Obama On U.S. Oil Imports: Lying Or Just Ignorant?

In a 6 July 2009 interview with the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta, Obama gave the same false information on U.S. oil imports he has been repeating since at least February of this year:

We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy.  Yet we import more oil today than ever before [Emphasis mine].

That quote is from the official White House transcript of the interview.

Obama was wrong in February and is wrong today.

The above chart from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, shows that U.S. oil imports peaked in November 2005 and have been declining ever since.

On the page at the above link, you may view a data table of the U.S. weekly oil imports from 1991 to date.

Now, I know the facts on this, you (now) know the facts on this, but the President of the United States keeps spouting inaccuracies about U.S. oil imports. I found this data very easily, and I would kinda think Obama—backed by dozens of staff and a trillion-dollar bureaucracy—could as well.

Yet Obama has been spouting this drivel since at least February 2009—even though the facts are laughably easy to obtain.

So my question is this:

Are Obama and his administration lying or simply ignorant and inept?

The answer has to be one of those two choices.

Frankly, neither answer sits well with me, nor should it with you.

Law Center Sues Napolitano Over DHS Report

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced that it filed a federal lawsuit against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. The lawsuit claims that her Department’s “Rightwing Extremism Policy,” as reflected in the recently publicized Intelligence Assessment, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” violates the civil liberties of combat veterans as well as American citizens by targeting them for disfavored treatment on account of their political beliefs.

The Law Center claims that Napolitano’s Department (DHS) has violated the First and Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights of these three plaintiffs by attempting to chill their free speech, expressive association, and equal protection rights. The lawsuit further claims that the Department of Homeland Security encourages law enforcement officers throughout the nation to target and report citizens to federal officials as suspicious rightwing extremists and potential terrorists because of their political beliefs.

Napolitano tried to blunt the public furor over the Report with a half-hearted apology to veterans, but left out of her apology all the other Americans her Department targeted because of their political beliefs.

In fact, officials in DHS now admit that their internal office of civil liberties objected to the language in the extremism report, but the Department issued it anyway.

You may download or view a copy of the report as a PDF here.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center stated:

“Janet Napolitano is lying to the American people when she says the Report is not based on ideology or political beliefs. In fact, her report would have the admiration of the Gestapo and any current or past dictator in the way it targets political opponents. This incompetently written intelligence assessment, which directs law enforcement officials across the country to target and report on American citizens who have the political beliefs mentioned in the report, will be used as a tool to stifle political opposition and opinions. It will give a pretext for opponents of those Americans to report them to police as rightwing extremists and terrorists. You can imagine what happens then.”

Thompson added:

“The Obama Administration has declared war on American patriots and our Constitution. The Report even admits that the Department has no specific information on any plans of violence by so-called ‘rightwing extremists.’ Rather, what they do have is the expression of political opinions by certain individuals and organizations that oppose the Obama administration’s policies, and this expression is protected speech under the First Amendment.”

The Report specifically mentions the following political beliefs that law enforcement should use to determine whether someone is a “rightwing extremist”:

• Opposes restrictions on firearms
• Opposes lax immigration
• Opposes the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs
• Opposes continuation of free trade agreements
• Opposes same-sex marriage
• Has paranoia of foreign regimes
• Fear of Communist regimes
• Opposes one world government
• Bemoans the decline of US stature in the world
• Upset with loss of US manufacturing jobs to China and India
• …and the list goes on

The New White House Enemies List – Are You On It?

DHS brands millions of honest citizens, veterans, as right-wing extremists

Update: Quite a scandal DHS has caused with their hateful document. A law center is suing Napolitano over the report and Congressman Hoekstra, (among others), is demanding an investigation.

There are some disinformationalists on the internet and in the media who are shouting that said report was begun under the Bush administration, (and so it was), and that the report is, therefore, solely a Bush administration document. Nonsense. The DHS report was revised by DHS under the Obama administration, reviewed by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and approved for release by her—despite objections from the DHS Office of Civil Liberties. Whether the report was begun under the Bush, Truman or Washington administrations, it was revised, approved and released by the Obama administration and Napolitano has attempted to stand by all of it. Then most of it. Then some of it.

The Department of Homeland Security has released a report titled: Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.

The report, reviewed by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano before its release, has outraged veterans groups, upset Ranking Member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Rep. Bennie Thompson, (Dem. Miss), and appalled just about everyone else.

You may download or view a copy of the report as a PDF here.

Let’s go over some excerpts from the DHS report, such as:

Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment [sic] groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts.

So. The DHS can find no indication that the groups and individuals of which they seem to be concerned, plan to carry out violent acts. Just how does this constitute a “threat?” Well, it doesn’t. Look at the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of threat:

1. an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage
2. one that threatens
3. an indication of something impending <the sky held a threat of rain>

Now look at the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of rhetoric:

1. the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a: the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b: the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion
2. a: skill in the effective use of speech b: a type or mode of language or speech ; also : insincere or grandiloquent language
3. verbal communication : discourse

In other words, people are conversing and they really haven’t made any threats.

Therefore, a copyeditor or English professor might re-write:

Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts.

to read:

There is no evidence that any group—even those we label extremist—is planning unlawful or violent acts.

Um, okay. Well, gee, I’m scared, aren’t you?

“… violent antigovernment groups… have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts.”

Just who are these unnamed “groups,” why are they classified as violent since the DHS says they aren't planning any violence and—if they are really, really, really thought to be such a potential threat—why on Earth aren’t they named in a document intended to brief law enforcement agencies?

Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit…

Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of US jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. [Emphasis mine]

Now wait just a darn minute! In one line the DHS report acknowledges the reality of, “… a prolonged economic downturn… real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit…” and in another line pontificates, “Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of US jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures.”

Perceived? In that first quote, the DHS agrees that the world-wide economic debacle is real, yet in the next quote it is merely perceived. Napolitano actually read this before she released it?

Here’s some “chatter” from the New York Times—not exactly a bastion of “rightwing extremism:”

• Economy Shed 598,000 Jobs in January
• After the Bank Failure Comes the Debt Collector
• Housing Construction Fell in March, Dashing Hopes
• Retail and Price Data Show Continuing Economic Weakness
• Harder-Edged Warnings About Britain’s Economy
• Longer Unemployment for Those 45 and Older
• Russia May Turn to Foreign Banks for Loans to Cover Deficit
• Credit Crisis — The Essentials

I might stress that I have found no reports indicating that the New York Times plans to carry out violent acts. Maybe the DHS will investigate them anyway—just in case, you know?

Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.

I’m a little confused—they’re talking about the Republican Party here, right?

Way back in that first quote, the DHS says, “…and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts” and here, the DHS says, “but they have not yet turned to attack planning…” which seems to presume—based on no evidence whatsoever, according to the DHS’s own report—that they will turn to “attack planning.”

There’s a term for this… let me think… no, don’t tell me.. oh, yeah, that’s it… paranoia.

Or is it just an excuse to limit civil rights?

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and
adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Thus, according to this DHS report, if you are:

• a member of any religion, because—let’s face it—all religions hate the others, but more specifically, perhaps:
  • a Protestant who hates Satanists
  • a Catholic who hates abortion
• a governor who—like Brian Schweitzer, (Democrat, Montana)—rejects federal authority in favor of state or local authority
• a Libertarian who is anti-government

well, Sir—or Ma’am—you are a rightwing extremist! That certainly is a broad definition. Thank you, DHS!

Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

Whether you are a veteran or not, I’m sure you'll agree this outrageous insult to American troops stands on its own.

Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical [sic] election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment.

They’re still talking about the Republicans?

Most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president, but stopping short of calls for violent action.

Translation: A lot of people don’t like Obama but they’re not doing anything unlawful. “… but stopping short of calls for violent action” seems to be deceitful, inflammatory rhetoric.

Historically, domestic rightwing extremists have feared, predicted, and anticipated a cataclysmic economic collapse in the United States.

And I guess they were right.

Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico.

And I guess they were right.

Many rightwing extremist groups perceive* recent gun control legislation as a threat to their [Constitutional] right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises. Such activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to facilitate criminal activity and violence.

“Many rightwing extremist groups perceive* recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms…” well, of course it does, and so the US Supreme Court has consistently agreed.

“… combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to facilitate criminal activity and violence.” I think, rather, that the new administration’s heightened level of extremist paranoia is of far greater concern. You think the Patriot Act was a bad idea? This DHS document has Prior Restraint and Unconstitutional written all over it.

* “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

—Inigo Montoya.

This disgraceful report adds:

A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the armed forces.”

This refers to the so-called Southern Poverty Law Center, which is not at all a civil rights organization, but a money-making machine with a bizarre, hateful agenda about which you may read here, here, here and here.

US News and World Report has an interesting twist on this story at: DHS Report on Leftists Not Like Napolitano Report on Right-Wing Extremism

For comments or questions related to the content or dissemination of this document, please contact the
DHS/I&A Production Branch at IA.PM@hq.dhs.gov, IA.PM@dhs.sgov.gov, or IA.PM@dhs.ic.gov

I suggest you do so and register your revulsion. You should also contact Janet Napolitano and your Congress Critters:

Write Your Senators

Write Your Representative

Department of Homeland Security Comment Line: 202-282-8495

Secretary Janet Napolitano
Department of Homeland Security
US Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528

And when you do, don’t forget to ask, “How much did this idiot report cost, anyway?”

John McCain Puts The "Twit" In Twitter

McCain Mocks Spending For Astronomy

McCain answers a question on his IQ

John McCain, a man so inept his wife has to scan the internet for him, has a Twitter account, which he uses to promote his political agenda, (I suspect one of his aides makes the entries).

Among other things, McCain has been twittering about pork in the congressional theft "economic stimulus" bill. Now, I'm against pork--which makes up the vast majority of that bill--but look at what McCain sees as the number 2 porker:

#2. $2 million “for the promotion of astronomy” in Hawaii - because nothing says new jobs for average Americans like investing in astronomy

What?

Let's see... McCain represents Arizona... Okay, take a gander at this page:
The Economic Impact of Astronomy, Planetary and Space Science Research in Arizona

Quoting from that page:

Research in Astronomy, Planetary Sciences and Space Sciences is a core strength of Arizona’s economy.

According to the economic analysis contained in the report, in 2006 alone, research in astronomy and space and planetary sciences provided over a $250 million in economic impact to Arizona. To put that in perspective, that is the equivalent of the economic impact of the Super Bowl every two years.

Arizona, like most of the nation, is facing an uncertain economic future in the near term. But one thing is not uncertain and that is the importance of astronomy, space and planetary research to Arizona’s economy.

There are real threats that will diminish the economic contributions of research in these fields. Immediate and decisive action must be taken so that will continue to realize the economic benefit of astronomy and space and planetary sciences.

So. Astronomy brings over a quarter-of-a-billion dollars into his own state every year, but McCain thinks spending 0.000049% of the Pork Bill to promote astronomy in Hawaii is a bad idea?

Well, what’s so special about astronomy in Hawaii?

Hawaii is Earth's connecting point to the rest of the Universe. The summit of Mauna Kea on the Island of Hawaii hosts the world's largest astronomical observatory, with telescopes operated by astronomers from eleven countries. The combined light-gathering power of the telescopes on Mauna Kea is fifteen times greater than that of the Palomar telescope in California -- for many years the world's largest -- and sixty times greater than that of the Hubble Space Telescope.

There are currently thirteen working telescopes near the summit of Mauna Kea. Nine of them are for optical and infrared astronomy, three of them are for submillimeter wavelength astronomy and one is for radio astronomy. They include the largest optical/infrared telescopes in the world (the Keck telescopes), the largest dedicated infrared telescope (UKIRT) and the largest submillimeter telescope in the world (the JCMT). The westernmost antenna of the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) is situated at a lower altitude two miles from the summit.

Mauna Kea is unique as an astronomical observing site. The atmosphere above the mountain is extremely dry -- which is important in measuring infrared and submillimeter radiation from celestial sources - and cloud-free, so that the proportion of clear nights is among the highest in the world. The exceptional stability of the atmosphere above Mauna Kea permits more detailed studies than are possible elsewhere, while its distance from city lights and a strong island-wide lighting ordinance ensure an extremely dark sky, allowing observation of the faintest galaxies that lie at the very edge of the observable Universe. A tropical inversion cloud layer about 600 meters (2,000 ft) thick, well below the summit, isolates the upper atmosphere from the lower moist maritime air and ensures that the summit skies are pure, dry, and free from atmospheric pollutants.

Part of the observatory complex on Mauna Kea

To quote the 2006 Report on long-term development of observatory sites on the summit of Mauna Kea:

Astronomy facilities on Mauna Kea and Haleakala represent a capital investment of close to $1 billion. The economic impact of astronomy to the State [of Hawaii] amounts to $150 million per year. New projects for Haleakala and Mauna Kea have the potential to double these numbers.

As of 2006, $150 million and the potential to bring over $300 million to the State of Hawaii every year? Maybe that’s just chump change to a man who didn’t even know how many houses he owned until a journalist told him.

Rick Santelli On The “Stimulus Bill”

Just a guess, but I don’t think he cares for it…

America Unplugged! Obama's Cruel Tax on the Poor

America Unplugged! Obama's Cruel Tax on the Poor
Obama's "ideological" energy plan would cripple US economy

by Orson Scott Card

A reprint of an article which originally appeared in the Rhino Times of Greensboro, NC.

October 30, 2008

Obama isn't cutting taxes for the poor, because they don't pay any.

Instead, he's planning to make it so expensive to generate electricity that only the rich can afford to use their appliances whenever they want.

Why? It's all in the name of Obama's true belief in global warming. He says it himself – he'll take coal off the table as an "ideological matter." Even if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, he's opposed to pursuing it.

He wants to put a huge penalty on companies that emit carbon – which means that starting up new coal-powered electrical plants will be prohibitively expensive. In Obama's own words, "It will bankrupt them."

"Cap and trade" plans have already been tried, and they don't work – they cost too much and people find ways to get around them. But Obama promises us that he'll take that failed idea and be "as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's" plan.

In other words, if it doesn't work, let's do more of it!

This is Obama the New Puritan. We've found his real religion: Political and environmental correctness.

It's more important to him to eliminate coal than to find practical solutions. Why? Because coal is "bad." Our groupthinking "intellectual" elite thinks they are post-religious – but they believe in sin and hate the sinners.

(Real intellectuals are skeptical and look for evidence before they embrace an idea; global warming, like the rest of the dogmas of the extreme left, are believed without proof, by faith alone.)

For the New Puritans, global warming is the vengeful god that must be placated. Our economy is the sacrifice to that deity. In the name of global warming, we must destroy our quality of life – and, like sales tax, it will hurt the poorest people first and most.

Unfortunately, human-caused global warming exists only in the way Zeus exists – in the imagination of believers who ignore obvious natural explanations. So this sacrifice of America's most bountiful and reliable energy source (until we can get solar and wind and nuclear up and running) is to a god that only seems real to people who are not serious about staying connected to reality.

Right now it is vital that we convert all our land transportation to electricity so we can wean ourselves from oil (and save that fuel for air transport). It will take far longer to convert away from coal as a source of that electricity – so what we need right now, as a temporary measure, is to build more generating capacity.

Obama would freeze us where we are. Literally.

Our electrical system would be rationed, or as intermittent as in Saddam's Iraq or today's Nigeria – oil-rich countries that did such a poor job of providing electricity to their citizens that it might go away for weeks, and when it comes back on, it's only for a few hours a day.

The poor would be hardest hit. When that electric bill is bigger than your house payment, something's got to go. What do you turn off? The fridge? The stove? Using the microwave is out of the question. Hair dryers? Gone. And you can forget watching DVDs or television.

It's Obama's first album: America Unplugged.

But the harm to the poor wouldn't stop with their inability to afford to use the appliances that the rest of America gets to use. With energy costs soaring to assuage Obama's god, people will have less money to spend. The cost of manufacturing everything would soar.

Let's see – higher prices, less income. Do you see vast unemployment following?

Not only will the poor be worse off, there'll be a whole lot more of them.

Why didn't the San Francisco Chronicle tell us about this back in January, when Obama laid out this plan?

Because it wasn't good for the rest of the country to know what Obama really plans to do. If we knew the truth, we might not vote for the "anointed ruler."

So why did this tape emerge now? Maybe some reporter or editor got an attack of honesty. Or maybe they woke up when they saw Obama declare war on the press – punishing newspapers and TV stations that were not sufficiently loyal to the anointed ruler.

Think of it: Not only can we have Nigeria's electrical power system, we can have Egypt's and Russia's "free" press! All courtesy of Obama!

For a long time we really haven't been able to find out who Obama is. But now, as the anointed ruler makes his triumphal parade to Mount Olympus, his arrogance is showing.

We caught a glimpse when he sneered at religion, saying that we turn to it only out of bitterness – rather than, say, faith, or charity, or love of virtue, or spirituality.

Obama thinks like a New Puritan – the people who punish anyone who speaks an incorrect thought. You've seen how they borked Joe the Plumber and, for that matter, Sarah Palin, accusing them of terrible things – none of which were even bad!

Obama thinks that coal is the devil. But when you ban coal as a source of additional electricity, you cripple our ability to transition to the technologies we must have to keep our great, world-fueling economy going.

But Obama, when you bring the whole global economic system crashing down, what do you think we'll use to heat our houses – or caves – then?

Coal and trees. Lots and lots of carbon.

Obama and his elitist friends think they're smart, but they don't live on planet Earth, they live in a playhouse where they can make huge messes with their stupid policies and then pretend that the mess is someone else's fault while they hope for some invisible mommy to come and clean it up.

The invisible mommy so far has been the American people and the resilient economy that we create (along with the few remaining moral standards that have not yet been crushed).
But we can't clean up after Obama's plan if we're too broke to turn on the lights.

Copyright © 2008 by Orson Scott Card

Don't wait for permission – reprint, forward or link to this now.

Just What Are Those "little, tiny–yes, porky–amendments" Schumer Speaks Of?

Congress Wins Our 'Useless Git Of The Week' Award!

Well, among many, many others:

• $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years
• $2 billion for child-care subsidies
• $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, (building giant shuttlecocks and bronzing old sneakers will help the economy how?)
  
• $400 million for global-warming research, (100% pork)
  
• $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects, (100% pork)
  
• $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons, (perish the thought that the public can't watch Wheel of Fortune)
  
• $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as "ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits, (like congress?)
• $2 billion for FutureGen, a proposed low-emissions coal-fired power plant in Mattoon, Ill. Sen. Tom Coburn (D., Okla.) has complained that the FutureGen funding amounts to a large earmark, (pork)

States emerge as one of the biggest losers, after changes agreed to as part of the Nelson-Collins compromise. The new version of the Senate bill would drop proposed funding for a state fiscal stabilization fund from $79 billion to $39 billion. Many states, such as California, are struggling to balance their budgets.

Without a major infusion of funds, state governments worry that they may have to lower the level of services they provide -- which could affect staffing at schools, prisons and other essential services -- or even raise payroll taxes.

"If states don't get some sort of reprieve, or some sort of assistance, then they don't have any options and they have to increase payroll taxes, and it's not a choice that states like to make," said Michelle Blackston, a spokeswoman for the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The Wall Street Journal estimates only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus.

The WSJ goes on to say, "Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to...guess which party?...Here's another lu-lu: Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator?"

The WSJ article ends with a most lucid appraisal of Obama's "stimulus" plan: "This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was written based on the wish list of every living -- or dead -- Democratic interest group. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, 'We won the election. We wrote the bill.' So they did. Republicans should let them take all of the credit."

Even before the last touches were put to the bill, the emerging deal infuriated some Democrats who said that President Obama and Congressional leaders had been, "too quick to give up on Democratic priorities" ($700+ billion in pork apparently isn't enough for some politicians).

“No matter how lavishly overpaid, civil servants everywhere are convinced they are horribly underpaid-but all public employees have larceny in their hearts or they wouldn’t be feeding at the public trough”
-Robert A. Heinlein

Senator Charles Schumer Says You Want Pork!

"And let me say this to all of the 'chattering class' that so much focuses on those little, tiny–yes, porky–amendments...the American people really don’t care."

"But though there is no difference in this respect between the best demagogue and the worst, both of them having to present their cases equally in terms of melodrama, there is all the difference in the world between the statesman who is humbugging the people into allowing him to do the will of God, in whatever disguise it may come to him, and one who is humbugging them into furthering his personal ambition and the commercial interests of the plutocrats who own the newspapers and support him on reciprocal terms."
-George Bernard Shaw

Well known for being a conceited, arrogant rat, Schumer believes the American people don’t care if he and his scheming cronies fellow lawmakers stuff--to the hilt--Obama’s already outrageous “economic stimulus” bill with waste!

Tell him otherwise!

Email him at: schumer.senate.gov/new_website/contact.cfm

or contact him through:

Schumer, Charles E. - (D - NY) Class III 313 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-6542 Fax:202-228-3027	District Office- Albany: Leo O’Brien Building, Room 420 Albany, NY 12207 Phone: 518-431-4070 Fax: 518-431-4076
District Office- Binghamton: 15 Henry Street, Room B6 Binghamton, NY 13901 Phone: 607-772-6792 Fax: 607-772-8124	District Office- Buffalo: 111 West Huron Street, Room 620 Buffalo, NY 14202 Phone: 716-846-4111 Fax: 716-846-4113
District Office- Hudson Valley: Post Office Box A Red Hook, NY 12571 Phone: 914-285-9741 Fax: 845-758-1043	District Office- Long Island: 145 Pine Lawn Road, Room 300 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-753-0978 Fax: 631-753-0997
District Office- New York City: 757 Third Avenue, Suite 17-02 New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-486-4430 TTYD Number: 212-486-7803 Fax: 212-486-7693	District Office- Rochester: 100 State Street, Room 3040 Rochester, NY 14614 Phone: 585-263-5866 Fax: 585-263-3173
District Office- Syracuse: 100 South Clinton Street, Room 841 Syracuse, NY 13261-7318 Phone: 315-423-5471 Fax: 315-423-5185