ARE
EXTREMIST REPUBLICANS
THE ENEMY AND TRAITORS TO AMERICA? by R. Blackbird
Extremist Republicans are selfish, power hungry, hateful of the poor, disloyal
to the nation and its people, dishonest, avaricious, scornful of the
nation's history, the dignity of its institutions, its standards of
political morality, and its vision of advancement for all the
people. The Republicans love war as long as they and theirs do not
have to put on helmets and carry guns into the fighting. They use lies
to start wars that kill hundreds of thousands of innocents and thousands
of our own military service people. They love massive war-time profits,
unavailable to their rich masters if war is absent.
Those
Extremist Republicans hate the rest of us, which they must, in order to
pass away from themselves and onto us, the financial burdens and losses
their crimes, schemes and thefts cause. They are prolific, incessant,
and destructive liars. They are blasphemers for they insist that
their hateful and destructive deeds are the work of God. They are
apostates for they gleefully attack the poor, the immigrants, the
old and the sick, of whom God has commanded all of us to be mindful.
There is no reasoning with them, for all their logic is built on false
premises. There is no appealing to them for honor's sake for they have
lost all sense of shame and have no honor, there is no appealing to them
for the nation's sake for that it what they hate the most.
Extremist Republicans are the enemy.
We will leave it up to the reader
to determine whether Congressman Issa has made serious errors in
in judgment. Issa has supported a Conservative Christian
position especially when it comes to Church and State issues. It is
apparent from the data collected, that the first amendment may be in danger
from his past and future actions.
Darrell Issa's office like others we called, stated that his position is that
Christianity is the only "real" religion and in fact all other religions are
evil cults. What is a real religion, Mr Issa? What you have
been practicing? Read the following and remember: "By their Works may
they be known." This is a summary of information collected from
several sources about Darrell Issa.
(Remember it is best to investigate on your
own when looking at allegations about anyone. Don't
believe us, think for yourself and investigate for yourself! And
remember, the First Amendment Coalition does not represent any political
party nor do we recommend any political candidate, nor are we involving
ourselves in the political process. This information is only for
students of Darrell Issa. )
Tags:
Corruption,
Darrell
Issa,
graft,
greed,
Vista
A Businessman in Congress Helps
His District and Himself
Drew Angerer/The New
York Times
Darrell Issa has been a
forceful advocate for
business while his own
companies thrive.
Published: August 14, 2011
Darrell Issa's
businesses have
prospered since he was
elected in 2000. The
properties his
management company in
California owns include
a building housing a
Hooters restaurant.
Just a few steps down the
hall, Representative Darrell
Issa, the powerful
Republican congressman, runs
the local district office
where his constituents come
for help.
The proximity of the two
offices reflects Mr. Issa’s
dual careers, a meshing of
public and private interests
rarely seen in government.
Most wealthy members of
Congress push their
financial activities to the
side, with many even placing
them in blind trusts to
avoid appearances of
conflicts of interest. But
Mr. Issa (pronounced EYE-suh),
one of Washington’s richest
lawmakers, may be alone in
the hands-on role he has
played in overseeing a
remarkable array of outside
business interests since his
election in 2000.
Even as he has built a
reputation as a forceful
Congressional advocate for
business, Mr. Issa has
bought up office buildings,
split a holding company into
separate multimillion-dollar
businesses, started an
insurance company, traded
hundreds of millions of
dollars in securities,
invested in overseas funds,
retained an interest in his
auto-alarm company and built
up a family foundation.
As his private wealth and
public power have grown, so
too has the overlap between
his private and business
lives, with at least some of
the congressman’s government
actions helping to make a
rich man even richer and
raising the potential for
conflicts.
He has secured millions
of dollars in Congressional
earmarks for road work and
public works projects that
promise improved traffic and
other benefits to the many
commercial properties he
owns here north of San
Diego. In one case, more
than $800,000 in earmarks he
arranged will help widen a
busy thoroughfare in front
of a medical plaza he bought
for $10.3 million.
His constituents cheer
the prospect of easing
traffic. At the same time,
the value of the medical
complex and other properties
has soared, at least in part
because of the
government-sponsored road
work.
But beyond specific
actions that appear to have
clearly benefited his
businesses, Mr. Issa’s
interests are so varied that
some of the biggest issues
making their way through
Congress affect him in some
way.
After the
forced
sale
of Merrill Lynch in 2008,
for instance, he publicly
attacked the Treasury
Department’s handling of the
deal without mentioning that
Merrill had handled hundreds
of millions of dollars in
investments for him and lent
him many millions more.
And in an era when the auto
industry’s future has been a
big theme of public policy,
Mr. Issa has been outspoken
on regulatory issues
affecting car companies,
while maintaining deep ties
to the industry through the
auto electronics company he
founded,
DEI
Holdings.
He has a seat on its board,
and his nonprofit family
foundation, which seeks to
encourage values like “hard
work and selfless
philanthropy,” has earned
millions from stock in DEI,
which bears his initials.
Mr. Issa’s fortune, in fact,
was built on his car alarm
company, and to this day it
is
his
deep voice
on Viper alarms that warns
potential burglars to
“please step away from the
car.”
In recent months, The New
York Times
has
examined
how some lawmakers have
championed particular
industries, pushing measures
to protect and enrich
supporters. In Mr. Issa’s
case, it is sometimes
difficult to separate the
business of Congress from
the business of Darrell Issa.
Mr. Issa, 57, did not
respond to repeated written
requests in the last three
weeks to discuss his outside
interests. In the past, he
has said his business
background has made him a
better lawmaker. In at least
one Congressional matter,
however, he recused himself
after being advised of a
potential conflict.
But perhaps his clearest
statement on the issue came
last year amid Toyota’s
recalls of millions of
automobiles with dangerous
acceleration problems. Then,
Mr. Issa brushed aside
suggestions that his
electronics company’s role
as a major supplier of
alarms to Toyota made him go
easy on the automaker as he
led an investigation into
the recalls.
“If anything,” the
congressman said, “Toyota
probably got a harder time
by having an automobile
supplier sitting up there on
the dais saying ‘Hold it,
I’m not letting you off the
hook now.’ ”
A Powerful Gadfly
As the influential
chairman of the House
Oversight and Government
Reform Committee, Mr. Issa
has proven both a reliable
friend to business and a
constant annoyance to an
Obama administration that he
sees as anti-business. Even
before formally taking over
the committee in December,
he made headlines by asking
150 businesses and trade
groups to identify
regulations that they
considered overly
burdensome, and he has
issued numerous subpoenas on
his own authority in
investigating programs he
believes are harmful.
His pro-business policies
usually align closely with
those of the firms he has
worked with in his
wide-ranging business career
both before and after he
joined Congress. Congress
has historically had more
than its share of
millionaires from storied
American fortunes, from the
Rockefellers to the
Kennedys. But typically,
those members lower their
business profiles
considerably and limit their
active dealings to avoid
potential conflicts of
interest and the political
repercussions that might
follow from private business
decisions.
Sandy Huffaker for The
New York Times
A busy medical
complex owned by Mr.
Issa's management
company benefited from a
road project financed
with earmarks he
obtained.
Senator John D.
Rockfeller IV, Democrat of
West Virginia, for one, has
much of his money in blind
trusts, run by outside
trustees. And Senator John
Kerry, Democrat of
Massachusetts, has a number
of family and marital trusts
for money generated largely
through the fortune of his
wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry.
Mr. Issa, who grew up in
a hardscrabble neighborhood
near Cleveland and now owns
homes north of San Diego and
in Washington, has assets
totaling as much as $725
million, outstripping by
some measures even Mr.
Rockefeller and Mr. Kerry.
(Because lawmakers must
disclose their assets only
within broad dollar ranges,
public reports do not allow
for precise figures.)
According to his filings,
Mr. Issa’s minimum wealth
doubled in the last year,
and he appears flush with
cash: he bought dozens of
mutual
funds
in 2010 worth as much as $80
million, managed by Wall
Street powerhouses, without
selling off any securities.
Mr. Issa’s transactions
cover many pages in his
annual disclosure reports,
as he has traded huge
volumes of stock funds and
municipal bonds
on a weekly or even daily
basis. In 2008 alone, he
traded some 360 securities
totaling between $650
million and $2 billion.
Those investments have
often produced sharp
profits.
In one 2008 sale, months
before the stock market
crashed, his family
foundation earned $357,000
on an initial investment of
less than $19,000 — a return
of nearly 1,900 percent in
just seven months, the
foundation reported to the
Internal Revenue Service. It
reported acquiring the
security, then known as AIM
International Small Company
Fund, at a cost basis
representing a tiny fraction
of the market value.
In addition, Mr. Issa
sold at least $1 million in
personal holdings in the
same fund that year but was
not required to report what
he paid.
Invesco, as the AIM
fund’s manager is now known,
told The Times it did not
provide Mr. Issa’s
foundation the steep
discount. That suggests the
foundation may have acquired
the shares from a
third-party broker.
A former government
official said House ethics
committee officials quietly
inquired into Mr. Issa’s
business interests last year
because of possible
conflicts in his electronics
connections.
While the exact focus of
those inquiries is not
known, Mr. Issa’s ties to
the industry are well
established: in each of his
first five years in
Congress, he reported
accepting free trips to Las
Vegas from the Consumer
Electronics Association for
its annual convention. Such
corporate-sponsored trips
were allowed at the time,
but Congressional rules have
tightened since.
The inquiries did not
produce sufficient evidence
of ethics problems to move
forward, the former official
said.
Standards for determining
a financial conflict are
murky. House members are
generally restricted from
using their positions “for
personal gain” or on matters
in which they have a direct
financial interest. But a
2009 ethics committee ruling
added to the ambiguity,
finding there is no
prohibition on the mere
“appearance” of a conflict.
There are also
restrictions on taking
salaries from certain
businesses. While Mr. Issa’s
wife draws a salary at their
property management company,
Mr. Issa — the firm’s
president — does not.
A Balancing Act
Lawmakers must also avoid
outside work that can pose a
“time conflict,” and
“detract from a member’s
full time and attention to
his official duties,” the
guidelines say. By all
accounts, these rules were
designed to promote the
notion of a full-time
legislature.
Mr. Issa’s outside interests
certainly appear to have
kept him busy. Associates
describe him as actively
involved in business
decisions, particularly in
his auto electronics firm.
His office did not discuss
how he balances the time
demands of Congress and his
outside businesses. His
management company,
Greene
Properties,
which he runs with his wife
from the office down the
hall from his Congressional
office in Vista, has
acquired more than two dozen
properties in the last five
years, valued at up to a
total of $80 million.
In nearby Carlsbad, a
new office complex he
owns advertises for
prospective tenants. A
few miles away, a
Hooters restaurant rents
space in another
building he owns.
Nearby, his medical
complex bustles with
doctors and patients and
has few vacancies.
“Issa’s a smart
businessman,” said Dean
Tilton, a local real
estate broker. “We
haven’t seen real estate
prices this low in 20
years, and he’s taking
advantage of that.”
The hard-hit San
Diego area has also
benefited from federal
money Mr. Issa brought
through earmarks, which
allow lawmakers to award
money for their own pet
projects. Indeed, more
than two dozen of Mr.
Issa’s properties are
within five miles of
projects he has
personally earmarked for
road work, sanitation
and other improvements,
an analysis by The Times
shows.
His medical complex,
for instance, sits
directly along West
Vista Way, a busy
corridor scheduled for
widening with $815,000
in funds Mr. Issa
earmarked. The
congressman bought the
complex in 2008, soon
after securing the first
of two earmarks for the
two-mile project and
unsuccessfully seeking
millions more. The
assessor’s office now
values the complex at
$16 million, a 60
percent appreciation.
Mr. Issa owns a
number of commercial
properties near the
planned $171 million
expansion of State Route
76. The project,
intended to ease traffic
for tens of thousands of
commuters, was helped by
$245,000 in his
earmarks.
A regional
transportation official
said the earmarks
supplemented state
financing to move the
projects along.
Local leaders say
they are just grateful
for the money,
regardless of any
suggestions locally in
San Diego that Mr. Issa
stands to benefit.
“I don’t really blame
the guy,” said John
Aguilera, a Vista city
councilman. “As a
politician, that’s his
job to bring a slice of
the pie back home, and
as a businessman, he’s
going to invest in the
areas that he
champions.”
Some ethics experts
wonder, however, whether
Mr. Issa’s business
interests invite
problems.
“The idea is you’re
supposed to be a
full-time congressman,”
said Robert M. Stern,
who runs the nonprofit
Center for Governmental
Studies in California.
“There may not be a
direct conflict of
interest, but it creates
an appearance that he is
trying to influence a
policy on issues where
he has an investment.”
In 2009, as earmarks
became a damaging symbol
of Congressional abuse,
Mr. Issa joined other
lawmakers in pledging to
discontinue them. And in
recent weeks, he has
attacked “the culture of
government overspending”
in pushing for deep cuts
in the
national debt.
Mr. Issa’s dual roles
reach beyond earmarks.
At a House hearing in
2008 on a much-debated
proposal to merge the
satellite radio
companies Sirius and XM,
despite objections on
competitive grounds, Mr.
Issa praised the “viable
combined market” the
deal would create as he
questioned Sirius’s
chief executive and
talked of opportunities
for expansion.
What Mr. Issa did not
mention was that his
electronics firm was
then in a lucrative
partnership with Sirius
to distribute its audio
products.
While Mr. Issa sold
off his controlling
interest in DEI soon
after he was elected, he
remains a board member
with a half-million
shares in the firm held
by his family trust. His
management firm also
receives $2 million a
year for leasing DEI its
Vista plant.
DEI’s partnership
with Sirius, which
continued after the
merger, caused friction
with competitors. In a
lawsuit settled out of
court, U.S. Electronics
accused Sirius and DEI
of freezing it out of
the market through
anticompetitive
practices that relied on
“a web of deception,
threats and lies” aimed
at “the enrichment of
certain of its officers
and directors.”
When a watchdog
group, the Center for
Public Integrity, asked
Mr. Issa about his role
in the merger, his
office said the
congressman’s
participation in the
House hearing posed no
conflict because his
founding of DEI was
“public knowledge.” But
after advice from House
ethics lawyers, Mr. Issa
avoided any votes on the
issue afterward.
With its brand-name audio
and electronics products,
DEI caught the eye of an
equity company, Charlesbank
Capital, which
bought
the company
in June for $305 million, or
$4.45 a share — nearly three
times the presale price. The
premium promises a payday of
at least $2 million for Mr.
Issa’s foundation, which has
already earned more than $10
million from sales of DEI
stock. (Mr. Issa is now a
defendant in a lawsuit
brought by DEI shareholders;
the suit claims the deal was
structured to give him and
other directors a “windfall
not shared by other
stockholders.”)
Ties to Merrill
Lynch
The lines between Mr.
Issa’s many interests have
also become entangled in his
frequent criticism of
regulators and his frequent
defense of Wall Street. At a
series of hearings in 2009,
Mr. Issa accused Treasury
officials of a “cover-up” of
their role in Bank of
America’s $50 billion
purchase of Merrill Lynch
months earlier. Most
pointedly, he accused Ben S.
Bernanke, chairman of the
Federal Reserve, of bullying
Bank of America “behind
closed doors” into buying
Merrill Lynch at bargain
rates and then lying about
it.
“I for one,” Mr. Issa
told the Fed chairman, “am
looking at Main Street
America, the stockholders
who in some cases got less
than they would have gotten
through other means. This
includes Chrysler, General
Motors and, of course, Bank
of America and Merrill
Lynch.”
Mr. Issa did not mention
his own extensive links to
Merrill Lynch.
In a
television interview
days later, however, he
said: “I bank at Merrill
Lynch. I’m very well aware
that every broker there, all
the people who were
stockholders, were furious
that they were in fact being
fire-saled to them.”
And Mr. Issa is no
ordinary Merrill customer.
His transactions there
have totaled more than a
billion dollars in the last
decade, records show. In the
aftermath of the firm’s
acquisition in September
2008, in fact, he bought and
sold at least $206 million
in Merrill Lynch mutual
funds in the next 15 days,
records show.
His ties to the bank
deepened last year, records
show, as Merrill Lynch gave
him two “personal notes” for
lines of credit worth at
least $75 million.
Likewise, Mr. Issa has
aggressively defended
Goldman Sachs, another Wall
Street giant.
When the Securities and
Exchange Commission brought
a
major lawsuit
charging Goldman with fraud
last year, Mr. Issa fired
back by
opening an investigation.
The timing of the lawsuit,
he said, smacked of a
“partisan political agenda”
meant to help President
Obama and bolster a bill
overhauling
financial regulations.
His charge drew
nationwide attention,
putting regulators on the
defensive, but the S.E.C.
inspector general later
found “no evidence” of
political meddling.
Mr. Issa came to Goldman’s
defense again last month in
a
letter
to regulators complaining
about restrictions on
financial firms. Broker
dealers “such as Goldman
Sachs” faced “a substantial
reduction in leverage”
because of excessive capital
requirements, he wrote.
As with Merrill Lynch,
Mr. Issa is keenly
interested in Goldman’s
performance.
A few weeks before
opening his inquiry into the
Goldman lawsuit, in fact, he
bought another large batch
of shares in one of the
firm’s high-yield mutual
funds, records show. By the
end of the year, his stake
in Goldman’s fund was worth
as much as $25 million.
While Fighting To
Block SEC Investigation Of Goldman Sachs,
Rep. Darrell Issa Bought Goldman Sachs
Bonds!
Excerpts from an article on aternet.org
posted by Lee Fang on June 29, 2011 and
sourced from
ThinkProgress
Oversight
Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA)
raised hell last year to stop the federal
government from investigating Goldman Sachs
regarding allegations that the company
defrauded investors. In April 2010, shortly
after the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) announced a
civil suit against Goldman Sachs, Issa sent
a letter to
SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro demanding to
know if there was “any sort of
prearrangement, coordination, direction
from, or advance notice” between the SEC and
the Obama administration or congressional
Democrats over the timing of the lawsuit.
Issa’s
investigation of the SEC’s investigation
into Goldman Sachs stole the headlines
and reinforced Goldman Sach’s claim that
they had done nothing wrong. Explaining his
defense of Goldman Sachs, Issa said he was
representing the views of ordinary Americans
who are worried about the “growth of
government and the growth
of government wanting
to become more complex, with more agencies
and more control over our lives.”
However,
recent personal finance disclosures reviewed
by ThinkProgress paint a different picture
of Issa’s motivations. According to
documents filed recently with the House
Clerk, Issa went on a buying spree of high
yield Goldman Sachs bonds at the same time
he was running defense for the investment
bank in Congress. From February to December
of 2010, Issa bought 12 Goldman Sachs High
Yield Fund Class A
bonds, each worth
up to $50,000 (view page 10 the disclosure here).
Many of the bonds were purchased in the
months after he filed his letter to the SEC.
The $600,000 in new Goldman Sachs
investments added to Issa’s already
multimillion dollar stake in the company,
valued from $5.1 to $15.5
million.
Issa has faced
accusations that he has used his
considerable political power to enrich
himself. Earlier this year,
ThinkProgress revealed that
Issa had requested nearly $1 million in
earmark projects that would have benefitted real
estate owned by Issa and his family.
Around
the time Issa launched his defense of
Goldman Sachs and Republicans at-large
ramped up efforts to stop President Obama’s
financial reforms, Goldman Sachs and other
major investment banks shifted their
campaign donations mostly to Republican
candidates. (I wonder Why!)
Issa’s inquiry in
defense of Goldman Sachs turned out to be
completely bunk. In October, an Inspector
General investigation found
no wrongdoing by the SEC regarding Issa’s
allegations. But for all the media attention
Issa created with his request for an
investigation into the SEC, he faced little
to no blowback for being dead wrong.
Meanwhile, a report this year authored by
Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Carl Levin
(D-MI) concluded that
Goldman Sachs “misled clients and Congress
about the firm’s bets on securities tied to
the housing market.” They are too big
to fail? They need to be broken up so
they won't be too big any more!
Did the Mexican Government say the Obama
Administration Committed an ‘Act of War’?
Excerpts
from an article on washingtonpost.com by
Glenn Kessler 5/18/2011
“The
people of Mexico, their government called it an
act of war and quite frankly, if you
deliberately and knowingly let weapons go into a
country that prohibits guns and where gun
violence is the number one thing killing their
federal agents, they’re pretty close to right.”
— Rep.
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), April 20, 2011
Earlier this week, talk radio host Rick Amato
posted quotes
from a May 12 interview he had with Rep. Darrell
Issa, the chairman of the House Oversight
Committee, in which he quoted him as saying this
about the Mexican reaction to a controversial
Justice Department program to track guns into
Mexico: “The Mexican government has called this
‘an act of war’.”
That’s
pretty strong stuff, given that Mexico is one of
the closest trading and diplomatic partners of
the United States.
When we
inquired with Issa’s office about this quote
Tuesday, spokeswoman Becca Glover Watkins came
back to say she had listened to a tape of the
interview and Issa did not say that at all.
Instead,
she rendered the quote as thus: “In many ways,
we have to put confidence back in the system on
both sides of the border, that law enforcement
doesn’t let weapons walk, doesn’t contribute to
a situation the Mexican government has called an
active war.” (In other words, she explained, he
was referring to the war on drugs.)
Watkins
added: “We’re working with Rick to clear up any
confusion on Mr. Issa’s exact statement as
well.”
You
can listen to the tape as well, if you
click here and go to Hour
1, at the 19:00
mark. We listened to it a few times and it
certainly sounds like “act of war” to us —
otherwise the quote makes little sense — but
others may disagree. (Amato, after being
contacted by Issa’s staff Tuesday and listening
to the tape again, edited his web posting to
change the phrase to “active war.”)
Nevertheless, Issa also called it an “act of
war” a few weeks ago
on the Rick Roberts show.
(Go to the 15:38 mark). The phrase is pretty
clear there.
So, has the
Mexican government called this an “act of war”?
The Facts
Operation Fast and Furious is a federal program
that was designed to let weapons from the United
States pass into the hands of higher echelons of
Mexican drug cartels. But officials lost track
of hundreds of firearms, and some of those
weapons have been linked to killings such as the
fatal shooting of a Border patrol agent.
Reports
about the apparently bungled operation certainly
spawned outrage in Mexico.
Officials in Mexico were even more upset when
the U.S. embassy suggested
that Mexican officials knew about the operation
— and assertion that was immediately denied by
the Mexican Attorney General’s office.
President Obama
said
he was unaware of the operation, as did Mexico’s
President Felipe Calderon.
Asked
about Issa’s “act of war” statement, Ricardo
Alday, a spokesman for the Mexican embassy,
said: “We have said many things about Fast and
Furious but nothing of that sort, nothing of
that tone.”
Indeed, in
a recent interview with Univison, Calderon spoke
diplomatically about the case.
“Obviously
it is an issue of great concern. This operation
has to be investigated in its entirety, but
certainly we are unaffiliated with the operation
itself,” Calderon said. “The fact is that we did
not know; what I will continue to support are
the actions, within the law and respect that we
owe each other as countries, that American
agencies take to stop the criminal flow of arms
into Mexico.”
Watkins pointed us to
a news clip
in the Huffington Post, which stated:
“Opposition members of the Mexican Congress,
media, and public have ordered an investigation
and called the operation a violation of
international law and even an act of war.”
We would
maintain that there is a difference between
opposition members of Congress and the Mexican
government, but Watkins disagrees.
“I think
it’s completely fair for Mr. Issa to report that
their government has in fact voiced the ‘act of
war’ statement,” Watkins said. “If Mr. Issa had
said ‘Calderon said that this is an act of war’
that would be a problem. But he didn’t. He said
their government did. I refuse to concede the
point that an opposition member of Congress does
not count as government.”
The Pinocchio
Test
We find it
interesting that Issa’s office denied he said
“act of war” but then defended his right to do
so when shown a second quote.
Clearly,
there is distress in Mexico about what appears
to be a bungled operation. But we can find no
evidence that the Calderon government ever made
such a claim.
If
opposition members of Congress are deemed to be
part of “the government,” then does that mean
that every statement by Issa should be
considered official policy of the Obama
administration? He is, after all, the chairman
of an important congressional committee.
We would
hope not, especially if the congressman persists
in so cavalierly tossing around inflammatory
phrases such as “act of war.”
Two
Pinocchios

|