Monday Open Thread

larger version here.

It's snowing big-time here in Telluride. It's very beautiful and peaceful. No ski slopes for me though, here's where I'll be.

larger version here.

What's going on in your neck of the woods?

< Greenwald Wrongly Accuses Emanuel of Lying About FoleyGate | More on Emanuel's Non Denial Denial >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Holocaust Denial Conference in Tehran (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 01:09:57 PM EST
    The idea of David Duke giving a speech in Tehran would be an absurd hilarity were it not actually happening.

    I suggest we schedule a conference focusing on how the Shah of Iran never actually existed.  Or about the completely fictitious Iran/Iraq war.  I'm sure Iranian President Ahmaf*ckinidiot would be glad to host that one.

    Meanwhile, American President Imaf*ckinidiot is hosting the Iraqi Civil War Denial conference.

    I'm not surprise by this, but still.... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by scribe on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:04:46 PM EST
    There was a relatively in-depth discussion of this "conference" on BBC World Serv (carried by my local NPR after Morning Ed.) in which the "guest expert" told the newsreader this was, really, (I seriously oversimplify) an outgrowth of the Arab-Israeli conflict.  The syllogism was that several threads come together:  A strand from old Koranic verses, a lot of strands from anti-Israel, a lot more strands from anti-West (e.g., the West is using the Holocaust to support Israel while, simultaneously, the Jews are using the West and conspiring to instill allegedly-bogus guilt for non-existent mass killings so as to use that guilt to further Israel), yadda, yadda.  All the while, the "guest expert" noted, from the Ayatollah Khomeini on down, Iranians have been quite proud of the way their government has treated the small Persian-Jewish community, so as to say - "it isn't the Jews, it's the Zionist state that bugs us...".

    Seemed like so much bloviating and smoke-blowing intended to cover up that the folks behind this conference are really interested in making sure hate, qua hate, continues to operate as a driving force in politics for the next generations....

    Now, what I'd really like to know is "how did David Duke, of all people, manage to get a visa to Iran, and who approved the application?"   I thought that good Repugs and wingers (that'll surely encompass him, somewhere) didn't talk to Iran unless they got their behavior straightened out....

    And, will he be debriefed upon his return from Iran?  By whom?  Will he be treated as an agent of a foreign power?  Hmmmmm?


    Like I said, it appears this is mostly about (none / 0) (#27)
    by scribe on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:50:25 AM EST
    existence of the State of Israel.  Otherwise, would this BBC article be wrong?

    Great Link (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 12:16:11 PM EST
    Interesting how the MSM has spun this event as unbridled hate fest against jews.  Sounds to me like an very timely discussion. BTW the Neturei Karta and the Satmar never have denied that the holocaust happened. Their problem is Israel and how the holocaust has been used to justify it and perpetuate seemingly endless death and destruction.

    Neturei Karta have been given tremendous undue publicity by this obscene conference in Tehran. The truth about Neturei Karta is that they have been virtually ex-communicated by world Jewry, and especially by the much larger ultra-orthodox non and anti-zionist hassidic groups such as the Satmar.
    Rysk, Tel Aviv
    The Satmar are anti-zionist too.

    Many Satmar Hassids share allegience with Neturei Karta. That the two groups have disagreements is quite normal. The disagreements are certainly not about the validity of Israel as a jewish state.  


    Remember the Playstation 3 shooting? (none / 0) (#3)
    by roy on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:15:41 PM EST
    Last argued over here.

    There's been some developments.  Two or three deputies were put on leave, standard procedure.  One was fired.  The one who was fired had previously shot two teens.

    The bullets may have passed through the door before hitting Strickland.  I'm not sure what to make of that, but lots of journalists seem to think it's worth reporting.

    Thanks Roy (none / 0) (#12)
    by Sailor on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 06:42:12 PM EST
    Good work on the follow up.

    Quoting from the article (not the warrant results;-)

    perhaps the most interesting item to come out of that report is what was not found at the scene of the shooting: that of course is any kind of weapon, which has many in the community questioning the need for deadly force.

    More followup:

    A former New Hanover County Sheriff's deputy has been indicted on 2nd degree murder charges in the shooting death of an 18-year-old during a raid nearly two weeks ago.

    BTW, here's more about the Atlanta police shooting of an old woman defending her home.

    It was Fabian Sheats' third felony drug arrest in four months. But on the afternoon of Nov. 21, according to a police report, he was looking to curry favor, so he told officers they could find a kilogram of cocaine in a house at 933 Neal Street N.W.

    Notice the sentence in the article "Sheats' arrest report, written by Tesler at 10 p.m. on the night of the shooting"

    They wrote the arrest report after the shooting.

    And the informant who supposedly made the buy?

    On the 911 tape police released Thursday, White said he was waiting for agents from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to pick him up on Nov. 22 when he was approached by Atlanta police. He got into the car with them, he told the operator, but jumped out when he talked to federal agents by cellphone and they told him not to get into the squad car.

    Patrick and others constantly defend cops in cases like Strickland and Johnston. I usually argue different. They thought I was shrill at the time, but I do have experience with cops' lies.

    Now you know why.


    Why I defend... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Patrick on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 11:50:44 PM EST
    You quoted

    perhaps the most interesting item to come out of that report is what was not found at the scene of the shooting:that of course is any kind of weapon, which has many in the community questioning the need for deadly force.

    but left out from the article you linked to....re the indicted officer

    According to UNC-Wilmington Campus Police Chief David Donaldson, a pistol grip twelve-gauge pump shotgun was found along with a ski mask in Mills' car when he arrived at Strickland's house the night of the shooting.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but Strickland's house was the scene, no?  A pistol grip 12ga pump shotgun is a "kind of weapon", no?  Well, nuff said.  

    As for Atlanta...

    Sheats' arrest report, written by Tesler at 10 p.m. on the night of the shooting"
    ...That proves absolutely nothing.  

    And the informant who supposedly made the buy?

    The only person who's said he was the informant is him.  The rest of the people involved haven't identified anyone to my knowledge.  But again, that's just reading the link you've provided.

    They thought I was shrill at the time, but I do have experience with cops' lies.

    I've read your story and don't see anything in there about a cop lying.  Seems to me a marlin spike could be considered a dangerous weapon, why were you carrying it?  

    The cops in both cases could be criminally wrong in their actions...Could be, but not based on the arguments you've provided.  I wouldn't convict the worst criminal among us on the evidence you've used to declare these cops as criminals.  That's why.    

    What is interesting is the fact that one officer is indicted while two others walk....I can't wait to read that indictment.  


    And to clarify (none / 0) (#18)
    by Patrick on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 12:00:59 AM EST
    Please point out where I defended the officers in Strickland's case.  A link would be nice, and a definition of what you consider "defending."

    More likely I just pointed out technical errors in your reasoning.   And with respect to Johnston, this is apparently your definition of defending;

    I made no judgment on the story, and despite the comments that are flying around about how the police lied, there's been no showing that it is true.  I agree the case stinks, but so far all we have is a bunch of people who weren't there spouting opinions.  I think it's wise to wait for the facts to come out via the investigation.  You, like Sailor, apparently don't.  

    mills didn't live there (none / 0) (#31)
    by Sailor on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 01:12:14 PM EST
    a pistol grip twelve-gauge pump shotgun was found along with a ski mask in Mills' car when he arrived at Strickland's house the night of the shooting.
    Not in the house of strickland.

    The cops shot thru the door.

    My pint about the Atlanta case is that the cop wrote the report about the alleged arrest allgedly leading to the killing of an innocent woman defending her home from no-knock cops breaking the door down. The cop wrote the report afterwards, and could have made any claim he wanted.

    Defend their actions all you want. You always do.


    Bias? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Patrick on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 03:39:05 PM EST
    Not in the house of strickland.

    But you didn't say, "in the house of", you said, at the "scene".  Again, I point out that what you said and what you apparently meant were two different things.

    The cops shot thru the door.

    Yes it appears they did, at least once, perhaps more.  What inference do you draw from that?  

    My questions would be related to how many shots were fired in total and from where were they fired.  It is lawful to shoot through a door if a threat is detected on the other side, even in NC which apparently has a law limiting LEO shooting policies in those instances.  Of course since we don't know the answer to those two questions, it's impossible to know the importance of that fact.  

    The cop wrote the report afterwards, and could have made any claim he wanted

    Well,  yes he could of, but why does the timing matter?  If he was going to lie he could have just as easily lied before the incident happened.  For the purposes of this discussion I feel it necessary to point out to you in particular, that lying a police report is not a court approved and tested instance where a lie would be legal.  It would be grounds for termination and perhaps criminal charges.  

    Defend their actions all you want. You always do.

    Once again, I guess that depends on your definition of defend.  I consider it pointing out the fallacy in your arguments.  

    BTW, you never asnwered my question about why you were carrying the marlinspike.  In California you could be charged for a felony under 12020 PC if you were carrying it concealed and for the purpose of protection.  Now, if you were a boyscout on the way to getting your Eagle Badge in knot tying, it would probably be legal.  So you see, intention and purpose are important factors.  Of course, I don't expect you to admit you were carrying it for protection and maybe you weren't, but now perhaps you have a better understanding of how circumstances vary with respect to charging crimes.  


    I didn't say at the scene (none / 0) (#41)
    by Sailor on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 05:15:26 PM EST
    the article did. I'm sure they aren't as astute as you at splitting hairs.

    I infer from cops firing thru the door at an unarmed man that didn't possess guns that they illegally homicided him. There was no threat how could it have been justified? never mind, you always support the cops.

    You haev about the same debating skills as ppj, please do not address me in the future. We have nothing to talk about.


    You quoted it (none / 0) (#44)
    by Patrick on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 06:44:53 PM EST
    not me....As for not addressing you, fine with me, it's certainly not as challenging as it used to be, however, if you continue to make such wild accusations, I'll continue to address them, indirectly if need be.  

    But yet (none / 0) (#45)
    by Sailor on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 09:29:15 PM EST
    Patrick is an admitted liar. He says he only lies in a legal manner, and I have to infer that because he can lie here, legally, he will continue to do so.

    The cop in the strickland slaying was indicted for murder ... of course Patrick's cop buddies immediately convinced the jurors they were wrong.

    Hey, they have to live in that town. 'Gee, your honor, we thought is was murder ... until we were convinced by the cops we should change our testimony'

    No guns at the home. No guns at the crime scene. (The 'crime scene' BTW was the murdered kid's house. Not the street out front 2 hours later after he was killed.)

    Patrick will almost always endorse cops who kill or maim. It doesn't matter by TASER, by gun, by choking, Patrick has always defended them.

    He's never seen a TASER death on this site he didn't think was 'justified.'

    But he's an admitted liar. And he can lie on this site legally. Which he said were his grounds whether to tell the truth or lie.

    Attaboy Patrick, I feel so much safer with people who justify lying, killing and lying about killing protecting us.

    Gee, you should get a meddle in freedom award.


    Attack the messenger (none / 0) (#48)
    by Patrick on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:17:00 PM EST
    not the message right Sailor?  You can't beat the points I'm making so you'll try to go personal...How republican, how fitting...

    BTW, why were you carrying the marlinspike?   Knot tying class?


    Sober as a ... judge? (none / 0) (#4)
    by scribe on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:31:31 PM EST
    Here's a great story, about two judges out on what appears to be a beer-fueled Sunday afternoon road trip.  

    Judges Young and Fiss were in a vehicle, being driven by Young.  

    In his report, Belleville, Ill., police Patrolman Shane Brown said Young was apparently turning left in his sport utility vehicle when he entered the path of a pickup truck. Its driver, Abel Muhammad, 39, was trapped in the wreckage and later hospitalized complaining of a broken leg.

    Turning left is almost always a difficult way to start the defense of any traffic accident case, but it gets worse.  Police responded and:

    [Ptl.] Brown reported detecting "a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage" on Young's breath. He wrote Young "also had glassy, red bloodshot eyes."

    * * *

    Another officer, Jeffrey Sheary, reported seeing Young's passenger, Chief Judge Jan Fiss, 64, pour out an open beer can on the road and try to hide it in his coat.

    Well, I've been fortunate enought to never have to personally deal with this situation.  But, I can say that, were I going to dump the beer, I'd make sure a cop didn't see me doing it.  Of course, in the state where I do most of my driving, police are allowed to infer "odor of alcohol + empties = drinking and driving", so keeping empties in the car (let alone your pocket) is not really often seen around here.  

    We won't know what the driving judge would have blown on the machine;  he goes in the books as a "refusal":

    Young's attorney, Clyde Kuehn, said Thursday his client was "absolutely within his rights" to refuse a field sobriety test and a Breathalyzer test, saying the tests have proven unreliable.

    Refusing a blood alcohol test leads to a six-month license suspension in Illinois. The misdemeanor DUI count carries a maximum punishment of a year in jail and $1,000 in fines, Kuehn said.

    Yup.  It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

    another one (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 04:45:04 PM EST
    A senior official at the National Institutes of Health has admitted to committing a criminal conflict of interest by taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in unauthorized payments from the drug company Pfizer, Inc. But he's still on the job -- at least for the moment.

    Dr. P. Trey Sunderland III will have to pay back $300,000 he took from the pharmaceutical giant, whom he had been supplying with spinal fluid his government staff had extracted from Alzheimer's patients. His full sentence will be determined Dec. 22.

    What was he thinking? Seems like that is the way this admin works. Plenty of grease to make the pork slide down easy.

    TPM  muckraker

    squeakies smear machine (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 05:01:33 PM EST
    squeaky - You have no reason to comment:

    Seems like that is the way this admin works.

    This is just a routine case of wrong doing by somone who isn't even in management chain...

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    I love it when you make such over the top statements..


    he was probably thinking (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jen M on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 08:45:56 PM EST

    Sailor - Here's an open thread you wanted. (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 05:06:02 PM EST
    Hey sailor!

    Here's another open thead you wanted.

    I await your links??

    step away from the computer ... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Sailor on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:57:32 PM EST
    ... put the whiskey and keyboard down and step away from the computer.

    Good boy.

    Nurse! Now!

    That's it, just lie quietly, no need to shout.

    Sorry sir, it's for your own good, you'll feel better soon.


    You just want to smear. (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 09:23:20 AM EST
    Now here it is almost Christmas and you promised that when we had an open thread you would provide links to justify your inaccurate comments about my position on torture, yet we now have our second open thread and you have failed to do so.

    I must conclude you made an unsupportable claim, and are now trying to act like it didn't happen.

    But then we all knew that you wouldn't. You just want to smar.


    Smar ?? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 09:28:41 AM EST
    We don't need no idoitic smarin 'round 'chere.

    Right, Jim? When are you moving to Iran, btw?


    Does he count as (none / 0) (#9)
    by Patrick on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 05:35:45 PM EST
    A member of "This administration," when he was hired in

    Despite his admission, a spokesperson for NIH -- where Sunderland has worked since 1982 -- confirmed to me today that he is still an employee there.


    squeaky over the top... again (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 05:38:57 PM EST
    There you go. Reagan's fault.

    Squeaky.... you are funny...

    And who are these people that are going to be jailed???


    You ok, Jim ? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 06:52:39 PM EST
    You just replied to Patrick, calling him Squeaky.

    Keep up edger (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 09:11:02 AM EST
    No, I commented to Patrick that his date of hire placed him in the Reagan admin..

    Nested comments are confusing... You having trouble keeping up???


    Well said (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 05:36:07 PM EST
    You know, maybe we should change the constitution and see if we can get Tony Blair to immigrate..

    "Our tolerance is part of what makes Britain, Britain. So conform to it; or don't come here. We don't want the hate-mongers, whatever their race, religion or creed. If you come here lawfully, we welcome you. If you are permitted to stay here permanently, you become an equal member of our community and become one of us. Then you, and all of us, who want to, can worship God in our own way, take pride in our different cultures after our own fashion, respect our distinctive histories according to our own traditions; but do so within a shared space of shared values in which we take no less pride and show no less respect."

    A reminder (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 07:01:11 AM EST
    As TL reported back on Nov 28 Buy the Ticket, Take the Ride airs tonight on Star Channel.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 09:23:18 AM EST
    I wonder too, Jim... You ok, Jim?

    Religious Extremism in the Pentagon (none / 0) (#29)
    by Dadler on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 12:33:44 PM EST
    Listen to the story on the NPR page, and be very afraid.  And infuriated.

    Where was this on that E-Ring television show?

    Be very infuriated. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 12:51:37 PM EST
    Dadler, the evangelist conducting those breakfast prayer meetings in the executive dining room for the Defense Secretary and upper echelon Pentagon brass and administrative management INSIDE the Pentagon's E-Ring, is James Kennedy:

    'We Could Control This Country': 33 Extreme Reasons to Give Bush the Boot

    Of course, there are plenty more extremist groups out there, with plenty of clout. And in addition to sharing an incestuous relationship (Famed Reconstructionist Dr. George Grant, for example, is affiliated with Coral Ridge Ministries, which is run by former National Council for Policy member D. James Kennedy, who sat on the board of directors of Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, which was also organized by Tim LaHaye), they seem to be driven by a single-minded determinism. "There are forty million people who claim to have been converted. If every one of those would simply win one other person to Christ, we could control this country," televangelist Kennedy once said.

    On the other hand, America is still the home of great thinkers who would surely fight back. "Our president is a Christian? So was Adolf Hitler," Kurt Vonnegut recently wrote, proving that not everyone grasps the compassion of these conservatives.

    And that's the thing. These folks are not promoting the promise of America at her best, but are instead advocating the ills the Founders tried to protect against. They are striving to remake American in their stark revisionist image, and in doing so, are aiming for what America could become, at her worst.

    More on this dangerous nut Kennedy (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 01:21:20 PM EST
    James Kennedy's Christian Crusade
    TV Evangelist's ministerial and media empire claim US a 'Christian nation', don't believe in the separation of church and state, and aims to extend political reach

    "America can be returned to moral and spiritual sanity," Dr. Kennedy said in a pre-conference press release:

    "But that will only happen as Christians return to the public square -- something already happening in the last 25 years to great effect. This conference will enlist new recruits and recharge those already engaged in the great task of reclaiming this nation for Christ."

    In 1995, Kennedy established the Washington, DC-based D. James Kennedy Center for Christian Statesmanship (website), in order to offer spiritual counsel to members of Congress and their staffs. Among the Center's projects are:

        * The Statesmanship Institute, a seven-month weekly program "for Christians in government" to give them "the tools to integrate biblical principles with your calling to public service";

        * A Capitol Hill Bible Studies group for staff on Capitol Hill;

    Thanks for the extra info (none / 0) (#33)
    by Dadler on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:15:51 PM EST
    What really got me was that the Christian Embassy HAS AN OFFICE in the Pentagon's inner ring.  They don't merely have access, they are a PERMANENT FIXTURE.  Talk about the scariest brand of church/state intermingling.  So much for the peacemakers.

    Pentagon (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:26:02 PM EST
    Don't the Israelis also have a permanent spot there too.

    Don't they (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:32:40 PM EST
    own the place? ;-)

    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 03:22:45 PM EST
    Larry Franklin, Keith Weisman and Steven Rosen, Uzi Arad, a former Mossad agent, and Naor Gilan the lead Mossad agent at the Israeli embassy in Washington are all on, er...extended vacation.

    Harman was supposed to be their "front man"

    According to a recent report in a mainstream magazine, the alleged deal was that, in the event Democrats took control of Congress, AIPAC would lobby for Harman, now a member of the House Intelligence Committee, to become the chair of that committee. In return, she would be expected to press the White House and Justice Department to go easy on Keith Weisman and Steven Rosen, the two former AIPAC executives soon to be tried for espionage.

    Pretty scary, I agree. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:32:07 PM EST
    Especially with guys like Kennedy telling them they are insane if they don't follow jesus... and them agreeing with him.

    I posted this (none / 0) (#37)
    by aw on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 03:03:17 PM EST
    in another thread a little while back:

    The problem doesn't just lie in the contradictions of fundamentalist teaching about Stonewall Jackson.  It recurs now, today, in the Pentagon.  Sharlet sees "a joyous disregard for democracy."

        The most striking example is a short video on faith and diplomacy made in the aftermath of September 11,2001, by Christian Embassy, a behind-the-scenes ministry for  government and military elites. It almost seems to endorse deliberate negligence of duty, Dan Cooper, an undersecretary of veterans' affairs, announces  that his weekly prayer sessions are "more important than doing the job." Major General Jack Catton says that he sees his position as an adviser to the Joint Chiefs of Staff as a "wonderful opportunity" to evangelize men and women setting defense policy. "My first priority is my faith," he says. "I think it's a huge impact.... You have many men and women who are seeking God's counsel and wisdom as they advise the Chairman [of the Joint Chiefs] and the Secretary of Defense."  Brigadier General Bob Caslen puts it in sensual terms: "We're the aroma of Jesus Christ." There's a joyous disregard for democracy in these sentiments, for its demands and its compromises, that in its darkest manifestation becomes the overlooked piety at the heart of the old logic of Vietnam, lately applied to Iraq: In order to save the village, we must destroy it.

    How that plays out will depend on how many Americans go along with fundamentalist Christian leaders who believe "we may need another 9/11 to bring about a full spiritual revival."


    That's it., aw... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 03:40:28 PM EST
    I was trying to remember that and where I read it when I was replying to Dadler up above here.

    Good stuff Fellas (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 05:48:46 PM EST
    All I can think of is....lol

    God help us?

    I can't help but picture the evangelicals I see trying to convert people outside subway stations with the "crazy eyes" in some Pentagon boardroom getting the generals who push the buttons ears....horror show.


    Am I naive? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 06:29:14 PM EST
    I have a hard time imagining one of those generals buying the line these nuts shoot.

    Hard time (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 10:13:02 PM EST
    I have a hard time imagining anyone buying that stuff, period....but obviously some people are.

    Scary Indeed (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:05:06 AM EST
    Why is Iran so scary? Because they are a competing theocracy, probably.

    Christian Embassy, Washington, DC

    Presidential Appointees

    As a Presidential appointee you have been charged to help create and carry out policies which will benefit our country.  Yours is an extremely important and potentially exhausting mission.  Wisely navigating the responsibilities and pressures of an executive lifestyle is essential for success.

    Our Purpose:  To help presidential appointees maintain balance and find increased meaning in their professional and personal lives.

              o Courtesy Calls
                We make brief courtesy calls to share the purpose of Christian Embassy and our available resources.

              o Special Events
                Periodic breakfasts, luncheons and coffees featuring inspirational speakers are held for spiritual encouragement and the opportunity to connect with peers, as well as city, congressional and other leaders.

              o Small Groups
                Our small groups are safe, confidential places where Presidential Appointees and their spouses can find support and discuss spiritual issues bringing additional value to their lives.

    If you are a Presidential Appointee, contact Rebekah Rieke at 703-525-1770, ext. 113 or by email.