Heads Roll as James O’Keefe Exposes NPR (Update)

In his latest investigative masterpiece, James O’Keefe exposes National Public Radio for the cesspool of liberalism it is by luring them with big money — $5 million — from a Muslim organization that doesn’t exist.

Soon after the first installment went viral, heads rolled and NPR executives Vivian Schiller and Ronald J. Schiller were gone.  Who knows what might happen after the second installment circulates.

Enjoy Parts One and Two below:



Keep up with all of the 26-year-old journalist’s efforts at Project Veritas.

UPDATE 3/17/11 at 8:43 a.m. Central: O’Keefe just released Part Three of his series in which an NPR director admits to having received money from George Soros for years.

FYI: If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Thanks in advance for your support!

Saving America, Sharing the Pain

Paul R. Hollrah

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Blogger

On Dec. 3, Barack Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (a.k.a., “Debt Commission”) voted on the plan they had developed to save our country from utter fiscal ruin. The vote fell three short of the fourteen votes required by rule to send the plan to Congress for an up-or-down vote.

Voting in favor of the plan were the co-chairmen, former senator Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles; along with Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Kent Conrad (D-N.D.); Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.); former Federal Reserve vice chairman Alice Rivlin; Honeywell Corp. CEO David Cote; and Ann Fudge, former CEO of Young & Rubicam.

Voting against the proposal were Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.); Reps. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), Dave Camp (R-Mich.), Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.); and Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union.

If Obama expected courage from his commission members, he might have skipped over members of the House of Representatives, all of whom run for reelection in 2012, and union leaders such as Andy Stern, who could never be trusted to put the national interest first. Without going into detail, the commissioners recommended what can best be described as a little pain for everyone. They suggested cuts in Social Security and Medicare, the elimination of tax breaks for mortgage interest and child care, and, surprisingly, a reduction in tax rates for individuals and corporations.

As expected, howls of protest could be heard immediately from the right and from the left, but in each case from those who apparently would rather see the entire nation go down the drain while they scramble for the last remaining seats in a sinking ship of state. So, for those who are serious about saving a bit of the American Dream for our children and grandchildren, what are some of the things that could and should be done almost immediately?


The first item of business should be to repeal Obamacare, replacing it with meaningful reform that eliminates fraud, waste, and bureaucratic paper-shuffling, protects families from financial ruin in cases of catastrophic illness, eliminates free healthcare for illegal aliens, charges patients only for justifiable doctor and hospital services, and focuses on strengthening the doctor-patient relationship.


Of the $787 billion authorized by Congress under Obama’s ill-fated economic stimulus plan, some $292 billion remains unspent. These funds have been allocated to various government departments and agencies but have not been spent and could be withdrawn by act of Congress.


In order to save Social Security for current and future generations, we should begin by answering this question:  Can we morally justify sending monthly Social Security checks to Warren Buffet and George Soros while millions of ordinary Social Security recipients must choose each day between the cost of food, healthcare, utility bills, and prescription drugs?

Anyone who believes in the sustainability of the current system, or who wishes to argue that, since an individual has paid into the system for 40 or 50 years, he/she has a right to withdraw full benefits for a lifetime, regardless of personal wealth, should please stop reading now… we’ve heard that silly argument before, and it is of little or no value in the current debate, given what is at stake.

An individual taxpayer born in 1945, who entered the workforce in 1965, and who retired in 2010 at age 65 with an annual salary of $110,000, will have paid a total of $126,715.89 into the system.  With a monthly benefit of $2,135, that individual will receive that same amount in benefits in just four years and eleven months. If he/she lives to be 85 years of age, the total amount paid to that individual will be $512,400… four times their total contributions.

A graduated reduction in Social Security benefits, beginning with annual incomes of $50,000 and zeroing-out benefits for those with annual incomes of $150,000, or more, would provide long-term sustainability for the system while not causing any undue amount of pain for current and future beneficiaries, regardless of income level. We simply must find the courage to do it.


The SSI program guarantees a minimum level of income to financially needy individuals who are aged, blind, or disabled. However, the program has been substantially liberalized by extending benefits to many who are disabled by reason of addiction to drugs, alcohol and gambling.

The State of California will soon reduce SSI outlays for more than 1.1 million low-income seniors and people with disabilities to their Dec. 1, 2008, level.  For an individual recipient, this means the maximum grant will drop from $907 per month to $870 per month, a 4.1 percent reduction. The Congress should direct the Social Security Administration to follow California’s
lead. SSI benefits should be available only to U.S. citizens and only to those who are unable to work due to age, blindness, or physical incapacity. We cannot continue to raid the Social Security System by paying benefits to able-bodied citizens who are many years away from retirement age.


One of the greatest mistakes our nation has ever made was to set a mandatory retirement age at 65.  Telling our most knowledgeable, most experienced, and most skilled workers to go home and sit on their behinds until they die, when the vast majority of workers are capable of being productive until age 70 or 75, makes no economic sense and only serves to swell the ranks of government entitlement recipients. The age of retirement should be left to negotiation between the individual and his/her employer, not dictated by government or corporate policy.


The Congress should take immediate steps to reduce the size of the non-military federal workforce by ten percent over 10 years. According to 2009 data provided by the Office of Personnel Management, the total federal workforce for calendar year 2009 stood at 4.43 million — 2.77 million executive branch, 66,000 legislative branch and 1.59 million uniformed military.  Excluding our uniformed military, the federal workforce numbers approximately 2.84 million people.

A 10 percent workforce reduction would require the elimination of 284,000 non-military jobs.

The elimination of the U.S. Department of Education (5,000 employees, 2010 budget of $56 billion) and the U.S. Department of Energy (16,000 employees and more than 93,000 contract employees, annual budget approximately $25 billion), both unnecessary and unproductive organizations, would provide a good starting point.


Recent news reports indicate that:  a) salaries of federal workers are roughly double the salaries paid for similar work in the private sector, and b) the number of federal jobs paying in excess of $150,000 per year has doubled under Barack Obama. Using the “power of the purse,” the Congress should begin immediately to roll back federal salaries to private sector levels.


Since gaining control of Congress in 2006, Democrats have pushed through three increases in the minimum wage, a 40 percent increase from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour. Studies show that, for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, the overall number of jobs available decreases by as much as 2 percent.

The impact on entry-level jobs is even greater.  For each 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, the number of entry-level jobs for teenagers and unskilled workers is reduced by from 4 to 5 percent.

At the very least, the Congress should establish a two-tier minimum wage… a $5.15 per hour minimum wage for teens and unskilled entry-level workers and a $7.25 per hour minimum wage for those with marketable skills who find themselves temporarily unemployed.


It is clear we cannot rely on Obama to eliminate waste, fraud, and inefficiency. He has identified only $140 million from his $3.6 trillion 2010 budget request as wasteful. He has also proposed a partial offset of the cost of ObamaCare by cutting $622 billion in Medicare and Medicaid “waste and inefficiencies” over the next 10 years. We’ll never know if that is a hard number or if it was
merely a “blue sky” number invented to help sell his healthcare program. Either way, it’s a good place to start. We only need to inject a bit of courage into those who represent us in Congress.

The dire predictions of where we are headed if we fail to take decisive action now should scare the pants off every thinking American. Let’s take our medicine now so that our children and grandchildren won’t find themselves having to swallow a far more bitter pill in years to come.

Hollrah is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a contributing editor for Family Security Matters and a number of online publications.  He resides in northeast Oklahoma.

Paulson Among Buyers of Failed IndyMac Bank

The FDIC issued a news release Friday to let the world know the agency’s board had approved a letter of intent to sell IndyMac Bank to a thrift holding company controlled by IMB Management Holdings LP.  Though one of the men involved in purchasing the bank shares the same last name as Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, members of the mainstream news media have failed to acknowledge that fact.

A Los Angeles Times report Saturday listed John Paulson as one of two hedge-fund operators (the other being billionaire George Soros) among a small group of owner-investors, while an article published Friday in the San Jose Business Journal noted that the limited partnership includes John Alfred Paulson, the same man.  Neither article, however, deemed it worthwhile to report that the man involved in purchasing a large failed bank shared the same last name as the man who oversees the nation’s banking system, Secretary Paulson.

Noticing that, I decided to see if any other news outlets had seen fit to address the nagging question, “Is John Alfred Paulson related to Henry M. Paulson?” After all, even the pseudo-journalists behind the desk at ESPN Sports Center know enough to toss in an occasional “No relation” upon noticing that two unrelated players who share the same last name.

Surprising me again, none of the articles I found — neither the above-mentioned articles nor others published in the Wall Street Journal Jan. 5, at Bloomberg.com Jan. 3 and via Associated Press Jan. 3 — addressed the question.  That’s when I decided to ask people who should know.

I called IMB’s corporate offices early this afternoon and was told to send an e-mail inquiry to Armel Leslie at Walek & Associates, IMB’s Madison Avenue public relations counsel.  Twice given the opportunity to respond to the question, “Is John Alfred Paulson related in any way to Secretary of the Treasury Henry M. Paulson?” the PR specialist responded by e-mail as follows:  “No relation” and “Yes, no relation.”

Though I had an answer, I was not yet convinced; therefore, I called the Treasury Department Public Affairs Office in Washington, D.C., and asked them to field a nearly-identical question, “Does Secretary Paulson have any immediate relatives by the name of John Alfred Paulson?”

With true bureaucratic efficiency, the buck was passed at least twice during my phone call before I was dispatched with a promise that someone would call me back with the answer.  Unfortunately, that was almost five hours ago.

Is John Alfred Paulson related to Henry M. Paulson? Perhaps not, but that’s not what motivated me to write this article.  Instead, my chief concern was the news media’s seemingly-collective decision to ignore any possible connection between the men.  That kind of collusion, I fear, might portend a much greater problem for our nation’s future than banking failures.

New Book Exposes Obama’s Surprises

There are now several books about Barack Obama‘s past, but Obama Unmasked is the only book to reveal the secret schemes of Obama and two billionaires to steal the American presidency at the last minute. For this reason Obama Unmasked is also enjoying blistering sales from the getgo.

Obama Unmasked by Floyd Brown and Lee Troxler

Obama Unmasked by Floyd Brown and Lee Troxler

Veteran political operatives Floyd Brown and Lee Troxler penned Obama Unmasked over the summer when, through their investigations, they met sources close to billionaire financier George Soros and billionaire Hollywood mogul David Geffen — sources who revealed last minute political chicanery so foul it enraged Brown and Troxler, and caused them to detail their findings for a full public airing.

With the full title, Obama Unmasked: Did Slick Hollywood Handlers Create The Perfect Candidate?, the book is divided into three parts: First is an examination of Obama’s early years and his formative influences, second is his actual record of accomplishments to date, third is a look ahead to the kind of presidency we could expect if Obama’s handlers have their way.

To order a copy of the book, click here.

Young Artist Sketches ‘OBAMASOROS’

Copyright © 2008 Bob McCarty, L.L.C.  All rights reserved.

As seen through the mind’s eye of my seventh-grade son/artist, above is a composite sketch of OBAMASOROS, an unusual political creature that surfaced during the 2008 presidential race, possibly the product of human-hybrid embryo experiments being conducted in the U.K., but I digress.

OBAMASOROS sports the political ambition of presidential candidate Barack Obama while enjoying the financial wherewithal of billionaire hedge fund trader George Soros. His genetic makeup represents a volatile combination that stands poised to backfire on American voters should they cast the wrong vote in November.

Who Might Hillary Be ‘Channeling’ These Days?

In a Front Page Magazine article this morning, Ben Johnson mentions Hillary Clinton’s history of talking to “dead spirits” such as Eleanor Roosevelt and provides a link to a 1996 article featuring audio clips (153K AIFF or WAV sound) of a CNN interview with one-time spiritual advisor to Hillary, Jean Houston. After reading the article and listening to the audio clips, I began to wonder who Hillary might be “channeling” these days.

The Democrat presidential candidate who, according to Johnson, “morphed herself into a gun-toting, whiskey-swilling church lady,” might try contacting conservative giants who garnered respect and admiration from Americans on both sides of the political aisle:

  • Hillary might try to contact Charlton Heston, the actor who served as president of the National Rifle Association during the golden years of his life prior to suffering from Alzheimer’s. Why? Because he could help her win the pro-gun crowd. I can dismiss that possibility on its face. Heston’s proximity to the Almighty — he did play Moses in The Ten Commandments — poses, for obvious reasons, far too great a risk to Hillary.
  • She might try to contact William F. Buckley Jr., the man regarded by many as the father of the modern conservative movement who, according to a House resolution read by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) (See this National Review Online article), “led in a manner that earned both the respect and the friendship of his political adversaries.” Unfortunately for her, Buckley wouldn’t waste any portion of his eternity on a woman in whose court the likes of George Soros might be welcome.
  • Finally, she might try to contact Ronald Reagan, another great conservative who gained political fame for having reached across the divide of partisanship and won support from individuals who would become forever known as Reagan Democrats? But it won’t work either. Hillary knows she won’t be able to pass the test of the trust-but-verify approach he made famous while winning the Cold War.

In the end, it appears channeling might not work for Hillary. Instead, she might just be better off turning off her spiritual “television set.”

Mike Huckabee Speaks on Iraq War

“I encourage you to watch the video below and leave a comment on our blog. If you are a blogger, blog about this important issue today. When you do, we will link to your blog post below. Leave it as a comment on our blog. After you watch the video, click here for more on my thoughts on Iraq.” — Mike Huckabee