Prior Private Sector Experience in Presidential Cabinets

The following chart is from a J.P. Morgan research report. It shows the prior private sector experience of the cabinet officials since 1900 that one might expect a president to turn to when seeking advice about helping the economy.

Research by Chief Investment Officer, JP Morgan

As unemployment continues to rise, this chart may be telling! When you have a “jobs summit” and don’t invite the representatives of businesses that create most of the jobs in the country, it is an example of why you should consider having someone who has actually hired someone for a job in a decision making postion in or around the White House.

Kudos to Joe Scarborough and the Morning Joe Cast Along With Starbucks for Work Helping a New Orleans High School

I give a tip of the hat to Joe Scarborough, the cast of Morning Joe and their primary sponsor, Starbucks, for their efforts when the show aired in a volunteerism-focused visit to New Orleans on Friday (November 20). “Morning Joe’s” title sponsor and the show’s partner in its drive to spark volunteer efforts around the country presented a $125,000 check which boosted a donation total of more than $200,000 to John McDonogh High School – not counting the overtime donation of a new gym floor sparked by an on-air challenge by guest Digger Phelps!

Additional donations announced during the show came from Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Co. (700 textbooks and professional development curriculum for teachers), the NBA and Spalding sporting-goods company (new hoops and backboards for the gym), NBC News (a free one-year subscription for the school to NBC News Archives on Demand and a donation to McDonogh’s college tour for ninth-graders).

The gym-floor donation came after Phelps Googled sports-floor companies and called one out on the air — Robbins Sports Surfaces of Cincinnati, Ohio.

Joe Covington Jr., of the Birmingham, Ala.-based Covington Flooring Co. – the regional distributor-installer for Robbins — happened to be in New Orleans on Friday for a business trip, and immediately began to field e mails and cell phone calls from people in his company and Robbins.

Covington arrived at John McDonogh, measured the space to be resurfaced, quickly consulted with a Robbins decision-maker, and the donation was decided.

Though “Morning Joe” had already left the air, Covington and Robbins meeting Phelps’ “Google and Guts” challenge so quickly prompted an unplanned live follow-up report — featuring Covington surrounded by the “Morning Joe” cast — during “Morning Meeting.”

“It was pretty wild,” said Covington, estimating that the value of the new floor will range from $80,000 to $150,000 depending on the material chosen for the job.

Then Saturday’s volunteerathon was dubbed “Brewing Together Day of Service.” (Starbucks recently rebranded one of its coffee lines to Gold Coast Blend, Morning Joe Edition.)

“I saw (President Obama) go down last month, for the first time, for a couple of hours before flying out to his fundraiser in San Francisco,” Scarborough said. “We had a discussion about it around the table, on the air. You sit there and wonder what else has to be done to draw focus on New Orleans and Mississippi. That wasn’t done over the past four years, and how could we still be – what’s the (Dick) Cheney word on Afghanistan? Dithering? – how could our federal government and state governments still be dithering four years later in reaching out and helping New Orleans and helping out Mississippi and helping everyone who was so dramatically impacted by Hurricane Katrina?

“So many people come on our show and talk about what they talk about in Washington and what they promise to do,” said “Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski, whose family named its Katrina rescue dog Cajun. “This is our way to say, ‘OK, you guys can keep talking, but anyone who actually wants to do something, come join us. Seriously, come out here. What you have to offer, offer. Let’s do it. Let’s help these people.’

I am pleased and surprised to see this group using their position and status to actually do something rather than just complain that the government isn’t doing enough. If more people in Washington, New York and Hollywood would follow the example set by the Morning Joe crew and Starbucks, the country would be much better off.

Has Political Correctness Finally Gotten People Killed?

Last week, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan entered a medical facility at Fort Hood, prayed briefly, then shouted “Allahu akbar” before he began gunning down American troops, killing 13 and wounding another 31.

I happened to be watching cable news when the story was breaking and was struck by the fact that at least two cable networks were reporting within the first hour that the FBI had issued a report that the incident was not an act of terrorism. A few hours later when President Obama addressed the situation for the first time, he also seemed to be warning Americans not to “jump to conclusions” concerning the cause of the shooting.

The mainstream media wasted no time, or research, in jumping to their own conclusions that the suspect was suffering from “stress” and had snapped. The day after the slaughter, the New York Times ran one editorial and two of three op-eds asserting as much. The Los Angeles Times jumped to the same conclusion, running an article on the massacre titled: “Fort Hood Tragedy Rocks Military as It Grapples With Mental Health Issues.” Time magazine followed suit, posting an article titled: “Stresses at Fort Hood Were Likely Intense for Hasan.”

Since Maj. Hasan had never been deployed overseas, much less seen combat, progressive bloggers and the mainstream media seem to have discovered the first recorded case of “pre-traumatic stress syndrome.” Their point seems to be that the real victim of the massacre at Fort hood was Maj. Hasan.

According to numerous eyewitness accounts, Hasan

· denounced the “war on terror” as a war against Islam.
· said Muslims should attack Americans in retaliation for the war in Iraq
· defended suicide bombers as the same type of hero as the soldier who throws his body on a hand grenade to save the lives of his comrades
· reportedly had said he was “happy” when a Muslim murdered a soldier at a military recruiting center in Little Rock, Arkansas earlier this year
· shared a “spiritual adviser” with two of the Sept. 11 hijackers, Imam Anwar al-Awlaki, whose unseemly enthusiasm for jihad got him banned from speaking in Britain, even by video link
· A few years ago, Hasan delivered an hour-long PowerPoint lecture to an audience of doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, arguing that non-Muslims should be beheaded and have burning oil poured down their throats
· has attempted to contact al-Qaeda

Despite being well aware of Hasan’s disturbing views and conduct, the Army did nothing. It is not illegal for someone to say that Muslims should attack U.S. troops due to their operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, or that more Muslims should conduct attacks like the June 1 shooting at the recruiting center in Little Rock. As Chris Matthews of MSNBC argued, it is not illegal to contact al Qaeda. However, any or all of these actions would certainly appear to be conduct unbecoming a U.S. Army officer which is a violation of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). You see, the military member who volunteers to protect every other American’s freedoms, gives up some of their own to do so. The Army could have removed Maj. Hasan from duty and the whole issue could have been avoided.

The government knew of Maj. Hasan’s views and his activities and the question becomes why wasn’t something done before the shooting. Where was the breakdown in communication? Did the FBI provide the Army with their information? Did the NSA intercept incriminating communications between Maj. Hasan and Imam Anwar al-Awlaki? Did Maj. Hasan see the article by by the leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Nasir al-Wahayshi, for jihadists to conduct simple attacks against a variety of targets in the Muslim world and the West?

Admittedly, I don’t have all of the facts of the case, but a little thing like not having all of the details wouldn’t stop David Shuster, Chris Matthews, or Keith Olbermann from giving their opinions as fact, so I won’t stop here. If I were one of the analysts who handled information concerning Maj. Hasan, I might have considered the treatment of CIA members who followed their directives concerning some other alleged Muslim terrorists only to find their government turning on them and wanting to prosecute them. It appears that if you do your job in the intelligence community, but aren’t careful to be politically correct and determine which way the wind is blowing, you could find yourself being the guilty party.

I can determine a couple of things without an expensive investigation that will only get politically correct results. Maj. Hasan committed an act of terror. Maj. Hasan is a follower of Islam. Maj. Hasan’s views appear to be a little on the radical side (the United States Army being a little on the conservative side as a whole). Therefore, Maj. Hassan is a radical Islamic terrorist.

It’s time to get past the political correct culture that avoids the truth. Am I saying that all Muslims are radical? No. Am I saying all Muslims are terrorists? No. Is there any evidence of a backlash, either in the military or the counrty as a whole that had Progressives worried to the point of making excuses for Maj. Hasan? No.

Still, the man is a terrorist and we need to get over the age of political correctness and say so. I just did.

Obama’s Unaccountable Czar

Last week the United States Department of the Treasury Special Master of Compensation Kenneth Feinberg announced a wage control scheme for the 175 executives of the seven companies that have received the most funds from the taxpayer funded Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). At first the Obama administration denied any involvement in Feinberg’s decision.

But after yesterday’s announcement that the Federal Reserve released its own plan to control how banks compensate their employees, the New York Times reported:

“The announcement was choreographed to coincide with the decision by the Obama administration this week to cut the pay of many high earners at the seven companies that received the most taxpayer help. Both decisions were announced amid growing public outrage over large pay packages at many of those companies.”

Which is it? Are the new wage control schemes launched by the Pay Czar and the Fed the acts of independent experts, or are they the closely controlled policy decisions of the Obama White House?

The answer to that question goes to the core of the very real constitutional problems that the proliferation of czars in the Obama administration creates. Obama appointed Feinberg to be his pay czar without any input from the American people and without any approval from Congress.

By Feinberg’s reading of the law that created his office, Obama had no legal authority to veto or modify the pay plan he submitted Wednesday, he said. “The White House has played absolutely no role whatsoever,” Feinberg said. “Zero intervention by the White House in this process.”

The actions and comments by Feinberg raise another question. If these unelected, uncomfirmed Czars of the Obama administration aren’t responsible to the American people or to Congress and apparently, according to Feinberg’s opinion of the law, not answerable to the President…who in the heck do they answer to?

Nobel Peace Prize Awarded to…Barack Obama

Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.  I do not intend to rant about how he deserves or doesn’t deserve to have won the award.  I think everyone has pretty much made up his or her own mind about that.  So, I’ll take the high road and say, Congrats, Mr. President!

There are some questions though because I tend to believe that this award was set up by the same people who have placed Barack Obama in the position he currently holds.   I think the plan called for President Obama’s agenda to be much farther along by this point in time.  I believe the Obama handlers thought there would already be both a Cap and Trade Bill and a Health Care Plan in place by now.  I suspect they actually had visions of an amnesty bill as well by now and possibly the Fairness Doctrine as icing on the cake.

I think they weren’t counting on anything going wrong with the plan because they had control of both houses of Congress, they had the press in their pocket and they had enthusiastic momentum from their followers.   They even had both a hapless outgoing president and a huge economic crisis to use as leverage and to blame things on.

By this time, the Nobel Peace Prize should have been a well-deserved honor and the launching pad to spread his agenda to the rest of the world.

Think about it and you decide.  Barack Obama was nominated within two weeks of his taking office as President of the United States.  I suspect at that point he still was not comfortable finding his way around the White House.  Within three months of the inauguration, the vote was taken by the Nobel Committee. 

What had Barack Obama done to deserve the nomination, let alone the award by that time?  Not much.

But, hey what the heck.  They gave the same award to some guy who took a bunch of scientists who promoted a theory based on a flawed computer program that said the globe was warming and that we would have massive flooding from melting polar icecaps by the end of the decade.  And didn’t Yasser Arafat win the award one year?   Yes, I believe he did, so I guess it doesn’t mean all that much.

Let’s look on the bright side.  President Obama is planning to donate the cash award for the prize to charity!  Me being the silver lining searcher with every dark day, am thrilled to hear that.  I can safely say that there will be at least one charity that you will still be able to claim as a tax deduction next year!!!

Dollar Woes

According to the British newspaper Independent, secret meetings have been held by finance ministers and central bank governors in Russia, China, Japan, France and Gulf Arab states to work on a scheme, which will mean that oil will no longer be priced in dollars.  

Russia, France, China, Brazil and Venezuela have all separately called for a global currency at one time or another since the economic crisis began last fall, but this is the first time I’ve heard of groups of nations meeting to discuss the possibility.

The Independent claims that the Arab states had launched the secret moves to stop using the U.S. currency for oil trading.  The plan is to move towards a “basket of currencies” instead.  The currencies being discussed apparently include the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar.

Some Arab oil officials have denied the claim in a report by the Wall Street Journal, but just the rumor of such meetings has caused the price of gold to climb to a new record high and weakened the dollar.

The United Nations is now calling for a new global reserve currency to end dollar supremacy, which has allowed the United States the “privilege” of building a huge trade deficit.

Last week, Robert Zoellick, president of the World Bank, warned that “the United States would be mistaken to take for granted the dollar’s place as the world’s predominant reserve currency.”

All of this is a result of our out-of-control debt.   Yet our government still has no problem jamming through a trillion dollar health care plan. Or spending hundreds of billions on bank bailouts and stimulus money. And they don’t even flinch at the billions in cost of a massive cap-and-trade program.

The out of control spending and printing of money by our government is enough just by itself to wreck our economy.  If the world decides to dump the dollar, we are headed for some very dark times.

If that is the scenario, I would suggest reading up on the Weimar Republic for a glimpse of the future.

Main Stream Media and Bloggers’ Desire to Attack Palin May Have Killed Health Care Bill

As late as August 6th, I’m sure the White House and the Democratic leadership in Congress were confident of passing a health plan. There were some problems, of course, with Republican and Blue-Dog Democrats talking about the cost of the plan and House members were already being attacked in their districts about the bill.

Then came August 7th and Sarah Palin wrote a few comments on Facebook. This would likely have gone rather unnoticed had it been anyone else making the comments. There was no major speech by the former governor. There were no television or radio appearances and she hadn’t written it as an Op-Ed for a major newspaper. A single comment on Facebook was all there was. She had written, “The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care.”

The anti-Sarah bloggers and the major news media jumped on the opportunity for yet another “isn’t she ignorant” rampage. After all, if you scan HR3200, you will not find one reference to the words “death panels” and it was going to be another great weekend of Palin-bashing.

If you listened to the mainstream media which eagerly picked up the story, you would have certainly believed that Sarah Palin must have fallen off the fishing boat and hit her head. She was making up total falsehoods about what the Obama health plan contained. The President himself jumped into the story on August 11th with a denial that his plan contained anything that would result in pulling the plug on Grandma.

On August 12th, Governor Palin fired back, again on Facebook, this time citing specific sections so there could be little doubt about what her concerns being addressed were coming from. Unfortunately for the Democrats, her arguments sounded quite convincing and both of her articles were footnoted with references giving the articles a legitimate-looking argument.

It became even more clear that the people going to the Town Hall meetings to oppose the plan were much more aware of the actual wording of the bill than the Congressmen and Senators trying to defend it.

The more the press tried to provide cover by showing angry crowds at town hall meetings, the more America has discovered what is actually in the bill and it continues today.

The mainstream media and the left wing bloggers, in their continued effort to destroy Sarah Palin by any means possible have caused more attention to what is actually in the bill to the American public than would have otherwise happened.

The Republicans had hoped they might somehow find a way to stop the bill from passing, but they did not have the votes. The only way possible would be to get the American people informed about what is in the bill, but they did not have the press coverage.

Still one Republican Senator had said that if this bill could be stopped it could be President Obama’s Waterloo. If the recent polling trend continues, it looks like the train might be arriving at the station in Waterloo…and the mainstream media and liberal bloggers have been driving the train!

Obama’s Green Jobs Czar – Van Jones

The appointment of Van Jones as a White House environmental adviser was announced March 10, 2009. Jones’ official title is Special Advisor on Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation for the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Born in rural Tennessee, Jones graduated in 1990 from the University of Tennessee and, in 1993, from Yale Law School. Jones, a civil-rights lawyer, is founder and executive director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, a nonprofit agency for justice, opportunities, and peace in urban America. Located in Oakland, California, the Center focuses on campaigning to reform California’s abusive and costly youth prison system, creating opportunities in the “green” economy for poor communities and communities of color, supporting victims and survivors of police abuse and their families, and uplifting young people and addressing Bay Area violence with a mix of activism and street culture.

The Ella Baker Center was connected to STORM (Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement), a “multi-racial activist collective with Marxist influences” with which Jones was involved.

While never large, STORM was one of the most influential and active radical groups in the Bay Area, controlling numerous front organizations including Bay Area Police Watch, one of several anti police activities, which Jones founded in 1992.

Other STORM fronts included a Marxist training organization, the School of Unity and Liberation (SOUL) and an unemployed rights group, People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER)

Speaking to the East Bay Express in 2005, Van Jones said he first became radicalized in the wake of the 1992 Rodney King riots, during which time he was arrested.

“I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.”
“I met all these young radical people of color – I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’ I spent the next 10 years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary,” he said.

Jones has lead many campaigns including Books Not Bars, an advocacy program for parents/grandparents of incarcerated youth in the United States. It has been credited with a 30% drop in the total number of youth incarcerated in California. Additionally Jones sits on numerous governing boards, and following Hurricane Katrina co-founded the largest online activist community addressing Black issues (ColorOfChange.org).

Color of Change has led a campaign prompting major advertisers to withdraw from Glenn Beck’s top-rated Fox News Channel program.
In recent weeks, Beck has done several critical segments about Van Jones, and other members of President Obama’s administration.
Jones was also on the board of the Apollo Alliance, a hard-left environmentalist group that is now running large chunks of the Obama administration. Beck pounded away at the Apollo Alliance and Jones on a recent show.

Immediately following a News Busters report, Colors of Change scrubbed its site of any mention of Jones. The site used to say, “James Rucker and Van Jones came together in the wake of [Hurricane] Katrina to use the organizing power of the Internet to give Black Americans and our allies a renewed and strengthened political voice.”

But now it doesn’t.

After News Busters pointed out the deletion, Colors of Change added Jones back to its site but now claims “Van hasn’t been active in the work of ColorOfChange in recent years.”

“After helping ColorOfChange get started in 2005, Van moved on to other pursuits,” the website now claims.  Previously, the site simply listed Jones.

It is difficult to believe that Jones’ connection to Color of Change has nothing to do with their attacks on one of the few outspoken critics of the Obama Administration and the appointment of high-level advisors who are responsible only to the President.

Given his admission of being a Communist and with a felony criminal record, Van Jones would have had trouble being confirmed to a cabinet level postion even with the Congress being in Democratic control.

Urge Your Senator to Support American Workers with E-Verify in Stimulus Bill

The House Appropriations Committee recently added two amendments to the economic stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment bill).  These amendments would reauthorize E-Verify for a period of 5 years and require all recipients of stimulus money to use the E-Verify employment verification system.  If we must have one at all, IT IS VITAL THAT THESE AMENDMENTS ARE PRESENT IN THE FINAL BILL!

The bill is currently in the Senate Finance Committee where Sen. Grassley has offered an amendment which would mandate the use of E-Verify by businesses who accept stimulus money.  This would ensure that only American workers and legal immigrants can take advantage of any jobs created by the stimulus package.

Please call your Senator on the Finance Committee and urge him/her to support Sen. Grassley’s amendment to the economic stimulus package.

Senator Charles Schumer’s Role in Today’s Economic Crisis

An important angle in the $32 billion failure of U.S. mortgage lender IndyMac that may get lost in the headlines: federal regulators pointedly cited U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., in explaining the bank’s failure in July.  In simple language, the federal regulators blamed Schumer for a run on the bank.

Here’s from the press release issued by the director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, John Reich, IndyMac’s regulator: “The OTS has determined that the current institution, IndyMac Bank, is unlikely to be able to meet continued depositors’ demands in the normal course of business and is therefore in an unsafe and unsound condition.  The immediate cause of the closing was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York.”  The letter expressed concerns about IndyMac’s viability. In the following 11 business days, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion from their accounts.

“Would the institution have failed without the deposit run?” Mr. Reich asked reporters. “We’ll never know the answer to that question.”

Mr. Schumer quickly fired back.

“If OTS had done its job as regulator and not let IndyMac’s poor and loose lending practices continue, we wouldn’t be where we are today,” Sen. Schumer said. “Instead of pointing false fingers of blame, OTS should start doing its job to prevent future IndyMacs.”

You might be asking yourself, why is a New York Senator asking a regulator to look into a California bank’s “solvency”?  Sen. Shumer is a member of multiple committees, each of which gives him a call on the financial markets and banking sector: Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs & Finance are two of his key Senate committees.  He also Chairs the Senate Subcommittees on Economic Policy (Banking).

Having established that he has an oversight interest in the banking world, just what is he doing writing letters that could be seen to encourage panic on the part of depositors?

The answers to the questions may have been answered in the October 18th edition of the Wall Street Journal which suggests something far more sinister.  Senator Schumer not only served on the Senate Banking Committee giving him access to privileged information but he also was serving as Chairman of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee.  As chairman, he made fund raising calls to investment industry firms seeking donations to the committee.  One such firm was Oak Tree Capital Management LP.  Oak Tree and a group of investors has “made more than $700,000 in donations to Senate Democrats and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in the four years Senator Schumer has chaired the campaign committee.”

At the time Senator Schumer released his letter to the public, Oak Tree was engaged in an insiders examination of the books and assets of IndyMac Bank.  The Journal reports that by mid-June they were not “interested in buying the bank, but were scouting assets that might become available if the bank failed and was taken over by the government,” an event made almost certain by the public release of his letter on June 26, 2008.

This is not the only area where Senator Shumer’s fingers have been in the middle of causing much of what is happening in today’s economic woes.

Even as Senator Schumer continues in his attempts to blame Wall Street’s recent economic upheavals on a lack of regulation by the Bush administration, he may have some inconvenient facts to confront.

Until the current credit crisis, Mr. Schumer had been a leading voice for deregulation: He has championed the repeal of a Great Depression-era law that prohibited commercial banks from underwriting securities; he has written an op-ed piece calling for the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to be “re-examined,” and he has opposed a bill that sought to reduce taxpayer risk in the event of a housing market slowdown by requiring Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to sell their entire investment portfolios of about $1.5 trillion worth of mortgage assets.

Mr. Schumer’s opposition to regulation is beginning to come under scrutiny for the first time.  ”He is responsible as one of the leading senators in the banking committee for much of the problems that we’re facing today,” a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Peter Wallison, a former general counsel to the Treasury Department under President Reagan, said of Mr. Schumer.  “He failed to regulate where there was an opportunity to reduce the taxpayers’ liability.”

Mr. Wallison was referring to a bill that was before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in 2005.  At issue was a Republican-supported provision that would have required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to sell off the $1.5 trillion in mortgage assets that the companies were holding as investments.  The bill would have “considerably altered” the business models of the two companies by transforming them from “very large investment funds” into “conduits” that only bought mortgages, packaged them into securities, and sold them on the market, according to a Congressional Research Service report on the bill.

Mr. Schumer framed the debate not as one of regulation versus deregulation, but one of economic ideology: “We tend to believe there should be a little more government involvement,” he said.  ”And the folks on the other side of the aisle, with every good intention, agree there should be a little less.”

It is understandable that Senator Schumer would not want a full investigation of his part in these matters and neither Congress nor the main stream media seems interested in doing so.  It might, however, be one reason for Schumer’s support of passage of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” which would virtually silence one possible threat to exposing those involved in the economic collapse.

If all of the pieces of this puzzle that have been outlined here are accurate, and I have found no reason to think otherwise, Senator Charles Schumer should resign.  Since that is unlikely, I would hope that either George Pataki or Rudy Giuliani would run against him as the Republican candidate.

Both of these gentlemen have the name recognition and a strong following and organization in New York already.  Both would be good Senators, not just for New York, but for America.  Let’s hope one of them chooses to take Senator Schumer on.  This is one incumbent Senator that needs to be defeated!

I urge any reader to support any candidate running against Senator Schumer.  Spread the word about his involvement in these matters.  Contact his opponents and offer to help, even if you don’t live in New York.  Write letters to news organizations.  Donate money to his opponents.  Help get him defeated!   Chuck Schumer is not a patriot!