnically and linguistically distinct from the Pashtuns who make up the core of Taliban support.
Last week, Karzai also criticized the U.S. plan to begin withdrawing troops starting next July and said the fight against terrorism cannot succeed as long as the Taliban and their allies maintain safe havens in Pakistan.
Karzai's comments contradict statements from coalition commanders that an increase in numbers of foreign forces to more than 140,000 has turned the momentum of recent Taliban advances. Along with more troops has come a surge in fighting that has so far left 62 coalition troops dead this month, including 42 Americans.
In other operations, NATO said combined coalition and Afghan forces detained several suspected Taliban in Kandahar province, including regional commanders and bomb-makers, as well as insurgents involved in Saturday's attacks on Forward Operating Base Salerno and Camp Chapman in Khost. Chapman was the scene of a suicide attack in December that killed seven CIA employees.
Elsewhere, Afghanistan's Defense Ministry reported four soldiers were killed and another wounded Sunday in a roadside bombing in Wardak province. A fifth Afghan soldier was killed and another hurt in a bombing in Helmand province's Nad Ali district.
In the southeastern province of Zabul, 24 Taliban traveling by truck and motorcycle were captured while trying to cross the border into Pakistan, said provincial government spokesman Mohammad Jan Rasoolyar.
Five Taliban, including one regional commander, were also killed in fighting with coalition forces Sunday in Helmand province's Gereshik district, according to Daoud Ahmedi, spokesman to the provincial governor.
——

Associated Press writer Mirwais Khan contributed to this report from Kandahar.

Five Years After Katrina, Obama's Drilling Moratorium Biggest Threat to Gulf Recovery

Five years after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and other parts of the Gulf of Mexico, both Republican and Democrat officials in Louisiana say the federal moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, put in place after the BP oil spill, is now that state's biggest problem.

In fact, it was the major concern voiced to President Obama Sunday during his speech marking the fifth anniversary of the disaster.

Louisiana's congressional delegation – Democrats and Republicans – has a key focus of getting the president to lift the moratorium on offshore oil drilling his administration imposed in the wake of the BP spill.

“We’re also going to mention to him that this moratorium that is in place – this blanket moratorium is causing severe economic damage to small businesses as well as to the oil and gas companies, large and small, independent, as well,” U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, a Democrat, told The Hill. “So this is a lot of what he’s going to hear when he’s here.”

In speaking to reporters following the president’s speech, Gov. Bobby Jindal said he thanked the president for mentioning seafood in his speech but said he hoped to hear a more explicit discussion of the effect the federal moratorium is having on the state economy.

“The experts all agree we could end this moratorium before six months,” Jindal said. “Let’s put our people back to work … I didn’t personally object to a pause [in drilling] but I object to a one-size-fits-all moratorium.”

U.S. federal government officials and many environmental activists say the temporary ban on drilling is necessary to prevent further accidents. But people in the Gulf region are worried that many of the well-paying jobs provided by the energy industry might leave and never come back.

The recent oil spill left many fishing boats in the Mississippi delta and Gulf of Mexico coastal area idle.

But more people in Louisiana make a living from the oil and gas industry than from fishing and the moratorium has put hundreds of them out of work.

Waylon La Font and Mathew Cheramie are both residents of the Mississippi Delta who have worked on fishing boats as well as energy production.

They now fish on their own time because there is little work available, according to Cheramie.

"It is hard to find jobs and what work you do find is not guaranteed to be steady, you know, because with the economy already down like it is and they are putting this moratorium on us, it is just making things worse," he said.

LaFont says he used to make money in commercial fishing and in new home construction, but the oil spill and the moratorium have hit both.

"The moratorium is eliminating the oil field from working so, in turn, the people that have been working in the oil fields are not going to build, so we ain't have any residential homes being built, everybody building or repairing their homes," he said.

LaFont and Cheramie love nature and want to keep this area protected from oil spills, but Mathew Cheramie does not believe a moratorium on all deepwater drilling was necessary.

"What they need to do is take a step back, correct their drilling, continue, but step up your safety personnel to make sure the job is being done safely and correctly," he said.

Such views baffle many people from outside the region, according to Eric Smith, Associate Director of Tulane University's Energy Institute.

"They think the fishermen and the oil and gas guys should be duking it out in the street, but they are not, because they are the same people," he said.

Smith says the impact of the moratorium will worsen in the months ahead. He says rigs cost up to a million dollars a day, so oil companies cannot afford to leave them idle. He says eight drilling rigs that were on their way to the Gulf were diverted to other locations after the ban was imposed and two others have left since then.

"If you are a company like Murphy, which is one of the rigs that did leave, and you have prospects in Africa as well as here and you see you cannot drill in the Gulf for a couple of years and you are under contract for the rig for five years, you will just move it to Africa and work," Smith said.

Recently published reports revealed that U.S. government officials estimated that the moratorium could cost around 23,000 U.S. jobs. Most jobs in the oil and gas industry provide salaries far above average, so the loss of these jobs has a multiplier effect on the economy as a whole, not just in the Gulf coast region, but nationwide.

If the moratorium results in a large drop in Gulf oil production, that could also hurt the economy, since the Gulf provides about a third of U.S. domestic petroleum production.

But Smith says the world may also feel the impact if Gulf oil output falls much below the current 1.7 million barrels a day.

"The whole world only has about five million-barrels-a-day of spare capacity and consumption is about 87 million barrels, so when we take away that Gulf of Mexico production, you are talking double digit percentages of the world's capacity that gets chewed up," he said.

President Obama says the moratorium could end sooner than the November 30 date established by the Interior Department if a commission studying the disaster finishes its work sooner.

The president argues that, regardless of the moratorium's short-term economic impact, the action is necessary to protect the Gulf's natural treasures from potential future accidents.

Google Maps Misplaces Lincoln Memorial for the Glenn beck Rally - OPPS Sorry folks

Sarah Jacobsson Purewal, PC World

Aug 28, 2010 7:38 am

A curious thing has been happening on Google Maps -- the Lincoln Memorial is being misplaced in favor of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial, which is a good half a mile south of the more famous memorial.

According to the Geographic Travels blog, this "misplacement" has been happening for about two days now. Typing "Lincoln Memorial" into the regular Google search bar brings up a number of listings related to the Lincoln Memorial, yet shows a map of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial. (Click on the image to see the map that's being served up.)

Is this a Google Maps glitch, or could this have anything to do with the fact that conservative radio and TV host Glenn Beck is holding a controversial "non-political" rally at the Lincoln Memorial on Saturday?

Beck's rally, which is called the "Restoring Honor" rally, is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. Eastern Time today on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. The rally purports to be non-political, and will "pay tribute to America's service personnel and other upstanding citizens who embody our nation's founding principles of integrity, truth, and honor," according to Beck. The Special Operations Warrior Foundation, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin are expected to host.

The rally has been the cause of quite a bit of controversy, with Democrat Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) calling the rally "blatantly political." The event also coincides with the anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on Washington and speech (which was given on the same steps of the Lincoln Memorial). Civil rights activist the Rev. Al Sharpton criticized Beck's choice of holding the rally on the same day as MLK's historic speech, saying that while "they have the right to rally," they don't have the right to "distort what Dr. King's dream was about."

"They're having an anti-government march on a day King came to appeal to the government. You can't have it both ways," Rev. Sharpton said in a press conference on Friday.
Playing with Searches?

If the misplacement of the Lincoln Memorial on Google Maps is, in fact, an example of Google censoring search results, then it's not the first time. Google has previously removed controversial search results from its listings, including White Nationalist, anti-Semitic, and radical Islamic results from German and French Google search results.

Until 2010, Google also censored search results in China, including websites that supported Taiwanese and Tibetan independence movements. However, after a mid-December attack on Google's servers (targeting the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists), Google stopped censoring its search in China and threatened to pull out of China altogether. Google and the Chinese government failed to reach an agreement on censorship, and so Google redirected Google.cn to its Hong Kong site (google.com.hk), which is outside the jurisdiction of China's censorship laws.

As the Geographic Travels blog points out, this is probably not so much an attempt to have nobody show up for the rally (after all, the Roosevelt Memorial is only a half a mile from the Lincoln Memorial--if the estimated 300,000 people show up, there's no doubt that you'll be able to see the crowd from the Roosevelt Memorial), but more an attempt to show Glenn Beck who's boss (of the search engines). Beck famously hates Roosevelt, and has often said things like "there was a good portion of people that thought, 'Holy cow, I'm glad [Roosevelt]'s dead."

The United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaida has of non-Muslims, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf,

Rauf Lecture Reveals Radicalism

IPT News

The United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaida has of non-Muslims, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the leader of the effort to build a mosque near the site of the 9/11 terror attacks in New York, told an Australian audience in July 2005.
In a taped speech, Rauf made a number of comments that would make anyone who is not concerned about the mosque at the Ground Zero site rethink their support for the man tasked with heading the "bridge-building" center. Among them [click on the play button to hear each one]:

• "We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida has on its hands of innocent non Muslims. You may remember that the US-led sanctions against Iraq led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations. And when Madeleine Albright, who has become a friend of mine over the last couple of years, when she was Secretary of State and was asked whether this was worth it, said it was worth it."

(IPT fact check: A report by the British government said at most only 50,000 deaths could be attributed to the sanctions, which were brought on by the actions by former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.)

• The United States has supported authoritarian regimes, Rauf said, and it's understandable that people in those nations would take action into their own hands. "Collateral damage is a nice thing to put on a paper but when the collateral damage is your own uncle or cousin, what passions do these arouse? How do you negotiate? How do you tell people whose homes have been destroyed, whose lives have been destroyed, that this does not justify your actions of terrorism. It's hard. Yes, it is true that it does not justify the acts of bombing innocent civilians, that does not solve the problem, but after 50 years of, in many cases, oppression, of US support of authoritarian regimes that have violated human rights in the most heinous of ways, how else do people get attention?"

(IPT fact check: This is justifying acts of terrorism by blaming the United States for the oppression of Islamic regimes of their own citizens. This also ignores U.S. aid of Muslim citizens in nations such as Kosovo and Kuwait).

• Asked why Muslims commit suicide bombings, Rauf belittled the fanatical religious motivation of such attacks and said: "But what makes people, in my opinion, commit suicide for political reasons have their origins in politics and political objectives and worldly objectives rather than other worldly objectives. But the psychology of human beings and the brittleness of the human condition and how many of us have thought about taking our own lives, we may be jilted, had a bad relationship, you know, didn't get tenure at the university, failed an important course, there's a host of reason why people feel so depressed with themselves that they are willing to contemplate ending their own lives. And if you can access those individuals and deploy them for your own worldly objectives, this is exactly what has happened in much of the Muslim world. "

(IPT fact check: Here Rauf tries to negate that suicide bombings are driven by Islamic religious beliefs and trying to equate terrorist activity to someone who doesn't get tenure.)

• On Israel, Rauf said he does not favor the plan to establish a Palestinian state along with Israel. Instead, "The differences, perhaps, may lie on whether the solution lies in the two-state solution or in a one-state solution. I believe that you had someone here recently who spoke about having a one land and two people's solution to Israel. And I personally - my own personal analysis tells me that a one-state solution is a more coherent one than a two-state solution. So if we address the underlying issue, if we figure out a way to create condominiums, to condominiamise Israel and Palestine so you have two peoples co-existing on one state, then we have a different paradigm which will allow us to move forward."

(IPT fact check: A one-state solution is a euphemism for the destruction of Israel, because Palestinian Muslims will quickly outnumber the Jewish resident of Israel. Such a position is advocated by radical groups, such as the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.)

• "And when we observe terrorism," he said, "whether it was done by the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka or by al Qaida or whoever is behind the bombings in London or those in Madrid, we can see that they were target political objectives.

(IPT fact check: Rauf again seems to justify terrorist acts by equating hitting civilians with political objectives.)

T

Skeptical

Aug 25, 2010 12:51

A lot of these quotes seem to be taken out of context. Can the IPT please provide the full audio for this lecture so that readers and viewers of the site may decide for themselves if Rauf is being an apologist or actually said otherwise?
Also, the IPT "fact checks" seem to be dangerous assumptions based on underlying prejudice and Islamophobia. To assert that because Rauf supports a one-state solution, he also favors the "destruction of Israel" is just plain propoganda. I am shocked and appalled that Mr. Emerson would allow this fear-mongering to be associated with the IPT. The organization has a responsibility, which shouldn't include painting Imam Rauf as a radical Islamist seeking to take over America.
I'm disappointed in the IPT. Looks like Emerson is joining Pam Geller in the conservapatriot crazy brigade

facts

Submitted by Buz Chertok, Aug 25, 2010 12:10

When trying to utilize a "fact" checking effort to impeach the words of a person who is supported by liberal, progressive or whatever handle people of that persuasion are applying to themselves these days, no success is to be expected because their universal motto is "DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH THE FACTS-MY MIND IS MADE UP!"

Rauf's apologetics for jihadist mass murderers

Aug 24, 2010 11:10

One of the most prominent things that Feisal Abdul Rauf conveniently omits in the first statement is that al Qaeda is but one part of a much wider network of Islamist groups that have killed exponentially more Muslims AND non-Muslims than the number of fatalities in Iraq that Rauf disingenuously blames on the United States (instead of Saddam's Tikriti mafia). Given Rauf's association with individuals and groups connected to the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, his dissembling should come as no surprise.
As was the case in Rauf's statements in his post-9/11 interview with Ed Bradley on "60 Minutes", this is a classic case of terrorist apologetics intended to provide moral and political cover for jihadist mass murderers. Potentially more troubling is that his statements could be read as a Muslim religious authority legalizing, in Islamic terms, AQ's actions on September 11, 2001 by presenting the attacks as a legitimate form of jihad.

Response and "Fact Checking"

Submitted by Guy, Aug 24, 2010 03:39

Glad that you are impressed "Fact Checking the Fact Checkers". Most of this stuff is pretty elementary, if you will excuse what could be considered "pomposity" or "pedantic" material.
Naturally, we all abhor the periods in which the USA supported tyrants in order to further their efforts in international politics. The problem is, none of us has ever sat in the position of a Director of the CIA, or Secretary of State, while facing an adversary like the U.S.S.R. Yes, we now can see that support for a Sadaam Hussein, in order to counter a radical Iran, was a source of many, many problems. We can also see that our training and materiel for a young Osama Bin Laden, makes us look like fools, to SOME. There is a great, adage for these situations: 20/20 Hindsight. Also, I'd add, that many are "arm-chair generals". Only those who have actually acted as leaders of large, life-and-death operations, can really relate to the life of a real general like a McChrystal, or an Eisenhower.
Counting dead bodies is something people do, but I'd say we are LUCKY that Al Qaeda has not tallied up 50k or 100k or more casualties. It is not from lack of DESIRE to achieve those deaths, but from being THWARTED in many of their efforts, and those of fellow travelers in terrorism.
Ultimately, the only point I can agree with is one that you mention when you say you UNDERSTAND how Muslim citizens can harbor antipathy toward the US because their homes and relatives have died during US military operations. I'd point out, though that we really need to remember all those Iraqi citizens who profoundly thank the US for having removed Sadaam Hussein from his tyrannical reign over the Iraqi people. I've reviewed carefully the history of this madman, and I cannot imagine how most people can rationalize the notion that he should STILL BE RUNNING THINGS IN IRAQ. Since we are wallowing in "what if" and fantasy here, we must remember that many say we should never have removed Saddam. The people who say this, arguably, do not have the intellectual capacity to imagine what level of heinous, torturous, death-dealing would have occurred in a lengthy life by Hussein and/or the reign of one or the other of his psychotic children, Qusay, etc.
That seems to show the problem with both the tallying of dead bodies and with the assessment of what Israel should really be doing. You can never really imagine the repercussions of your suggested solutions. I'd say it is better to let sovereign nations deal with their own issues unless they engage in such level of atrocity that intervention is needed. Israel has not engaged in anything approaching what Iran, or Iraqi dictator Hussein engaged in. Israel has not used large-scale chemical weaponry on its adversaries. Also, Israel has tended to respond to attack as opposed to initiating attack.
Anyway, this Imam has shown that he is typical in his viewpoints of the USA, and that he does not hold the US in very high esteem. Nonetheless, he was educated here, and has chosen to vote with his feet and live here. It might behoove him to mention what it is that he ADMIRES about the USA. Once people discuss things in that manner, it becomes more apparent that they have "good will" toward America.

Read more at: http://www.investigativeproject.org/2121/rauf-lecture-reveals-radicalism

State Dept. confirms Obama dual citizen 'Counter-misinformation' website aims to debunk birth controversy

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

The State Department is maintaining a "counter-misinformation" page on an America.gov blog that attempts to "debunk a conspiracy theory" that President Obama was not born in the United States, as if the topic were equivalent to believing space aliens visit Earth in flying saucers.
However, in the attempt to debunk the Obama birth-certificate controversy, the State Department author confirmed Obama was a dual citizen of the U.K. and the U.S. from 1961 to 1963 and a dual citizen of Kenya and the U.S. from 1963 to 1982, because his father was a Kenyan citizen when Obama was born in 1961.
In a number of court cases challenging Obama's eligibility, dual citizenship has been raised as a factor that could compromise his "natural born" status under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. The cases argue dual citizenship would make Obama ineligible even if documentary evidence were shown the public, such as the hospital-issued long-form birth certificate that indicates the place of his birth and the name of the attending physician.
The entry "The Obama Birth Controversy" was written by Todd Leventhal, identified as the chief of the Counter-Misinformation Team for the U.S. Department of State. The office appears to have been established "to provide information about false and misleading stories in the Middle East," as described in a biography of Leventhal published on the U.S. Public Diplomacy website.
(Story continues below)

In a manner reminiscent of George Orwell's novel "1984," the "counter-misinformation" office appears set on communicating the accepted U.S. government-approved view on a wide range of controversies that are branded dismissively as "conspiracy theories," including questions about President Obama's eligibility to be president.
In the "conspiracy theory" section, a discussion of Obama's birth certificate is lumped together with flying saucers, theories about the JFK assassination and a belief that the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was a legitimate document.
Ideas considered absurd are identified in nine different "conspiracy theory boxes," categorized by September 11, health, the military, outer space, economics, U.S. domestic concerns, U.S. and Islam, Latin America and "others."
'Expert on conspiracy theories'
State Department spokesman Noel Clay confirmed to WND that Leventhal was a State Department employee and that an office of counter-misinformation existed in the State Department.
Clay did not subsequently respond to WND's additional inquiries. He was asked whether Congress authorized the office and to provide information regarding the process within the State Department that checked Leventhal's postings for accuracy and approved them as official U.S. government positions.
"Todd Leventhal is the department's expert on conspiracy theories and information – stories that are untrue, but widely believed," the State Department explains on America.gov. "He enjoys reading obituaries, which tell the personal stories of people who have shaped the fabric of American life."
According to America.gov, Leventhal's qualifications for the job at America.gov include that he "worked for Voice of America for seven years and bikes to work year-round."
On the website, the State Department explains, "Todd became interested in international affairs after a four-month trip to the Soviet Union, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India in 1972."
Leventhal did not respond to WND questions posed on his Facebook page asking for his job description at the State Department and for an explanation of the office and directors to whom he reports in clearing the information he posts.
COLB argument repeated
Leventhal contends it is not true that Obama was born outside the United States, because Hawaii State Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino stated on July 27, 2009, "I … have seen the original vital records on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen."
However, WND has reported that in two separate interviews, Janice Okubo, the Hawaii Health Department's public information officer, told WND that Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 338-18 prohibits public officials from commenting on the birth records of any specific person.
Nor was this Fukino's only statement on Obama's birth records.
As WND reported, even months earlier, Fukino had said, "I, and Dr. Alvin Onaka have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."
But neither statement revealed what the "record" or "certificate" says or clarified many of the questions raised over the issue.
Do the "original vital records" and "original birth certificate" reflect a Hawaiian birth, or a birth overseas?
Next, Leventhal cites the 2008 FactCheck.org production of a Certificate of Live Birth "verifying that it was a real, official document."
WND has repeatedly pointed out that the Hawaii Department of Health, especially in the era in which Obama was born, issued short-form Certificates of Live Birth to children born in foreign countries, simply because parents or other family members registered the birth with the Hawaii health department.
Leventhal also cites the birth announcements placed in two Honolulu newspapers at the time of Obama's birth, neglecting to address WND's research demonstrating that the address listed in the birth announcements was where Obama's maternal grandparents lived, suggesting the grandparents may have registered the birth.
Nor does Leventhal explain why the American public should not be permitted to see Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate listing the hospital where he was born and the physician attending the birth.
WND has reported on a continuing controversy in which Obama's family first claimed he was born at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, only to change the story to insist Obama was born at the city's Kapi'olani Medical Center.
Obama a dual citizen
Finally, Leventhal cites FactCheck.org to state, "Obama was originally both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies from 1961 to 1963 (because his father was from Kenya, which gained its independence from the British Empire in 1963), then both a U.S. and Kenyan citizen from 1963 to 1982, and solely a U.S. citizen after that."
Leventhal's entry on "The Obama Birth Controversy" at America.gov reads remarkably like the comparable entry at the Obama 2008 presidential campaign website, "Fight the Smears," suggesting the State Department is merely repeating Obama campaign argumentation in a partisan fashion, rather than conducting an even-handed and original inquiry into the Obama eligibility controversy.

Judges told they should resolve eligibility dispute Provision of Constitution 'may not be disregarded by means of a popular vote'

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A district court's ruling in a dispute over Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, if allowed to stand, would strip minorities in the United States of "all political power" and leave laws to be based "upon the whims of the majority," according to a new filing in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The brief was filed by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, who is representing Wiley S. Drake, a vice presidential candidate on the 2008 ballot in California, and Markham Robinson, an elector from the state.
The case involves a long list of additional plaintiffs, including ambassador Alan Keyes, who are being represented by California attorney Orly Taitz and are filing their pleadings separately from those on behalf of Drake and Robinson.
The case challenges Obama's eligibility to be president, citing a lack of documentation, and was the subject of hearings at the lower court level, where Judge David Carter heard arguments.
However, Carter dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiffs suffered no injury – they didn't have "standing" – and that the law left it to Congress to sort out eligibility issues instead of a court.



Wrong on both counts, argues the brief submitted just days ago to the appeals judges.
The brief contends that according to a 2008 court precedent, "a candidate or his political party has standing to challenge the inclusion of an allegedly ineligible rival on the ballot, on the theory that doing so hurts the candidate's or party's own chances of prevailing."
"This interest is akin to the interest of an Olympic competition, where one of the competitors in an athletic competition is found to be using performancing enhancing drugs, but is not removed despite a violation of the rules, and all of the athletes who had trained for the event legitimately are harmed if that disqualified contestant remains as the contestants would not be competing on a level playing fields," the brief argues. "Obama entered this race without having meet the eligibility requirements for the office of president of the United States and, as a result, Drake has been injured because he did not have fair competition for the office of vice president."
Further, the brief argues that the government's argument that Keyes and Drake were in no position to win the election anyway, "does not nullify their injury."
"The injury here is … that these candidates were denied a fair opportunity to run for the office because their competition was disqualified from the outset," the argument explains.
Furthermore, the case should be handled by the court system, the brief insists.
"[The government] alleged … that this matter is a political question and, therefore, unredressable by this court," the brief said. "Appellants do not seek to judicially place a different political party in the White House, but, instead, only seek a determination as to whether Obama has met the constitutional eligibility requirements, and, should Obama be discovered to be ineligible to serve as president … appellants seek a court declaration that the votes cast by the California Electors in favor of the Obama/Biden ticket were of no legal force or effect."
The brief cites the removal of Thomas H. Moodie from the office of governor in North Dakota in the 1930s as proof that a government's chief officer can be removed from office by the courts – even after an election and inauguration. Moodie had failed to meet a state residency requirement to be governor. But was elected anyway and installed, and ultimately removed from office over that failure.
The political branches "lack the authority to make" a determination on a candidate's ineligibility, the legal brief says.
"A provision of the Constitution may not be disregarded by means of a popular vote of the people," the brief continued, "as there are specific guidelines for amending the constitution of the United States … Even if the people of the United States voted to elect as president a candidate who did not qualify for the position, that vote would not be sufficient to overcome the constitutional requirements for office and make that candidate eligible," Kreep argues.
"Because voters can and do vote for candidates that are liked by the voters, even if those candidates may not be eligible for the position, the voters do not have the power or the right to determine the eligibility of a candidate. For the court to hold otherwise, would be to strip non-majorities of all political power, as the laws would be based upon the whims of the majority.
"Here, the underlying issue is one arising under the Art. 2, Paragraph 1 of the United States Constitution, whether Obama meets the eligibility requirements … As established above, plaintiffs have standing to bring this action as they have suffered a concrete injury in fact, caused by Obama's ineligibility for the office of United States president, for which the court has a remedy."
The brief also notes that no other case has addressed these particular circumstances, but to leave it unresolved is to court danger.
"If the current prime minister of the United Kingdom David Cameron were to be nominated by a political party to run for the office of president of the United States, could he do so on the grounds that there is no one with the authority to verify his status?"
The issue stems from the constitutional demand that the president – unlike others in the federal government – must be a "natural born citizen." WND has covered a multitude of challenges and lawsuits over Obama's eligibility. Some have alleged that he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he has written, or that the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens – Obama's father was a subject of the British crown at Obama's birth – from being eligible for the office.
Besides Obama's actual birth documentation, still-withheld documentation for him includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

---

Does Barack Obama want to be re-elected in 2012?

Few Americans consider themselves bigger than the presidency but Obama might be one of them. The man in the Oval Office, argues Toby Harnden, may already be preparing for a role as a post-president in a post-American world. 

When David Plouffe, President Barack Obama's 2008 campaign manager, wrote recently that his former boss was "not concerned with his re-election", there was predictable scepticism.

After all, it has long been a truism that every politician wants to cling to power and a reality that presidential campaigns are planned years in advance. Pronouncements about not looking at polls and concentrating on getting things done are, moreover, standard fare from poll-driven, election-obsessed politicians and their apparatchiks.

 

In this case, however, Plouffe may inadvertently be onto something. Almost everything Obama does these days suggests that he doesn't care much about being re-elected. Strange as it might seem, perhaps he wants to be a one-term president.
Obama was elected in 2008 at an extraordinary moment in American politics. Suddenly, this charismatic figure, elected to the Senate without serious opposition in 2004 and without any executive experience, was catapulted into the White House.
His presidential bid had been based on the power of his life story and his ability with the spoken word. Doubtless he was as surprised as anyone else that he pulled it off. Governing has been altogether more difficult for him and there are signs he is already tiring of it.
Obama's intervention on the so-called "Ground Zero mosque" issue is a case in point. There was no need for him to get involved - the Islamic community centre two blocks from the 9/11 site is unlikely to get built and there was no political advantage in his making a statement.
What he said about religious freedom was typically Obama - high-minded, principled and legalistic. He is, after all, a former constitutional law professor. What his words lacked were any real empathy with what Americans felt and practical considerations about resolving the issue - never mind the political downside for him.
Doubtless he has been advised to prove he is "connected" to ordinary Americans by doing things like be seen attending church and taking "regular" holidays. But Obama seems happy to act as a European-style secularist, vacation in Martha's Vineyard and send his daughters to one of America's most exclusive private schools.
Obama does not suffer for self doubt. He has long seemed so convinced of his own virtue that to question his motives is illogical. Increasingly, his pronouncements carry the tone of one who believes those who disagree are stupid or bigoted.
Before departing for Martha's Vineyard last week, Obama spent three days on the campaign trail raising money and support for Democratic mid-term election candidates. Don't give in to fear," he said in Milwaukee. "Let's reach for hope."
It was a message that worked once but is unlikely to appeal this time, with America in the grip of a recession, unemployment still stubbornly close to 10 percent and blame-it-on-Bush rhetoric wearing very thin.
Obama is, however, at his best in these settings. He has the crowd hanging on his every word and he is not dealing with grubby political realities or objectionable opponents. Perhaps they are a reminder for him of simpler times.
They might also be a glimpse of the future. For Obama, the crowning moment of his presidency have been speeches abroad - the statement in Strasbourg that America had been "dismissive and arrogant", the address to the Muslim world from Cairo, the acceptance in Oslo of the Nobel Peace Prize.
In Berlin in 2008, Obama cast himself as a "citizen of the world". He has dismissed the bedrock notion of American exceptionalism by describing it, also in Strasbourg, as little more than narrow patriotism. Elite opinion among liberal Ivy League types - of which Obama is the embodiment - holds that we are already living in a post-American world.
There are few Americans who see themselves as bigger than the presidency but Obama could well be one of them. In 2008, Obama showed little appetite for the down-and-dirty aspects of political campaigning.
When things got tough against Hillary Clinton, he all but conceded the final Democratic primaries and let the clock run out. Against John McCain, he developed a campaign plan and refused to deviate from it. McCain was level in the polls when the US economy imploded, handing Obama a relatively comfortable victory.
Obama is the first black American president, an established author, multi-millionaire and acclaimed figure beyond American shores.
It seems highly unlikely that Obama will decide not to run in 2012. But he might well be calculating that a embarking post-presidential role as the leading global thinker in the post-American world as a Republican successor enters office is more attractive than being sullied by the political compromises and manoeuvrings necessary to win

China channeling money through Chavez to drug cartels 'Washington continues to ignore, misapprehend, or minimize threat

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Editor's Note: The following report is excerpted from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium online newsletter published by the founder of WND. Subscriptions are $99 a year or, for monthly trials, just $9.95 per month for credit card users, and provide instant access for the complete reports.

Hugo Chavez

China may be helping to bankroll plans by Venezuela's leftist leader to back drug cartels and a terrorist group as they extend their influence into U.S. cities, and U.S. officials are remaining virtually silent about it, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin. The silence is attributed largely to an effort to prevent Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez from cutting off oil exports to the U.S., on which the American relies for a third of its daily consumption. In an analysis entitled "Chavez and China: Challenging U.S. Interests," the American Enterprise Institute, or AEI, has concluded that Chavez is relying heavily on money from China that is investing freely in Venezuela's oil industry, "filling a void as Chavez muscles out U.S. and even local expertise." (Story continues below)
In addition to putting capital into Venezuela's oil industry, China is funneling money and expertise into the country's manufacturing and finance sectors in the form of loans and investments.
According to security experts, China has become a virtual "cash cow" that also may be allowing Chavez to help financially as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia, or FARC, teams up with notorious drug lords in Mexico to try to raise the threat level in U.S. cities.
The U.S. State Department has designated FARC as a foreign terrorist organization.
Chavez never has hidden his vitriol against Washington. While the stated mission of FARC is to overthrow the democratically elected Columbian government, Chavez also sees it as a tool to hit back at the U.S. without any direct fingers being pointed at him.
Keep in touch with the most important breaking news stories about critical developments around the globe with Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence news source edited and published by the founder of WND.

America Welcomes Everybody - Unguarded border bridges are an easy route into US

By ALICIA A. CALDWELL, Associated Press Writer Alicia A. Caldwell, Associated Press Writer – Thu Aug 19, 2:51 pm ET

ACALA, Texas – On each side of a towering West Texas stretch of the $2.4 billion border fence designed to block people from illegally entering the country, there are two metal footbridges, clear paths into the United States from Mexico.
The footpaths that could easily guide illegal immigrants and smugglers across the Rio Grande without getting wet seem to be there because of what amounts to federal linguistics. While just about anyone would call them bridges, the U.S.-Mexico group that owns them calls them something else.
"Technically speaking it's not a bridge, it's a grade control structure," said Sally Spener, spokeswoman for the International Boundary and Water Commission, which maintains the integrity of the 1,200-mile river border between the U.S. and Mexico. The structures under the spans help prevent the river — and therefore the international border — from shifting.
Spener said the river was straightened years ago to stabilize and prevent a shift during high river flow. Without the structures, which also help slow the flow of water in the river, she said it could erode its banks, wash out the river bed and degrade natural habitats.
Whatever they're called, there are fresh sneaker tracks on the structures — indicating they're being used as passages into the country.
After a private meeting with Rio Grande Valley police chiefs Thursday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry said news of the unsecured footbridges did not surprise him.
"This is a long border," Perry said. "It's been discouraging that there's something as obvious (as the bridges) and the federal government hasn't addressed it."
The realization that a section of the border fence is sandwiched between two footbridges comes at a time of heightened alarm along the U.S.-Mexico border as the drug war in northern Mexico continues unabated. President Barack Obama ordered thousands of National Guard troops to the border but Perry has railed that the federal government isn't doing enough to keep Americans safe and illegal immigrants out.
The steel fencing that dots about 600 miles of border in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California was built under former President George W. Bush's administration amid a national outcry for border security. The steel fencing appears in urban areas, while more rural areas have shorter, concrete vehicle barriers.
"If we are spending so much money on a fence, why not put some into cutting (the bridges) out, eliminating an easy access at a place that is not a port?" said Don Reay, executive director of the Texas Border Sheriff's Coalition.
The footbridges were built in the 1930s as part of a treaty with Mexico, Spener said.
On a recent visit to a bridge west of the fence line near Acala, Border Patrol Special Operations Supervisor Ramiro Cordero spotted an hours-old adult-sized sneaker print in the soft sand at the foot of the bridge facing into the United States.
In a border tour with the Hudspeth County Sheriff's Office in March, Associated Press journalists happened upon the bridge moments after a man with a bicycle used the bridge to cross the river from Mexico. The border crosser, who told authorities he was only trying to fish from the north side of the river, was promptly arrested.
"If he can do it, so can drug cartels with loads of narcotics of any kind," Hudspeth County Sheriff's Lt. Robert Wilson said. "Even a terrorist could pass here with weapons of mass destruction and be in the United States and up on the interstate and gone in a short time."
It's unclear how often the bridge is used, but it's common to see people on the Mexican side lingering around the crossing or others playing in the river in the area.
The bridges may have made sense decades ago when they were built, Wilson said, but times have changed and the once quiet area across the border from rural Hudspeth County has been enveloped in Mexico's drug war.
Cartel fighters have overrun a series of small towns in the Valle de Juarez, about 50 miles east of Ciudad Juarez, ground zero in the bloody drug war. Residents have been forced to flee north to Fort Hancock after cartel fighters burned down houses, tried to torch a local Catholic church and threatened to kill anyone who stayed.
"It made a lot of sense for flood control when the boundary commission built them," Wilson said. "Now with the way things have progressed, it's pretty silly there are no controls here."
Cordero insists agents in the area pay close attention to the bridges and other areas easily crossed on foot or by car. He said there also are numerous underground sensors around the bridges that alert agents to area traffic.
But patrols in such an open area can appear to be sporadic to the average observer as marked Border Patrol trucks cruise up and down a river levee road along the border.
The crossings are owned by both the United States and Mexico and are needed for workers to maintain and occasionally fix cement structures that support the bridge, Spener said. Any changes to the structures, she said, would have to be approved by officials in both countries. And no one has ever asked to secure the bridges or remove them, she said.
"We would be happy to work with Border Patrol if they have security concerns they've identified," Spener said. "It would be a challenge, but we'd be happy to discuss it."
Cordero said he's not aware of any requests by Border Patrol or the Department of Homeland Security to secure the crossings. But still, he concedes, it would be nice if there was more security around the remote crossing.

"Obviously this is where technology and the experience of our agents comes into play," Cordero said. "Do we have to pay more attention here? Yes, because we're talking seconds that they can get in."

Fight is on over another Arizona immigration law State banishes teaching school students 'overthrow of United States government'

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

The superintendent of the Arizona Department of Public Education says his agency will consider a refusal by the school district in Tucson to videotape its "Raza studies" classes as evidence the district is "deliberately" concealing its agenda. The state had asked Tucson, in view of a new state law that takes effect at the end of this year that bans promoting to students "the overthrow of the United States government" and other issues, to record its "Raza" classes this fall to document what is being taught. No, said Tucson officials. So the state, which starting Jan. 1 can withhold 10 percent of the district's state funding, confirmed it would cite that refusal when the dispute comes up for judicial review. When the funds are withheld, said a state letter to the district, "You will have the right to appeal to an administrative law judge. If you agree to this videotape, it will be helpful evidence to the administrative law judge. If you refuse, we will offer that refusal as evidence to the administrative law judge that the school district has deliberately hidden facts that would show that the district is in non-compliance with H.B. 2281." The new law was adopted this year by the legislature and signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer. But it largely has been overshadowed by the international furor over the state's plan to make illegal under state law what already is illegal under federal law – being in the state without permission. The law, S.B. 1070, now is under consideration by possibly dozens of other states even as its enforcement in Arizona has been suspended by a federal judge pending a trial over its constitutionality. S.B. 1070 even attracted the criticism of Mexican authorities, who decried that it would crack down on illegal aliens in Arizona. However, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly said the crackdown on illegals "may not be the most controversial Arizona law about illegal aliens." Find out how America is giving away its sovererignty, in "The Late Great USA" The additional law, Schlafly wrote, "bans classes that 'promote the overthrow of the United States government' or 'promote resentment toward a race or class of people' because schools should treat all pupils as individual Americans." (Story continues below)
She explained the issue arose because the Tucson School District offers courses in "Mexican-American studies (known locally as Raza Studies) that focus on that particular group and its influence."
"The law doesn't prohibit these classes so long as they are open to all students and don't promote ethnic resentment or solidarity," she explained. "However, Arizona's Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Horne, says the basic theme of the Mexican-American studies program is that Latino students 'were and continue to be victims of a racist American society driven by the interests of middle- and upper-class whites.'"
The district's goals for its Mexican-American Studies include "social justice" along with "Latino Critical Race Pedagogy," and Schlafly reported pictures of the classroom walls revealed "heroes" such as Che Guevara and Fidel Castro.

Horne, who also is running for attorney general, and Deputy Superintendent Margaret Dugan had asked Tucson to videotape its "so-called 'ethnic studies' classes during the upcoming fall semester to provide important evidence as to whether those courses are in violation of H.B. 2281."
The school district, however, sent WND a copy of a letter it dispatched to Horne refusing his request. Tucson Superintendent John Carroll cited his decision that the taping "would unnecessarily disrupt" the classes.
Horne had suggested state officials have reason to suspect the district may be in the position to infringe on the law.
"Margaret Dugan and I have worked for more than two years to get legislation passed to ensure that students are taught to be Americans and to treat each other as individuals, and not on the basis of their ethnic backgrounds," Horne said in an announcement about the request.
"Though we are pleased the legislation passed, it is very unfortunate that it will not take effect until January of 2011. Margaret Dugan and I are asking the Tucson district to videotape the classes to provide evidence for an expected appeal to an administrative law judge, as to whether these courses violate H.B. 2281," he said.
"The Ethnic Studies curricula that will be prohibited by law are designed to promote ethnic chauvinism and there is never a time or place for that in the classroom," Dugan continued. "The lessons divide students on the basis of their race and ethnicity, instead of promoting the fundamental American value that we are all individuals."
Horne's recent letter to Carroll said that teachers and former teachers have reported the "whole inference and tone" of the "Raza Studies" was "anger."
"(They taught students) that the United States was and still is a fundamentally racist country in nature, whose interests are contrary to those of Mexican-American kids," the letter said.
"Individuals in this (Ethnic Studies) department are vehemently anti-Western culture. They are vehemently opposed to the United States and its power. They are telling students they are victims and that they should be angry and rise up," the letter continued.
"A teacher describes how the TUSD administration intimidated him by removing him from his class, and calling him a 'racist,' even though he himself is Hispanic," it added.

The state officials charged that Tucson "has hired a group of radical socialist activists who promote an anti-capitalist and anti-Western Civilization ideology. They use ethnic solidarity as their vehicle of delivery. A climate of outright intimidation has stopped many from standing up to this group for fear of being labeled racists. "
Further, "Impressionable youth in TUSD have literally been reprogrammed to believe that there is a concerted effort on the part of a white power structure to suppress them and relegate them to a second-class existence. This fomented resentment further encourages them to express their dissatisfaction through the iconoclastic behavior we see – the contempt for all authority outside of their ethnic community and their total lack of identification with the political heritage of this country. "
The letter also cited a statement from Augustine Romero of the district's Ethnic Studies program on a television interview about why the course uses the word "Raza."
His response, according to the letter, was, "So that our students could recognize and connect to their indigenous side, just like the word 'dine' for the Navajo translates to 'the people,' like the word 'O'odham' for the Tohono O'odham translates to 'the people.' The word 'Yoeme' for the Yoeme people translates to 'the people.' It was an attempt to connect to our indigenous sides, as well as our Mexican side. "
"This would appear," Horne wrote, "to us to be an admission, not only that the course violates the provisions of H.B. 2281, but that it was intended to do so by those who designed and implemented it."
He wrote that he understands the district denies the charges and said the best course to determine the nature of the classes would be to record them.
"Please consider this a formal request to video tape the Ethnic Studies courses, and in particular, the Mexican-American/Raza Studies course, in their entirety, in the coming semester. To protect privacy of students, the videos should focus on the teacher alone. The videos should be of all classroom hours, and not selected," Horne wrote.
He said he expects that when the law takes effect after Dec. 31, the state will announce it is withholding 10 percent of its allocations for Tucson, as allowed under the law.
The Mexican American Studies page on the Tucson school website boasts it advocates for curricula "that is centered within the Mexcian American-Chicano cultural and historical experience," and "promoting and advocating for social and educational transformation."
According to a report in the Tucson Sentinel, one of the books in use for the classes has been "Occupied America: A History of Chicanos." The report also cited Tucson board president Judy Burns saying, "We don't teach all those ugly things they think we're teaching."
Burns said there were no plans to end the program.
The National Review reported when John Ward, a Tucson teacher "who saw his U.S. history course co-opted by the Raza Studies department," said students were being taught "that Mexican-Americans were and continue to be victims of a racist American society driven by the interests of middle and upper-class whites."

Report Obama 'propaganda' on trains, planes, highways Congressman urges citizens to send in photographic evidence of 'stimulus' signs

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Have you seen a "stimulus" sign in your neighborhood? Take a photograph, and send the picture along with a description of the location to stimulussigns@gmail.com, urges Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Issa's congressional staff plans to assemble a prominent display of what Issa believes are ubiquitous stimulus signs praising the Obama administration and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or ARRA, on transportation facilities across America. Yesterday, Issa's Washington office issued a statement charging that the Department of Transportation is continuing to push recipients of Obama administration stimulus money to display signs crediting President Obama and stimulus spending with "economic recovery," even though DOT has responded to pressure and agreed to stop "requiring" that the signs be posted. WND reported Monday that Issa's office issued a scathing Republican oversight report charging the Obama White House has "used the machinery of the Obama campaign to tout the President's agenda through inappropriate and sometimes unlawful public relations and propaganda initiatives." Issa is convinced that despite the objections voiced by his office, the report and the DOT's apparent agreement to stop, the agency intends to plaster railroads, airports, highways and waterways throughout the country with Obama stimulus signs. The congressman says the signage campaign amounts to little more that a political message to re-elect the president.
Issa is now convinced that DOT's change of policy from requiring stimulus signs to be posted to "encouraging" the posting of the signs is nothing more than window dressing.
"Despite eliminating requirements to post signs, Department of Transportation agencies are still improperly focused on pushing projects to display signs crediting President Obama and the so-called 'stimulus' for earmarked funding handouts," Issa said yesterday.
Issa is charging that DOT is involved in "wink-wink" compliance by getting the signs put up by implementing regulations that "encourage" stimulus contractors to post the signs.
"The Administration's obsession with using taxpayer money to get political credit for projects add unnecessary expenses and bureaucracy to a spending package that's failing to spur promised job creation in the private sector," he stressed.
Issa's office notes that stimulus signs posted by DOT can cost anywhere from a few hundred dollars to as much as $10,000 for a sign posted at Dulles Airport outside Washington, D.C.
WND reported Issa has called for a Government Accountability Office investigation into the legality of the Obama administration's use of taxpayer funds to conduct "a propaganda effort" to promote the president's partisan agenda.
Here come the signs
A letter Tuesday to Issa from Calvin L. Scovel III, the inspector general at DOT, made clear that DOT has agreed not to require ARRA signs to be posted, thereby appearing to concede to the objections raised by Issa and the Republican report.
However, Scovel's letter made equally clear DOT will continue to "encourage" the posting of ARRA signs.
Scovel detailed "encouragement" rules and regulations for ARRA signs to be posted on nearly every mode of transportation in the United States – including stimulus-funded airport projects under the jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration, highway projects under the Federal Highway Administration, railroad projects under the Federal Railroad Administration and maritime projects under the Maritime Administration.
Given that most contractors are inclined to comply with the wishes of their government funding agencies, Issa is concerned the difference between "requiring" ARRA signs to be posted and "encouraging" the posting of the signs may not be meaningful in practice.
"Despite the fact that the Federal Railroad Administration no longer legally requires the posting of such signs, their guidance continues to encourage grant recipients to spend federal stimulus dollars on such signage," a press release issued by Issa's office yesterday stressed.
Issa further pointed out that the Federal Railroad Administration's decision to eliminate requirements for posting stimulus signs took effect July 15, only after a proposal introduced by Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill. The measure to prevent tens of millions of dollars to be spent on stimulus signs was selected July 13 to go to the House floor to be put to a vote through the Republican "You Cut" project.
The Federal Railroad Administration continues to encourage grant recipients to spend federal stimulus dollars and post the signs anyway by specifying FRA stimulus sign posting policies that specify:

• ARRA project signs should be stand-alone signs, with the sole purpose of identifying the project as being funded in whole or in part by ARRA;
  
• Grantees may elect to have a secondary sign that identifies other project partners (such as state, county, city or corporate sponsors), but only if the secondary project signs are smaller and less prominent that the ARRA project sign;
  
• AARA project signs should be designed to maximize the visibility of Recovery.gov and DOT logos and minimize any accompanying text;
  
• For rail vehicles purchased or rehabilitated using ARRA funding, ARRA project signs should take the form of a decal, no smaller than 12-inches measured diagonally;
  
• For passenger rail cars, such decals should be placed so as to be visible to every passenger entering the car (e.g., by being placed n or adjacent to each vestibule car and/or each exterior door);
  
• For locomotives, such decals should be placed in the lower front of the locomotive body, adjacent to a builder plate;
  
• ARRA project signs on fixed facilities should be located as to maximize their visibility to rail passengers and passersby approaching the site.