Saying No to Additional IMF Bailout Money Should Be a Minimum Test for the GOP

Gulag Bound
International Liberty
By: Dan Mitchell


International Liberty
Dan Mitchell

In a grand Washington tradition, I periodically make imperious demands. In the past year or two, I’ve issued the following ultimatums to the GOP.

I don’t actually expect any politicians to pay attention when I make these demands, of course, but I am highlighting issues that send a signal about whether Republicans actually learned any lessons after getting shellacked in 2006 and 2008.

So far, they’re holding reasonably firm on the tax issue. They don’t have control over the CBO and JCT thanks to Harry Reid, so we’ll give them a pass on that topic. And we’ll see later this year whether they agree to squander another $100 million on the OECD.

Well, here’s another test to see whether the GOP is on the side of taxpayers or the establishment. The Obama Administration has agreed that the fiscal pyromaniacs at the International Monetary Fun should have more money and power to provide more and bigger bailouts.

Here are some relevant parts of a Washington Post story.

…a brewing election year fight with congressional Republicans…could restrict the IMF’s finances at a time when agency officials say they need a substantial boost to protect the world economy. The dispute centers on Republican opposition to increasing the United States’ financial contributions to the agency, reflecting anger over IMF rescue programs in Europe that some GOP lawmakers argue have become too expensive and have put U.S. taxpayers at risk. …opposition is growing to a permanent increase in U.S. government support for the IMF, as well as to a $100 billion credit line the United States provided in 2009 as part of an international move to help the IMF respond to the global financial crisis. The IMF has been dipping into that credit line for emergency loans to Portugal and elsewhere… Planned changes at the IMF, which would shift seats on the fund’s governing board from Europe to the developing world, cannot proceed without congressional approval. For practical purposes, neither can a related doubling, from $370 billion to $740 billion, in the total permanent contribution that IMF members make to support the agency.

As you can see from the excerpt, Republicans in the House of Representatives have the ability to stop this global boondoggle. The interesting question, though, is whether they defend the interests of ordinary people or whether they cater to the whims of the political elite.

By the way, I’m irked by the Post’s biased presentation. They refer to IMF “rescue programs,” yet all the evidence seems to suggest that the international bureaucracy is simply making the debt bubble bigger. We certainly don’t see any evidence that problems are getting solved. Greece is still in trouble, as are the other nations that stuck their hands in Uncle Sam’s pocket.


But that could be excused as a bit of sloppy reporting. Here’s a part of the story that is hopelessly biased.

The potential for a stalemate over the issue in the United States has the IMF and other international officials worried that it could put broader agency reform efforts at risk. IMF officials say that to backstop the global economy they need about $500 billion in addition to the increase in permanent contributions.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers

Congresswoman Rodgers, defending taxpayers

Since when is it appropriate to use the term “reform efforts” to describe policies that subsidize moral hazard and reward profligacy? And how is it accurate to say that IMF actions “backstop the global economy” when the bureaucrats don’t seem to achieve anything other than encouraging more debt?

But this isn’t a post about media bias, even though I sometimes can’t resist pointing out sloppy or dishonest journalism. Let’s get back to the main point. Giving the IMF more resources would be like giving the keys to a liquor store to a bunch of alcoholics.

Republicans have the ability to stop this raid on the Treasury by saying no. What they decide will reveal a lot about whether they’re still part of the problem.

Some GOPers in the House, such as Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, already are fighting against expanded bailout money for the IMF. The real key, though, will be whether the Republican leadership does the right thing.

Gulag Note:

For another perspective on the IMF, plus INET, and related global banksterism see, The George Soros Attempt to Control the World’s Central Bank Kleptocracy Cartel.”


Scandal at The Washington Post: Fraud, Lobbying & Insider Trading

By: Rusty Weiss
Accuracy in Media

In the summer of 2010, business columnist for The Washington Post Steven Pearlstein lifted the veil on the little-known company operating procedure that involves an incestuous relationship between his own employer, and the scandal-plagued, for-profit university known as Kaplan.[1] In his column, Pearlstein made the argument that while personnel in the newsroom may have nothing to do with Kaplan, they most certainly have “benefited from its financial success.”

So what is it about Kaplan that has been so beneficial to Post employees? Aside from being one of the largest for-profit colleges in the country, Kaplan is not only a subsidiary of The Washington Post, up until recently it has been the single most profitable aspect of the company. In 2009, the year prior to the Pearlstein article, Kaplan accounted for 58% of the Post’s revenue and generated the bulk of company profits, while newspaper and magazine publishing—in other words, journalism—accounted for a mere 19% of revenue and operated in the red.[2] In 2010, Barron’s estimated that the value of The Washington Post company was roughly $8.5 billion, and that Kaplan represented about $5 billion.[3] So it was no surprise when Pearlstein stated that Kaplan “has provided the handsome profits that have helped to cover this newspaper’s operating losses.”

With a financial resumé like that, and status as the cash cow keeping the Post afloat, why wouldn’t CEO Don Graham be singing the praises of Kaplan University? Perhaps because there is a longstanding history of allegations of fraudulent practices, with hundreds of millions of dollars of profits diverted to Kaplan executives. Perhaps it’s also Kaplan’s generation of such profit on the backs of poor students and returning war veterans, preying on their vulnerabilities only to later reward them with degrees of questionable value, massive student-loan debt, and little employment opportunity. Perhaps it is Kaplan’s curious hiring of lobbyists to influence legislation at the state and federal levels, including a former Obama staffer, Anita Dunn, just as the heat was being turned up on for-profit colleges to rein in out-of-control practices.

Whatever the reasons, Kaplan remains part of an industry that provides little educational value for its students—and raises many questions about how it has compromised the integrity of The Washington Post newspaper.

Student Complaints

In 2010, Bloomberg investigative reporter Daniel Golden relayed the story of Keith Melvin, a disabled Iraq War veteran who had been awarded a medal for “outstanding dedication to duty.”[4] Upon returning home from his tour of duty, Melvin sought to pursue collegiate studies in the legal field. He performed an online search, filled out forms, and was eventually contacted by Kaplan University. The university convinced Melvin that it could further his educational pursuits through a litany of phone calls and e-mails, pressuring him to commit. One selling point that sealed the deal? Kaplan’s relationship with the prestigious Washington Post Company.

“With Kaplan having its credentials backed by The Washington Post, I thought, ‘How can this go wrong?’” Melvin said. “It sounded too good to be true, and it was.”

A former admissions adviser for Kaplan explained how The Washington Post was used in their sales pitch to prospective students.

“One of the things that I always said was, ‘As you may know, Kaplan is owned by The Washington Post, a paper known for having really high ethics,’ he said. ‘As you can imagine, The Washington Post would never involve itself in anything that would reflect poorly on its reputation.’”

But the prestige and high ethics promised by a relationship with the Post never materialized. Melvin learned the hard way, as have other students, that the Kaplan experience consists of “high prices, uneven performance and shady marketing practices.”[5] Worse, the university, for all of its selling points, has a dropout rate of nearly 70%, and those who do graduate earn well below the national average for college graduates—outcomes not exactly befitting of a money-making juggernaut and its supposedly ethical parent company.

Unfortunately, Melvin’s experience is not an isolated incident. Targeting and recruiting veterans is such a common practice among for-profit colleges that it prompted Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois to introduce legislation which would eliminate the financial incentive for these colleges to aggressively recruit veterans into pricey programs.[6] A report in the Chicago Tribune explains that “military veterans are being aggressively recruited… because of their lucrative forms of federal aid, such as GI Bill funds and Department of Defense tuition assistance benefits.” Such funds are not bound by the 90/10 rule, which bars the for-profits from deriving more than 90 percent of their revenue from the Department of Education’s federal student-aid programs.

Veteran enrollment helps Kaplan circumvent the 90/10 rule, because GI Bill benefits don’t count as government assistance under the law. Congress further aided the for-profit industry by granting a $2,000 exemption per student to the 90/10 rule. Kaplan reported that it “got less than 87.5 percent of its receipts from federal student grants and loans in the fiscal year ended Jan. 3, 2010,” just short of the 90% cap.[7] Putting a cap on this source of federal money means placing a limit on the university’s ability to generate revenue. As it stands, the 90/10 limit threatens access to billions of dollars in federal student aid in the for-profit industry.

While Kaplan targets and recruits veterans, in particular because of the federal funding opportunities, it certainly doesn’t restrict questionable tactics to these students. The student complaint board on their website shows over 130 current complaints by students at the college, ranging from general fraud, to misappropriation of funds, to “ignorant service.”[8]

In 2009, The Wall Street Journal reported on seven Kaplan campuses which had a three-year dropout rate over 30%, a clear indication that the university had been using aggressive marketing tactics to enroll students regardless of their ability to pay.[9] Meanwhile, most students who do graduate discover that the grandiose promises of careers and large salaries were merely a sales ploy—and in fact, the product offered by Kaplan has substantially less value than that offered by traditional public and private colleges.

A report from a leading for-profit research company explains that such universities are little more than “marketing firms who happen to market education.”[10] A recent shareholder lawsuit against The Washington Post and its CEO Donald Graham was dismissed in December 2011 after the Post filed a motion to dismiss (pages 47-53).[11] The lawsuit had alleged that the Post defrauded investors by engaging in deceptive and unethical business practices. The lawsuit was tossed, shockingly enough, because the motion to dismiss argued that the unethical practices were common knowledge, and therefore investors had not been misled. The Post essentially admitted that Kaplan had been running little more than a telemarketing scheme.[12] In that filing, the Post stated that it was ‘no secret’ that the Kaplan Higher Education Corporation (KHE) operated under a business model that “depended upon the recruitment of low-income and minority students who were dependent upon federal loans and grants.” The Post concurred that the KHE was operating “football field sized call centers that made use of telemarketing techniques and sales goals.”

Marketing materials at Kaplan University show the depths to which recruiters were required to sink:

“If you can help them uncover their true pain and fear. If you get the prospect to think about how tough their situation is right now, if you talk about the life they can’t give their family right now because they don’t have a degree,” the flier instructs, “…You dramatically increase your chances of enrolling this prospective student. Get to their emotions, and you will create the urgency!”

With a university whose singular goal is to meet quarterly sales quotas by targeting low-income, minority, and veteran students, regardless of their ability to pay, it’s no wonder Kaplan’s business model results in consistent failure to serve the students they claim to help, along with consistently low graduation rates, high number of loan defaults, and a high level of dissatisfaction.

Executive Pay

Up until 2011, for-profit colleges had seen consistent double-digit growth in annual revenues, extracted from a litany of federal grants and loan programs under the Title IV program.[13] The industry has been generating billions of dollars of revenue through predatory business practices akin to those in the subprime mortgage industry.[14]

For-profit universities earn money off the backs of service men and women, minorities, and low-income targets (some instances have recruiters seeking out prospective students in homeless shelters), with promises of government loans and grants, and post-graduation employment. At the same time, these colleges are using revenues obtained from the federal government to lobby politicians and weaken regulation. Politicians, backed by corporate influence, have facilitated the transfer of tens of billions of dollars of public funds to these schools in the form of federal grants and loan programs. The result is a staggering level of profit with little of value provided to students or taxpayers.

So when a school like Kaplan pulls in billions of dollars, who has benefited the most? The very people who are perpetuating the money-making scheme—the executives.

Between 2003 and 2008, executives at Kaplan received stock option payouts of $289 million dollars—nearly half of the school’s entire operating income during the same time frame.[15],[16] In 2003, Kaplan handed over $119 million in executive pay, more than double the university’s operating income that year, which came in at $58 million.

Nowhere is such lavish compensation more personified than with the case of Jonathan Grayer, former head of the Kaplan education unit, who resigned in 2008.[17] Grayer’s resignation, after 17 years at the school, resulted in a $76 million severance package.[18] The package included a $20 million bonus paid out in November of 2011, more than the university’s entire third quarter operating income of $18 million.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post, which reported over $6 million in losses during that same quarter, closed a majority of regional news bureaus, and was charged by The Washington Post Guild with “unjustly laying off employees and targeting employees of color.”[19],[20],[21] Recently, they announced the buyout of up to 48 newsroom staff as a cost-cutting measure.

More importantly, under Grayer’s direction, Kaplan and the Post have been involved in the aforementioned shareholders lawsuit, more than a dozen whistleblower lawsuits, and have been the focus of multiple state and federal investigations.[22]

It can therefore be concluded that the Post did not reward Grayer based on academic performance, but rather on his ability to generate revenue for the company—ignoring the ethical quandary that his leadership created.

Government Regulation

Last summer, The New York Times reported that the Department of Education and Congress had placed Kaplan and other for-profit institutions under the microscope, because of their recruiting practices and high loan-default rates. The Education Department issued final regulations which will go into effect next July, “requiring career college programs to better prepare students for ‘gainful employment’ or risk losing access to the federal student aid that, on average, provides more than 85 percent of their revenue.”[23]

Further regulatory efforts will take effect in 2014, but will provide little protection for low- income students to avoid being shackled with unaffordable debt that cannot be discharged through bankruptcy.[24] In fact, the 2014 regulations instituted by the Department of Education allow for schools like Kaplan to continue generating funds off the backs of students and taxpayers, allowing colleges to have a loan default rate of up to 40% in any one year, and up to 30% over 3 years.

Lobbying Against Regulation

Despite the announcement of weak regulatory measures, recent years have seen bi-partisan support in Congress against such regulations, and overall support for the controversial industry. The list of high-profile names that support these for-profit organizations include presidential candidates Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, Speaker of the House John Boehner, Dianne Feinstein, Jesse Jackson, and Nancy Pelosi.[25],[26] Last year, Pelosi broke rank with her party and voted to keep billions of dollars in federal student aid flowing into the coffers of for-profit colleges.[27] Boehner backed deregulation of the online learning industry, supporting the removal of a law known as the 50 Percent Rule back in 2006, eliminating legislation that had protected students by limiting how many could enroll in online courses.[28] The rule was actually put in place back in 1992 in an attempt to curb waste and abuse of federal student aid programs by for-profit colleges. Repealing the 50% rule opened up the floodgates for online enrollment, allowing these colleges to acquire further capital from Wall Street for expansion.

The Obama administration has attempted to rein in for-profit colleges by imposing tighter regulations and limiting the role of private companies in student lending. They vowed to stop for-profit colleges from luring students with false promises. A New York Times article described it as “an opening volley that shook the $30 billion industry” where “officials proposed new restrictions to cut off the huge flow of federal aid to unfit programs.”

However, opposition to such regulations has continued to be an across-the-aisle effort, with Democrats and Republicans alike having accepted funds from such institutions, while simultaneously advocating on their behalf, ignoring the ongoing threat to veterans and low-income students.

Kaplan in particular has come under fire from liberal Democrats and the administration itself, for allegedly conning students into taking out federal loans for a mostly worthless education. During The Washington Post Company’s annual meeting in 2011, Chairman Donald E. Graham acknowledged that his company had been hurt by congressional hearings and negative publicity over Kaplan’s controversial business practices.[29] Representatives of stockholders have been repeatedly asking about the future of the company if profits are further cut by government regulation, with some suggesting that the Post may try to sell Kaplan in order to avoid further losses.

So what does one do when their billion-dollar cash cow is threatened? Lobby lawmakers to water down regulations on your behalf, of course.

While Graham refused to name any members of the House or Senate that he had personally lobbied during the annual meeting, there is little doubt that the Post has pulled out all of the stops in order to survive financially and stall regulations that would affect Kaplan. Graham called scrutiny of for-profit colleges an “unusual situation,” and assured shareholders that Kaplan had changed its ways in an attempt to prevent students from being saddled with too much debt, and nothing to show for it. Such lobbying hasn’t been limited to Graham’s speeches at shareholder meetings.

Roll Call had reported last year that “…Kaplan University, which is owned by the Washington Post Co., paid $110,000 to Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in the first quarter of this year to lobby on the issue and $90,000 to Ogilvy Government Relations.”[30] At the end of 2011, funds directed to lobbying efforts were at their highest level ever for The Washington Post, topping out at $1 million, including a final tally of $210,000 to Akin, Gump et al, and $180,000 to Ogilvy.

Source: Open Secrets Blog

Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media reported on the ties between these lobbying firms and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle:[31]

“Vic Fazio, a former Democratic Congressman from California, is a leader on the Akin Gump team, while GOP operative Wayne Berman leads the Ogilvy effort. The Washington Post Co. has also retained the Democrat- connected firm of Elmendorf Ryan to make its case.”

When adding in Elmendorf Ryan’s $160,000, over half-a-million dollars was spent on three major lobbying firms, with the singular goal of easing federal regulations related to Kaplan’s questionable business practices.

The Post, however, ramped up its lobbying efforts with the hiring of former White House communications director, and good friend to President Obama, Anita Dunn. Dunn played a key role in shaping the Kaplan message that abuse and misconduct were not industry-wide, while aiming to “blunt the impact” of the proposed regulations. She assured The New York Times that, while she has visited the White House roughly 80 times since her departure, she did not speak to colleagues about the issue.[32]

A major target of the Post and other education companies’ lobbying efforts has been the so-called “gainful employment” rules—rules that seek to tie the cost of higher education programs to the amount of money a graduate can expect to earn and loan repayment rates.

The resolution was designed to reduce the number of higher education loans that are going into default. Youth Today reported that in the first quarter of 2011 alone, “The Washington Post and its subsidiary Kaplan Inc. spent a total of $490,000 on lobbying, including paying five different lobbying firms,” focusing specifically on the gainful employment rules. The New York Times reported that the Post had spent a whopping $1.6 million in lobbying Congress on the gainful employment regulations alone. Bloomberg reported that, “publication of that rule was delayed last year, following a lobbying effort by for-profit colleges.”[33]

Donald Graham even took the unusual step of writing an editorial for The Wall Street Journal, which urged the White House to change the rules to “avoid disaster for low-income students.”[34] A mere two months later, Graham threatened to impose his own disaster upon these same students, attempting to bully Congress into modifying the 90/10 rule, warning that he was willing to raise tuition rates on the financially struggling student body if they did not comply.

In the end, efforts to rein in regulations on the Kaplan money machine were successful and the threat of a major crackdown posed by the gainful employment rules had been averted after lobbying by Washington insiders. On June 2nd, rules handed down by the Department of Education had been significantly weakened.

The Times described it as such:

“…after a ferocious response that administration officials called one of the most intense they had seen, the Education Department produced a much-weakened final plan that almost certainly will have far less impact as it goes into effect next year.”

Millions From Insider Trading

In the summer of ’09, The Wall Street Journal did an exposé on for-profit colleges and their default rates, which featured the following statement:[35]

“For-profit schools are favorite targets of short-sellers, or investors who try to profit on bets that stocks will fall, and many have focused on default rates. For-profit schools receive more than $16 billion annually in federal student aid, and taxpayers are on the hook for loan losses.”

And with the recent victory at the lobbying table, the Graham family itself benefited after they had successfully kept their money-making machine intact.

In the days after the Obama administration announced a watered down version of the gainful employment regulations, stocks in every publicly traded college corporation rose, with some soaring in gains by over 20%.[36] The message had been delivered—significantly weakened regulations would have little bearing on the industry’s profitability.

Armed with the knowledge that Kaplan’s stock rose after the regulation package was introduced, Post Chairman Donald Graham, sold off 24,000 shares in trusts benefitting family members, totaling $12 million. The timing raised eyebrows but the reasons seem clear, as Washington Post Company stock had jumped 9% immediately following reports of the new regulations, while settling back to near-average prices shortly thereafter.[37]

More curious was Graham’s insistence three months after the stock sales that “I have not sold a share of Washington Post Company stock in over 30 years nor has any trust for my benefit.”[38] While the June selloff was not for Graham’s personal benefit, he did perform the transaction on behalf of his family’s trust.

As for the family stock selloff, Graham explains that, “I am also a trustee of several trusts for the benefit of other members of my family. From time to time, these family members who also started out life heavily concentrated in Post stock have asked their trustees to sell stock when, for example, they want to buy a house.”

But the claim of sporadic stock sales for occasional large purchases simply doesn’t ring true. The Graham family has a history of multimillion dollar stock sales over the past four years, in which several of the transactions mimicked the post-regulation stock sale, with prices plummeting after the selloff. For instance:[39]

  • In April and May of 2008, the Graham family sold $29 million in stock at an average of roughly $675 per share, and within days the price dropped to $585 per share. (Chart A)
  • In August and September of that same year, the Graham family sold another $14 million in stock, then watched the stock price plummet from $600 per share to $400 per share. (Chart A)
  • The aforementioned stock sale of $12 million this past summer was at a cost of $420 per share, dropping 100 points three weeks later, when quarterly reports showed a decline in yearly income of 50%. (Chart B)
  • Publisher Katharine Weymouth—who is Don Graham’s niece—sold $45,000 in stock in June of 2011.

Chart A. Source: Market Watch, Wall Street Journal

Chart B. Source: Market Watch, Wall Street Journal

Additionally, according to a Daily Censored report last year, $20 million in sales were allegedly executed on behalf of Don Graham’s ex-wife’s in April of 2008.

Considering the Graham family’s apparent ability to predict major drop-offs in the company’s stock, one has to wonder about the legality of what appears to be insider trading taking place. At best, Donald Graham has not been honest in telling the media that the family only sells stock when it comes time to buy a house. They sell when they see the most potential for profit. With the post-regulatory stock sale, it is clear that the Graham family prospered by dropping stock immediately after the regulations were announced, possibly with knowledge in hand that future reports would show a year over year income drop of 50%.

Insider knowledge of Kaplan’s business performance, and The Washington Post stock value has been incredibly beneficial to the Graham family.


The Washington Post has seen a decline in newspaper circulation and journalistic business that they have been almost solely reliant on the success of their cash generating education business, Kaplan University. Chairman of the Post Company Don Graham has willfully turned a blind eye to allegations of fraudulent business practices, excessive student debt and hardship, and exorbitant executive compensation at the for-profit college. At the same time, Graham has actively engaged in lobbying to help generate profits on the backs of the very students he claims to serve, and also engaged in suspicious stock trading that has greatly benefited his family.

Even worse, The Washington Post remains a supposedly reputable staple of the mainstream print media, while refusing to report on one of its own despite media coverage from many other sources. The Post’s failure to report nearly all adverse news about Kaplan even prompted its former Ombudsman, Andrew Alexander, to write a piece which argued that the “Post needs to beef up its coverage of allegations against Kaplan.”[40]

Any company, such as Kaplan, that has been subject to so many government investigations and lawsuits, would be reported on by most responsible news organizations. Why does the Post bury its head in the sand on the Kaplan story, and is Graham personally responsible for suppressing such information?

It’s a question The Washington Post has yet to answer.

* Rusty Weiss has appeared on Fox News, and has been published by The American Thinker, The Daily Caller, and Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government and Journalism websites. He currently runs a nationally recognized blog called The Mental Recession.


1. Pearlstein, Steven. “Despite Scandal, For-profit Education Offers Valuable Model.” Editorial.Washington Post 11 Aug. 2010

2. “Kaplan University: A For-Profit Take On Education.” Interview by Robert Siegel and Michele Norris. NPR, 06 May 2010. http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=126564748

3. Bary, Andrew. “Today’s News: Washington Post Is Dirt Cheap.” Washington Post Is an Undervalued Media Company. Barron’s, 05 Apr. 2010. Web. http://online.barrons.com/article/SB127025477134071631.html

4. Golden, Daniel. “Kaplan Quest for Profits at Taxpayer Expense Ensnares Veteran.” Bloomberg, 01 Nov. 2010. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-01/kaplan-quest-for-profit-at-taxpayer-expense-ensnares-disabled-u-s-veteran.html

5. Pearlstein, Washington Post.

6. Karp, Gregory. “For-profit Colleges under Attack for Treatment of Veterans.” Chicago Tribune. 22 Jan. 2012. Web. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-01-22/business/ct-biz-0123-for-profit-colleges-20120123_1_private-sector-colleges-military-veterans-westwood-college

7. Lauerman, John. “For-Profit Colleges Facing Loss of Taxpayer Funds Fighting Aid Limit.”Bloomberg. 12 Jan. 2011. Web. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-12/for-profit-colleges-facing-taxpayer-funds-loss-fight-aid-limit.html

8. ”Kaplan University Complaints & Reviews.” Complaints Board. Web. 27 Feb. 2012. http://www.complaintsboard.com/bycompany/kaplan-university-a29054.html

9. Hechinger, John, and Tom McGinty. “For-Profit Schools See More Defaults.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 14 Dec. 2009. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126075983194590097.html

10. Marketing. Rep. For Profit Edu. Web. 27 Feb. 2012. http://www.forprofitedu.com/marketing-firms/

11. PLUMBERS LOCAL #200 PENSION FUND v. THE WASHINGTON POST COMPANY. 47-53. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 26 Aug. 2011. Web. 27 Feb. 2012. http://www.scribd.com/doc/82508446/Motion-to-Dismiss-8

12. Weil, Danny. In Court Filing, Washington Post Admits Telemarketing Boiler Room Tactics at Kaplan U. Daily Censored, 14 Jan. 2012. Web. http://dailycensored.com/2012/01/14/in-court-filing-washington-post-admits-telemarketing-boiler-room-tactics-at-kaplan-u/

13. “Title IV Programs.” Federal Student Aid. Web. 27 Feb. 2012. http://federalstudentaid.ed.gov/about/title4_programs.html

14. For-Profit Colleges: Targeting People Who Can’t Pay. NPR, 12 May 2011. Web. http://www.npr.org/2011/05/12/136238528/for-profit-colleges-targeting-people-who-cant-pay

15. United States. Washington Post – ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JANUARY 1, 2006. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Home Page). Web. 28 Feb. 2012. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/104889/000095013306001044/w17760e10vk.htm

16. United States. Washington Post – ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 28, 2008. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Home Page). Web. 28 Feb. 2012. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/104889/000095013306001044/w17760e10vk.htm

17. Friedman, Jon. “Loss of Kaplan Exec to Test Washington Post.” Market Watch. 19 Nov. 2008. Web. http://articles.marketwatch.com/2008-11-19/news/30738877_1_kaplan-washington-post-andrew-rosen

18. Edgecliffe-Johnson, Andrew. “Kaplan Head to Quit with $76m Pay-out.” Financial Times, 20 Nov. 2008. Web. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0cdd851e-b6a5-11dd-89dd-0000779fd18c.html#axzz1nfsa5bpu

19. Fung, Katherine. “Washington Post Co. Reports $6.2 Million Loss In Q3.” The Huffington Post. 4 Nov. 2011. Web. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/04/washington-post-co-six-million-loss-third-quarter_n_1076230.html

20. Calderone, Michael. “Washington Post Closing Several Regional Bureaus.” The Huffington Post. 01 Nov. 2011. Web. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/01/washington-post-closing-local-bureaus_n_945497.html

21. Romenesko, Jim. “Union Claims WP Is Trying to Push People out.” JimRomenesko.com. 22 Nov. 2011. Web. http://jimromenesko.com/2011/11/22/union-claims-wp-is-trying-to-push-people-out/

22. Weil, Danny. “Washington Post Pays Ex CEO $20 Million, Then Lays off News Staff | Dailycensored.com.” The Daily Censored News Blog. 14 Feb. 2012. Web. http://dailycensored.com/2012/02/14/washington-post-pays-ex-ceo-20-million-then-lays-off-news-staff/

23. Lewin, Tamar. “For-Profit College Company Settles Whistle-Blower Suit.” New York Times, 22 July 2011. Web. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/education/23kaplan.html?_r=2

24. Hechinger, McGinty, Wall Street Journal.

25. Lichtblau, Eric. “Romney Offers Praise for a Donor’s Business.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 14 Jan. 2012. Web. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126075983194590097.html

26. Cooper, Kenneth J. “Minority Leaders Oppose “Gainful Employment” Rules for For-profit Colleges.” Diverse Issues in Higher Education. 20 Sept. 2010. Web. http://diverseeducation.com/article/14154/

27. Matier, Phillip, and Andrew Ross. “Nancy Pelosi Joins GOP on For-profit College Aid.”Www.SFGate.com. 10 Apr. 2011. Web. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/09/BAHT1IT646.DTL

28. Kirkham, Chris. “John Boehner Backed Deregulation Of Online Learning, Leading To Explosive Growth At For-Profit Colleges.” The Huffington Post. 29 July 2011. Web. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/29/john-boehner-for-profit-colleges_n_909589.html

29. Kincaid, Cliff. “Post Chairman Questioned on Profits, Federal Subsidies, Lobbying, and Bias.”Accuracy In Media. 12 May 2011. Web. http://www.aim.org/aim-column/post-chairman-questioned-on-profits-federal-subsidies-lobbying-and-bias/

30. Roth, Bennett. “For-Profit Colleges Field Team of Top Lobbyists.” Roll Call, 02 May 2011. Web. http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_114/-205206-1.html?pos=olobh

31. Kincaid, Accuracy in Media.

32. Lichtblau, Eric. “With Lobbying Blitz, For-Profit Colleges Diluted New Rules.” New York Times, 09 Dec. 2011. Web. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/us/politics/for-profit-college-rules-scaled-back-after-lobbying.html?pagewanted=all

33. Lauerman, Bloomberg.

34. GRAHAM, DONALD E. “Avoiding Disaster for Low-Income Students.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 14 Jan. 2011. Web. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703583404576079781835777552.html

35. Hechinger, McGinty, Wall Street Journal.

36. Kirkham, Chris. “For-Profit College Stocks Soar, Indicating New Regulations Won’t Hinder Industry Growth.” The Huffington Post. 02 June 2011. Web. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/02/for-profit-college-stocks-weak-regulations_n_870604.html

37. Smith, Ben, and Keach Hagey. “Don Graham’s Family Sells $10 Million in Washington Post Company Stock.” POLITICO. 20 June 2011. Web. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57379.html

38. “The Washington Post Company Shareholders Day Transcript” Seeking Alpha, 10 Sept. 2011. Web. http://seekingalpha.com/article/292843-the-washington-post-company-shareholders-day-transcript

39. “Insider Trading: Washington Post Co.” Insider-Monitor. Web. 28 Feb. 2012. http://www.insider-monitor.com/trading/cik104889.html

40. Alexander, Andrew. “Post Needs to Beef up Its Coverage of Allegations against Kaplan.”Washington Post. 19 Nov. 2010. Web. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/19/AR2010111904237_2.html


The Dope on Obama’s Communist Prof, Derrick Bell (fm. last night’s Twitter activists)

By: Arlen Williams
Gulag Bound

I was not able to see the initial broadcast of Sean Hannity’s Fox News program last night. Instead, I scanned Twitter, to see what was being related about the highly (but not widely) promoted video of Obama at Harvard, talking up his Harvard faculty friend (and anti-American Communist) Derrick Bell.

This is what I found:

From @JustenCharters:

A Video: You Must Watch. Derrick Bell And Bill Ayers Were B.F.F. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbQjAyabUbo #GOP #TCOT #LNYBT #Hannity #Breitbart #WAR

From @ColorMeRed:

THE VETTING: OBAMA EMBRACES RACIALIST PROF http://bit.ly/zATKPn #Breitbart #VetThePrez #tcot #IamBreitbart

This leads to the introductory Breitbart, Big Government article.

From @jc_rss_rul:

Derrick Bell: Academic career: ? Previous revision Revision as of 02:19, 8 March 2012 Line 59: … http://adf.ly/65cv6 #wiki

Apparently indicates an attempted scrubbing of Wikipedia, of this paragraph (this excerpt includes wikimedia script, I’ve converted its URL to a link of the same):

Bell reentered the debate over hiring practices at Harvard in 1990, when he vowed to take an unpaid leave of absence until the school appointed a female of color to its tenured faculty.<ref>{{cite news|title=Derrick Bell takes a leave of absence to protest the lack of minority faculty at Harvard Law |url=http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/tocn-mla000738-derrick-bell-teaches-a-civil-rights-course|accessdate=30 November 2011| newspaper=The Ten O’Clock News|date=12/03/1990}}</ref> At the time, of the law school’s 60 tenured professors, only three were black and five were women. The school had never had a black woman on the tenured staff.<ref name=answers/>

From @CarolCNY:

You can gain some insight into Bell connection to Obama, Obama didn’t move away from Wright, he hasn’t changed at all. http://blog.revdrpaulsmith.org/2008/03/23/from-derrick-bell-barack-obama-and-the-rev-jeremiah-wright-issue.aspx

From @CoffeePatriot:

Some facts on Derrick Bell http://bit.ly/A8YdIg #tcot #hannity #breitbart #obama

From @AlAlekhine:

Derrick Bell is the guy that you will see Obama praising tonight on Hannity. Learn about the nutjob here: http://bit.ly/yhV0zA #obama2012

From @NolteNC:

Why didn’t Ben Smith tell us more about Obama’s hero Derrick Bell — http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/03/07/Ben-Smith-Harvard-Obama

From @indyrallen:

RT @hoosierclinger Who is Professor Derrick Bell and what is Critical Race Theory? http://bit.ly/A70Q4t #tcot


Memo to Congress: Impeach Probe Needed Now!

By: Tom Tancredo
Gulag Bound

2008 swearing in of President Barrack Obama.

Barack Obama is indeed succeeding in his plans to “transform America,” but not in the way voters expected on Election Day in 2008. The number of the president’s actions that arguably qualify as impeachable offenses is staggering.

The question before the country is what to do about it.

True, Obama faces the voters in 8-9 months, and that will be seen by many as a reason to avoid the turmoil of an impeachment proceeding. But one process has nothing to do with the other. Elections proceed on an established calendar, but if he has committed acts that warrant removal by way of impeachment, that process should proceed independent of the election calendar. While impeachment must never be used to override an election victory, neither should the prospects of electoral defeat be used as an argument to avoid impeachment.

Constitution of the United States of America (...

Obama has demonstrated contempt for the Constitution and is increasingly resorting to rule by decree. He is recognized by a growing number of Americans as a danger to the republic – certainly a danger to our liberties and also a serious threat to our national security.

It is time for the House of Representatives to take its constitutional responsibility seriously and launch an impeachment investigation. The investigative committee should hold hearings, collect and weigh the evidence, and then present its findings to the Congress and the nation.

Has Obama committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” that warrant impeachment and removal? There is much evidence that says, yes, he has.

A special report with evidence galore: “The Case for Impeachment: Why Barack Hussein Obama Should be Impeached to Save America” just $4.95!

Impeachment of the president is justified on constitutional grounds if any of the following 12 questions is answered in the affirmative:

  • Did President Obama have personal knowledge of the illegal “Fast and Furious” project run by ATF and approved by top officials in the Department of Justice, a plan to sell over 2,000 guns to Mexican drug cartels, weapons now linked to numerous crimes on both sides of the border including the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry?
  • Did the president have knowledge of the ongoing effort by Attorney General Eric Holder and other Justice Department officials to cover up the true purpose and scope of that ill-conceived, illegal project?
  • Did the president direct his appointees on the National Labor Relations Board to bring a lawsuit against Boeing as a political payoff to organized labor?
  • Did the president act contrary to the advice and pleas of his own CIA director, four previous intelligence agency heads of both parties and numerous experts on covert operations when, on April 16, 2009, he made public four internal Justice Department memos on terrorist interrogation techniques, thereby deliberately emasculating our anti-terrorist intelligence operations and endangering the lives of many intelligence agents?
  • Did the president have knowledge of a plan by the Department of Homeland Security, ordered by Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano and the deputy commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, David Aguilar, to distort and falsify the Border Patrol’s southwest border illegal-alien apprehension numbers by means of a deliberate, planned undercount – for the purpose of misleading the public and Congress about the true (abysmal) state of border security?
  • By choosing not to secure the border against unlawful entry, has the president willfully disregarded his clear duty under Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution to protect the states from foreign invasion? Did the president admit this in a candid exchange with Sen. Jon Kyl, telling him the reason he was not stopping the cross-border human trafficking was to force Republicans in Congress to strike a deal for amnesty legislation?
  • Is the president showing contempt for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law by ordering an “administrative amnesty” for millions of illegal aliens through the implementation of the John Morton memo of June 2011?
  • Has the president demonstrated contempt for the Constitution and violated the separation of powers by issuing numerous executive orders and agency rules that have no basis in statute and often contradict congressional votes against such actions?
  • Did the president authorize Labor Secretary Hilda Solis to violate current federal laws against aiding and abetting illegal aliens by signing agreements with foreign countries and pledging to protect and fund educational efforts to inform illegal aliens of their workplace “rights”? Also did these “agreements” she signed with foreign countries violate Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution which clearly establishes the manner in which treaties are to be undertaken and ratified?
  • Did the president violate his oath of office when he instructed the Department of Justice not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in federal courts? Does the Constitution permit the person designated by Article II, Section 1, as holding the “executive power” of government to decide unilaterally to not enforce a law he disagrees with?
  • Did the president authorize or approve the offer of a federal job to Rep. Joe Sestek if he would withdraw from the 2010 Democratic primary race for U.S. senator in Pennsylvania?
  • Did the president violate the War Powers Act by conducting military operations in Libya beyond the 60-day limitation?

If the president is not guilty of any of these crimes, then a thorough investigation by a House committee with subpoena power will clear the air. If he is guilty, then the U.S. House of Representatives has a moral obligation to vote for a resolution of impeachment, and the U.S. Senate must bring him to trial.

If the leaders of the House believe that some or all of these actions are indeed impeachable offenses but nonetheless refuse to launch a formal investigation to ascertain all the facts, then there are two parties involved in Obama’s assault on the Constitution – the perpetrators and their accomplices. In layman’s terms, Obama and his radical cronies are busy robbing the bank, while the House Republican leadership waits in the getaway car.

If some or all of the allegations are adopted as true by the House but rejected by the Senate as inadequate grounds for removal, that means the president of the United States can ignore the particulars of his oath to defend the Constitution. It means he can govern by edict instead of “taking care to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.” It means that Barack Obama has indeed succeeded in his plans to “transform America.” It means we are perilously close to crossing the line between constitutional republic and dictatorship.

There is no question that the impeachment and removal of Barack Obama is within the proper scope and purpose of the Constitution’s impeachment provisions.

The history of the nation’s two presidential impeachment cases shows that although treason and bribery are the only crimes mentioned by name, this does not limit Congress’ authority to bring an indictment on other serious charges. Constitutionally speaking, “high crimes and misdemeanors” can mean almost anything Congress in its wisdom wants it to mean.

Clearly, the authors of the Constitution did not intend that presidents should be vulnerable to removal for light or petty reasons, hence the use of the adjective “high” in front of the words “crimes and misdemeanors.” Nevertheless, what constitutes a “high crime” is up to Congress to decide.

It is also clear from history that the identification and naming of impeachable offenses is as much a political judgment as a legal one. The assignment of separate and distinct roles to the House and the Senate – and the two-thirds vote requirement for conviction and removal – were deemed by the founders as sufficient safeguards against removal of a president for transient or narrowly partisan reasons.

We learned that lesson forcefully in the Clinton impeachment case. Politics can and will play a part in the process, but that is expected and entirely consistent with constitutional principles.

President Clinton was charged with two counts each of perjury and obstruction of justice. The House thought the crimes serious enough to adopt the impeachment resolution in December of 1998. Two months later, the Senate disagreed and voted for acquittal – or more precisely, failed to muster the required two-thirds vote for conviction. In the House vote, only five Democrats voted for impeachment, and in the Senate, not a single Democrat voted for conviction. So much for keeping politics out of the courtroom.

The peculiar and revealing thing about those two Clinton impeachment votes is that no one seriously doubted the guilt of the president on the perjury and obstruction charges. But Democrats in Congress believed that even if true, the charges did not warrant removal from office. They reasoned that the charges dealt with a private matter – Clinton’s sexual escapades – and not government business.

The Clinton case illustrates that for both Democrats and Republicans, in the last analysis, what is an impeachable offense is inevitably a political question as much as a legal one. Scholars and lawyers may have an opinion, but Congress’ opinion is the only one that matters. Congress’ supreme authority on impeachment questions is as much an embodiment of our separation of powers doctrine as the president’s broad prerogatives in foreign policy.

Admittedly, the likelihood of the present Democrat-controlled Senate casting a two-thirds vote for conviction and removal is almost zero. However, this does not discharge the House from its constitutional obligation to pursue the matter if – in their considered judgment – the evidence warrants.

The questions posed above all relate to actions affecting national security and unlawful political intervention in the execution of our nation’s laws – not mere policy differences. Obama’s disastrous economic policies, his ideological war against domestic energy production and his reckless proposals to add new trillions to our national debt– all are policies that are damaging to our nation’s well-being. However, such policies are not in themselves impeachable crimes. His contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law is a different matter altogether.

It is our distinct honor to now carry the commentaries and reports of Tom Tancredo, former Representative to Congress of the State of Colorado and 2008 candidate for U.S. President. His CongressmanTomTancredo.com regularly features his articles, as does WorldNetDaily.

Former Congressman Tancredo currently serves as chairman of Rocky Mountain Foundation, co-chairman of the anti-illegal immigration Team America PAC, and honorary chairman of Youth for Western Civilization. He speaks frequently on cable news, talk radio, and on college campuses – where his mere presence has led leftists to riot on multiple occasions. His book, In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America’s Border and Security was published in 2006.


One Language Will Unify Us

By: Tom Tancredo
Gulag Bound

I am constantly baffled by the contradictions among our cultural and media elites when it comes to proposals for establishing the English language as the official language of our nation. Although they admit the necessity of English proficiency for both educational and economic advancement, they habitually oppose any policy proposal to establish English as our national language.

No law can or should compel individuals to give up their native tongue, and no one is proposing to do that. Yet clearly, there are steps we can take to encourage acquisition of essential English language skills by immigrants and newcomers. That is what a bill in Congress, the English Language Unity Act, seeks to do. It requires that all official business of the federal government be conducted only in English.

A study sponsored by the Denver Public Library in the last five years found that about 75 percent of Hispanic families are bilingual at home. That should surprise no one. First-generation immigrant families have historically been bilingual, whether Italian, Ukranian, Vietnamese or Pakistani. The problem is not foreign languages spoken in private homes.

US states where English is an official language

US states where English is an official language

Increasingly, the problem is the lack of incentives for new arrivals to learn the English language while at the same time there is a proliferation and celebration of native languages and cultures in school classrooms and the popular media.

The fact is, the conduct of official government business in foreign languages — at the federal, state or local level — sends the wrong message to new immigrants, legal or illegal. That practice tells new arrivals it is OK to retain your native tongue and postpone learning English. The message is: “We will accommodate you.” That is a message previous generations of immigrants did not hear, and it is a message that undermines and obstructs assimilation.

Why should any foreign national — whether tourist, foreign student, business traveler, or immigrant — be offended by the requirement that they conduct official government business in English? What other country of the world makes it so easy not to learn the native tongue? Can you do business with the Mexican government without learning Spanish or using a translator? Can you do government business in Poland while speaking Spanish? Can you do government business in France while speaking Farsi?

Countries where English is an official or de f...

Countries where English is an official or de facto official language

The proposed federal law would affect only official federal government business and government documents, not private businesses or other institutions. Banks, auto dealers and other commercial enterprises would still be free to advertise and do business in other languages if they choose, and customers are free to patronize those businesses or not. That’s freedom of association and freedom of choice.

Government business is a different matter entirely. Conducting official government business in foreign languages makes no sense except as a pandering to the cult of multiculturalism.

Everybody understands that lack of English language skills is a major barrier to the social and economic advancement of immigrants, yet proposals to promote this goal are routinely slandered as “xenophobic.” A true xenophobe would want to hold foreign-born individuals back, not help them move forward with additional incentives for learning English.

In the political arena, is it not contradictory to require naturalized citizens to pass an English language exam but then offer bilingual ballots for the act of voting? Such a policy strongly implies that the English language exam for citizenship is only symbolic, not substantial. But how can new citizens participate fully in debates and discussions about issues and candidates if they really can’t read, write or speak English? Providing a ballot in a foreign language sends a confusing and hypocritical message: “We want your vote, but not your participation.” A mailed-in foreign language ballot is about as American as a Yugo assembled in Brazil.

No one law can fix this problem, but the federal government can set a good example. The English Language Unity Act is a good first step.

It is our distinct honor to now carry the commentaries and reports of Tom Tancredo, former Representative to Congress of the State of Colorado and 2008 candidate for U.S. President. His CongressmanTomTancredo.com regularly features his articles, as does WorldNetDaily.

Former Congressman Tancredo currently serves as chairman of Rocky Mountain Foundation, co-chairman of the anti-illegal immigration Team America PAC, and honorary chairman of Youth for Western Civilization. He speaks frequently on cable news, talk radio, and on college campuses – where his mere presence has led leftists to riot on multiple occasions. His book, In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America’s Border and Security was published in 2006.


The most biblically hostile President of all time?

Hat Tip: Judy W.

Glenn Beck:

David Barton has come out with a list explaining why Barack Obama is possibly the most biblically hostile President of all time. While most of these stories have been seen before, seeing them all laid out in one list is pretty astonishing. The complete post with footnotes can be seen here!

1. Acts of hostility toward people of Biblical faith:

  • April 2008 – Obama speaks disrespectfully of Christians, saying they “cling to guns or religion” and have an “antipathy to people who aren’t like them.”
  • February 2009 – Obama announces plans to revoke conscience protection for health workers who refuse to participate in medical activities that go against their beliefs, and fully implements the plan in February 2011.
  • April 2009 – When speaking at Georgetown University, Obama orders that a monogram symbolizing Jesus’ name be covered when he is making his speech.
  • May 2009 – Obama declines to host services for the National Prayer Day (a day established by federal law) at the White House.
  • April 2009 – In a deliberate act of disrespect, Obama nominated three pro-abortion ambassadors to the Vatican; of course, the pro-life Vatican rejected all three.
  • October 19, 2010 – Obama begins deliberately omitting the phrase about “the Creator” when quoting the Declaration of Independence – an omission he has made on no less than seven occasions.
  • November 2010 – Obama misquotes the National Motto, saying it is “E pluribus unum” rather than “In God We Trust” as established by federal law.
  • January 2011 – After a federal law was passed to transfer a WWI Memorial in the Mojave Desert to private ownership, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the cross in the memorial could continue to stand, but the Obama administration refused to allow the land to be transferred as required by law, and refused to allow the cross to be re-erected as ordered by the Court.
  • February 2011 – Although he filled posts in the State Department, for more than two years Obama did not fill the post of religious freedom ambassador, an official that works against religious persecution across the world; he filled it only after heavy pressure from the public and from Congress.
  • April 2011 – For the first time in American history, Obama urges passage of a non-discrimination law that does not contain hiring protections for religious groups, forcing religious organizations to hire according to federal mandates without regard to the dictates of their own faith, thus eliminating conscience protection in hiring.
  • August 2011 – The Obama administration releases its new health care rules that override religious conscience protections for medical workers in the areas of abortion and contraception.
  • November 2011 – Obama opposes inclusion of President Franklin Roosevelt’s famous D-Day Prayer in the WWII Memorial.
  • November 2011 – Unlike previous presidents, Obama studiously avoids any religious references in his Thanksgiving speech.
  • December 2011 – The Obama administration denigrates other countries’ religious beliefs as an obstacle to radical homosexual rights.
  • January 2012 – The Obama administration argues that the First Amendment provides no protection for churches and synagogues in hiring their pastors and rabbis.
  • February 2012 – The Obama administration forgives student loans in exchange for public service, but announces it will no longer forgive student loans if the public service is related to religion.

2. Acts of hostility from the Obama-led military toward people of Biblical faith:

  • June 2011 – The Department of Veterans Affairs forbids references to God and Jesus during burial ceremonies at Houston National Cemetery.
  • August 2011 – The Air Force stops teaching the Just War theory to officers in California because the course is taught by chaplains and is based on a philosophy introduced by St. Augustine in the third century AD – a theory long taught by civilized nations across the world (except America).
  • September 2011 – Air Force Chief of Staff prohibits commanders from notifying airmen of programs and services available to them from chaplains.
  • September 2011 – The Army issues guidelines for Walter Reed Medical Center stipulating that “No religious items (i.e. Bibles, reading materials and/or facts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit.”
  • November 2011 – The Air Force Academy rescinds support for Operation Christmas Child, a program to send holiday gifts to impoverished children across the world, because the program is run by a Christian charity.
  • November 2011 – The Air Force Academy pays $80,000 to add a Stonehenge-like worship center for pagans, druids, witches and Wiccans.
  • February 2012 – The U. S. Military Academy at West Point disinvites three star Army general and decorated war hero Lieutenant General William G. (“Jerry”) Boykin (retired) from speaking at an event because he is an outspoken Christian.
  • February 2012 – The Air Force removes “God” from the patch of Rapid Capabilities Office (the word on the patch was in Latin: Dei).
  • February 2012 – The Army orders Catholic chaplains not to read a letter to parishioners that their archbishop asked them to read.

3. Acts of hostility toward Biblical values:

  • January 2009 – Obama lifts restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad, forcing taxpayers to fund pro-abortion groups that either promote or perform abortions in other nations.
  • January 2009 – President Obama’s nominee for deputy secretary of state asserts that American taxpayers are required to pay for abortions and that limits on abortion funding are unconstitutional.
  • March 2009 – The Obama administration shut out pro-life groups from attending a White House-sponsored health care summit.
  • March 2009 – Obama orders taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research.
  • March 2009 – Obama gave $50 million for the UNFPA, the UN population agency that promotes abortion and works closely with Chinese population control officials who use forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations.
  • May 2009 – The White House budget eliminates all funding for abstinence-only education and replaces it with “comprehensive” sexual education, repeatedly proven to increase teen pregnancies and abortions. 31 He continues the deletion in subsequent budgets.
  • May 2009 – Obama officials assemble a terrorism dictionary calling pro-life advocates violent and charging that they use racism in their “criminal” activities.
  • July 2009 – The Obama administration illegally extends federal benefits to same-sex partners of Foreign Service and Executive Branch employees, in direction violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
  • September 16, 2009 – The Obama administration appoints as EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum, who asserts that society should “not tolerate” any “private beliefs,” including religious beliefs, if they may negatively affect homosexual “equality.”
  • July 2010 – The Obama administration uses federal funds in violation of federal law to get Kenya to change its constitution to include abortion.
  • August 2010 – The Obama administration Cuts funding for 176 abstinence education programs.
  • September 2010 – The Obama administration tells researchers to ignore a judge’s decision striking down federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
  • February 2011 – Obama directs the Justice Department to stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
  • March 2011 – The Obama administration refuses to investigate videos showing Planned Parenthood helping alleged sex traffickers get abortions for victimized underage girls.
  • July 2011 – Obama allows homosexuals to serve openly in the military, reversing a policy originally instituted by George Washington in March 1778.
  • September 2011 – The Pentagon directs that military chaplains may perform same-sex marriages at military facilities in violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
  • October 2011 – The Obama administration eliminates federal grants to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for their extensive programs that aid victims of human trafficking because the Catholic Church is anti-abortion.

4. Acts of preferentialism for Islam:

  • May 2009 – While Obama does not host any National Day of Prayer event at the White House, he does host White House Iftar dinners in honor of Ramadan.
  • April 2010 – Christian leader Franklin Graham is disinvited from the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer Event because of complaints from the Muslim community.
  • April 2010 – The Obama administration requires rewriting of government documents and a change in administration vocabulary to remove terms that are deemed offensive to Muslims, including jihad, jihadists, terrorists, radical Islamic, etc.
  • August 2010 – Obama speaks with great praise of Islam and condescendingly of Christianity.
  • August 2010 – Obama went to great lengths to speak out on multiple occasions on behalf of building an Islamic mosque at Ground Zero, while at the same time he was silent about a Christian church being denied permission to rebuild at that location.
  • 2010 – While every White House traditionally issues hundreds of official proclamations and statements on numerous occasions, this White House avoids traditional Biblical holidays and events but regularly recognizes major Muslim holidays, as evidenced by its 2010 statements on Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha.
  • October 2011 – Obama’s Muslim advisers block Middle Eastern Christians’ access to the White House.
  • February 2012 – The Obama administration makes effulgent apologies for Korans being burned by the U. S. military, 51 but when Bibles were burned by the military, numerous reasons were offered why it was the right thing to do.

You can read the entire list here and see the complete footnotes. Excellent work…


Obama’s Mentor: ‘We Hid This Throughout 2008 Campaign’

Hat Tip: Judy W.

From Breitbart.tv:

“Open your hearts and open your minds to the words of Prof. Derrick Bell.” Those are the words of Barack Obama in reference to the controversial racialist Derrick Bell. Prof. Charles Ogletree, Barack Obama’s mentor said “We hid this throughout the 2008 campaign.” As more is uncovered about Prof. Derrick Bell and his radical views, it will become clear why Prof. Ogletree wanted this video hidden.