‘It’s a Beautiful Story. And It’s a Lie.’

A soi-dissant philanthropist is exposed as a liar:

Some of the most inspiring and dramatic stories in the best-selling book, “Three Cups of Tea,” by Greg Mortenson, are not true, multiple sources tell “60 Minutes” . . .
The stories in “Three Cups of Tea” have become the source of inspirational speeches Mortenson is paid to make and the partial basis for donations of nearly $60 million to the charity he founded. . . . Mortenson’s charity, Central Asia Institute, has spent more money in the U.S. talking about education in Pakistan and Afghanistan than actually building and supporting schools there . . .
The heart of Mortenson’s “Three Cups of Tea” is the story of a failed attempt in 1993 to climb the world’s second-highest peak, K2.
On the way down, Mortenson says, he got lost and stumbled, alone and exhausted, into a remote mountain village in Pakistan named Korphe.
According to the book’s narrative, the villagers cared for him and he promised to return to build a school there. In a remote village in Pakistan, “60 Minutes” found Mortenson’s porters on that failed expedition. They say Mortenson didn’t get lost and stumble into Korphe on his way down from K2. He visited the village a year later.
That’s what famous author and mountaineer Jon Krakauer, a former donor to Mortenson’s charity, says he found out, too. “It’s a beautiful story. And it’s a lie,” says Krakauer. “I have spoken to one of his [Mortenson’s] companions, a close friend, who hiked out from K2 with him and this companion said, ‘Greg never heard of Korphe until a year later,'” Krakauer tells Kroft.

Read the whole thing. After 9/11, Mortenson shared his “philanthropic” opinion of the War on Terror:

“I’ve learned that terror doesn’t happen because some group of people somewhere like Pakistan or Afghanistan simply decide to hate us. It happens because children aren’t being offered a bright enough future that they had a reason to choose life over death.”

Which is utterly misguided: Osama bin Laden is from one of the richest non-royal families in Saudi Arabia. Mohammed Atta was from an affluent Egyptian family and had a college degree in architecture. But one finds this Mortenson quote all over the Internet, because liberals desperately want to believe that poverty causes terrorism. If this were true, supposedly, we could “fight terrorism” by sending money and Peace Corps volunteers to the Third World, just as liberals believe we can “fight crime” at home with welfare, summer jobs programs, etc.

The moral of the story, of course: If it sounds too good to be true, it’s probably not true. But there’s always someone clever enough to cash in by telling liberals what they want to hear.

Which brings us to the Question of the Day: “Liberals pride themselves on being tolerant. Are they really just suckers?” I think we all know the answer to that question, but the liberal author, Sally Kohn, goes on to make reference to the “pathetic self-loathing” of liberals.

Really, did she have to remind us of “Conscious Men“?

Why Does It Shock Us That GE Paid No Taxes For 2010?

by Smitty

So GE paid not taxes last year, per Gateway Pundit quoting the NYT. This really is nothing new. As Ancient Commenter Jesus of Nazareth noted:

of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
—Matthew 17:25

Really, this situation is problematic only if you hold to that transient notion of a separation between public and private sector. The acquisitions of General Motors and health care, as well as the friendly merger of General Electric with the Federal government, merely show that the sun has set on the historical aberration of free markets and capitalism.
The remaining question is whether the 22nd Amendment will have to be explicitly repealed in a (hopefully more successful change than Mel Zelaya‘s), or whether 22 can be safely ignored like the 10th Amendment in preparation for BHO’s 2016 election ‘win’.

Two Michigan Democrats Face Felony Charges in Fake ‘Tea Party’ Ballot Fraud

Not just a scam, but an inept scam:

Two former leaders of the Oakland County Democratic Party are facing a total of nine felonies for allegedly forging election paperwork to get fake Tea Party candidates on November’s ballot. . . .
Former Oakland County Democratic Chair Mike McGuinness and former Democratic Operations Director Jason Bauer face up to 14 years in prison if convicted.
“Some of the people didn’t even know they were on the ballot till they began receiving delinquency notices of filings that were required as a candidate,” said Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard.
The sheriff says 23 statewide races had questionable Tea Party candidates on the ballot and the investigation may go beyond Oakland County.
“It was learned that a scheme was developed by a party leader in Lansing to place on the ballot people pretending to be Tea Party activists and that this was going to be a statewide effort,” Bouchard said.

Democrats in several states did similar things. “Independent” candidates had an interesting way of popping up in key Massachusetts congressional races, as I recall. But apparently these Michigan Democrats were so careless they actually broke the law.

Darrell Issa: Unintimidated

“Issa to investigate Obama? They must be scared to death of what Issa could learn. They must be scared to death of what Issa could produce, because they’re now out to do what they did to Robert Bork. Go down the list, Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, any number of people, Ken Starr. Now it is Darrell Issa’s turn.”
— Rush Limbaugh, Wednesday, Feb. 16

As couple days ago, I blogged about the Left’s smear campaign against Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) the newly-installed chairman of the House Oversight Committee. It’s apparent that these tactics won’t stop Issa, who has just subpoenaed records relating to the Countrywide mortgage scandal:

The chairman of a House oversight panel issued a broad subpoena Wednesday seeking documents related to a controversial VIP lending program run by Countrywide Financial Corp., with the goal of finding out which public officials benefited.
House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) sent the subpoena to Bank of America Corp. (BAC) , which acquired Countrywide in 2008. Countrywide’s former chief executive, Angelo Mozilo, has long faced allegations that he approved loans for favored borrowers in violation of the company’s lending policies.
The subpoena is Issa’s first as chairman of the oversight panel after Republicans assumed control of the House last month. Issa had clashed in fall 2009 with the committee’s former Democratic Chairman, Rep. Edolphus Towns (D., N.Y.) over whether to investigate the program. Towns ultimately agreed to a narrower subpoena.
Towns received two mortgage loans under the program, The Wall Street Journal reported in August 2009. At the time, he contended that he had no knowledge that he was in the program and didn’t receive any special treatment.
The loan program, known as “Friends of Angelo,” provided loans at rates and terms more favorable than what Countrywide offered to the general public. Lawmakers have been scrutinizing whether those VIP loans were also aimed at influencing public officials.

(Via Jammie Wearing Fool and Instapundit.) Here is Issa’s official statement on the investigation:

“Countrywide orchestrated a deliberate and calculated effort to use relationships with people in high places in order to manipulate public policy and further their bottom line to the detriment of the American taxpayers even at the expense of its own lending standards,” said Issa. “This subpoena will allow us to obtain the information needed to answer the outstanding public interest questions regarding the full size and scope of the VIP program. The American people have a right to know the totality of who participated in the Countrywide’s VIP program and what they did in return for access to it. Our role is to get all of the facts so that the American people can judge for themselves who should be held responsible and accountable.”

The differences between the Issa probe and the limited investigation conducted under Towns’s chairmanship are explained by Politico‘s Jake Sherman:

Last year, the subpoena directed Bank of America to give all documents identifying House members to the House Ethics Committee. This year, the subpoena directs all documents to the Oversight Committee.
Also, whereas last year the committee spared senators — who are governed by their chamber’s ethics panel — this year they will be part of Issa’s probe. Issa’s aides would not say they’ll shield senators who might surface in the probe — last year they said they’d hand documents over to the Senate ethics committee — although they don’t have the authority to punish them.

Two words: Chris Dodd. In 2009, when I was covering the “IG-Gate” story — the pattern of Obama administration pressure against inspectors general — the reluctance of the Democratic majority to conduct serious oversight investigations was obvious:

Behind closed doors on Capitol Hill last week, I asked a Republican source about the investigative efforts of Democratic staffers for the House Oversight Committee.
“Honestly?” the source said. “They’re useless.” . . .
Despite the “grave concerns” expressed by Towns and Issa three weeks ago [about the unexpected retirement of the Amtrak IG], however, Republican sources on Capitol Hill have complained that Democratic staffers on the Oversight Committee have not shown much zeal for the investigation. Sources say Democratic staffers have skipped meetings and conference calls to which they were invited by GOP investigators, who are attempting to work with Grassley’s staff in order to prevent unnecessary duplication of efforts. Sharing documents and scheduling interviews with witnesses, allowing Republican and Democratic investigators from both chambers an opportunity to question these witnesses, is a demanding logistical task. And GOP staffers complain that this task seems to be lacking in terms of bipartisanship.

Now with the GOP in the majority, Issa has a much larger investigative staff and, most importantly, wields subpoena power and the chairman’s authority to schedule public hearings. This is going to be the “action” committee to keep an eye on in coming months. Continue reading Darrell Issa: Unintimidated →

Surprise: Supporters of Most ‘Transparent’ Administration Launch Smear Campaign Against GOP Congessman Investigating Most ‘Transparent’ Administration

Because they’re all about the transparency!

Democrats are understandably obsessed with Darrell Issa — he’s built himself up as a one-man investigative machine aimed straight at the Obama presidency.
But a handful of liberal political operatives . . . are taking their anti-Issa passion to a whole new level, launching a nonprofit group, a website and even paid media advertisements aimed at undermining and investigating the rabble-rousing chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
They say they’re leaving no stone unturned in digging into Issa’s personal and business history. . . .
The purpose of this new group is to . . . make life difficult for Issa and sow seeds of doubt on his investigations.
They plan to run TV advertisements and other paid media in the future, saying they already have a “significant commitment” of cash. . . .
The group will be run by the principals of SCN Strategies, a San Francisco-based consulting firm. . . . One of those deeply involved is Averell “Ace” Smith — who ran Hillary Clinton’s successful 2008 California and Texas primary operations and is known as one of the more cutthroat political operatives in the business.
Dan Newman of SCN Strategies, one of the three people leading the anti-Issa campaign, declines to disclose how much is being spent on the effort or who is bankrolling it . . .

If it weren’t for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all.

They Got the Gold Mine …

. . . and taxpayers get the shaft:

Since the government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, taxpayers have spent more than $160 million defending the mortgage finance companies and their former top executives in civil lawsuits accusing them of fraud. . . .
Since the government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, taxpayers have spent more than $160 million defending the mortgage finance companies and their former top executives in civil lawsuits accusing them of fraud. . . .
Documents reviewed by The New York Times indicate that taxpayers have paid $24.2 million to law firms defending three of Fannie’s former top executives: Franklin D. Raines, its former chief executive; Timothy Howard, its former chief financial officer; and Leanne Spencer, the former controller.
Mr. Raines retired in December 2004 and Mr. Howard resigned at the same time. Ms. Spencer left her position as controller in early 2005. The following year, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, then the company’s regulator, published an in-depth report on the company’s accounting practices, accusing Fannie’s top executives of taking actions to manipulate profits and generate $115 million in improper bonuses. . . .

Raines was a Clinton crony who was an economic advisor to Obama’s campaign and, during the height of the 2008 economic meltdown, bought a $4.9 million penthouse in D.C.

Maxine and Barney, Sitting in a Tree . . .

. . . K-I-S-S-I-N-G!

A newly discovered exchange of e-mails led the House ethics committee on Friday to delay its trial of Representative Maxine Waters, a California Democrat accused of helping steer bailout money to a bank in which her husband owned shares.
The e-mails are between Mikael Moore, Ms. Waters’s chief of staff, and members of the House Financial Services Committee, on which Ms. Waters serves. The e-mails show that Mr. Moore was actively engaged in discussing with committee members details of a bank bailout bill apparently after Ms. Waters agreed to refrain from advocating on the bank’s behalf. The bailout bill had provisions that ultimately benefited OneUnited, a minority-owned bank in which her husband, Sidney Williams, owned about $350,000 in shares. . . .
The subcommittee’s original report found that in early September 2008, Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts and the committee’s chairman, told Ms. Waters not to get involved with any issues involving OneUnited and that Ms. Waters agreed to refrain from advocating on the bank’s behalf. . . .
A person directly involved in the investigation said the new e-mails could show that members of her staff continued to work on the bank’s behalf.
“It may directly contradict a bit of Maxine’s story, if not the actual facts, the way she has told it,” said the person, who did not want to be identified because of the sensitivity of the trial.

So if Barney told Maxine to stay away from the OneUnited “issues,” yet Maxine’s chief-of-staff kept “discussing [the bank] with committee members” — of which Barney was the chairman — will Barney be called to testify against Maxine? And what else might be included in the e-mails that will be made public in the course of this investigation?

Ed Morrissey has much, much more at Hot Air. There’s also a Memeorandum thread with additional blog commentary from YID With LID, Weasel Zippers, Moe Lane and Alana Goodman.

Remember When Nancy Pelosi Promised Democrats Were Going to Clean Up the ‘Culture of Corruption’ in Washington?

Charlie Rangel: Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! And now he’s going to get a very serious wrist-slapping:

The House ethics committee’s chief counsel recommended Thursday that veteran Rep. Charles Rangel be censured for financial and fundraising misconduct as lawmakers neared closure on an embarrassing 2½-year-long scandal. . . .
Rangel on Tuesday was found guilty of 11 of the 13 charges of ethics violations against him by a panel of four Democrats and four Republicans.
That finding came after a two-year long investigation into charges against Rangel that relate to his personal finances and his fundraising efforts for a new center at New York City College. . . .
A censure or a reprimand is a legislative procedure where the full House, by majority vote on a simple resolution, expresses a formal disapproval of the conduct of a member, according to the Congressional Research Service.
The censured representative generally must stand before the House and receive the rebuke, but entails no actual loss of privileges.

In other words, a meaningless verbal scolding. He gets to keep his job, his pension, etc. Michelle Malkin live-blogged the hearings, complete with Rangel claiming he had been “smeared” and John Lewis calling Rangel a civil rights hero.