Saturday, July 2, 2011
Strauss-Kahn Set Up to By Chicago Machine
Oh what irony! Now that the charges are about to be dropped and Strauss-Kahn’s position at the IMF has been filled we find Cristine Lagarde once served as chairman at one of the world’s largest law firms, Baker & McKenzie in where else but “Chicago”! What a wonderful coincidence. If the theory is true, the Chicago Crime Machine has one more of it’s own in one of the highest places of all. In an interview with Xinhuanet, Martin Eichenbahm, a former for the Federal Reserve bank of Chicago had nothing but praise for Lagarde. So, in light of the recent developments in the Strauss-Kahn case, what are the odds he can regain his position as IMF chief? Nada! The charges conveniently were not dropped before the end of the official work day on Friday and the United States court system will not be operating on July 4th because of the Independence day holiday. Christine Largarde will become IMF chief at the beginning of business hours on Tuesday, July 5th. A full 5 hours before the courts open in New York. The Chicago Crime Machine rolls on!
Is Another Ballot Heist Coming?
The integrity of American elections ought to be above reproach. Unfortunately, recent history suggests that when candidates are desperate, serious hanky-panky is not out of the question.
The 2000 Florida Presidential election was severely marred by Al Gore's botched election robbery. The massive vote fraud in Palm Beach County stands as immutable proof of the extent that crooked Democrats will go to steal an election. After botching the robbery in "ballot box boiler rooms," the Democrats resorted to stall tactics, the courts, and endless recounts to steal the election for Gore. The only mistake the voter frauds made is that they did not destroy enough valid votes.
Only in Palm Beach
Robert Cook emailed me during and after the 2000 Florida recounts. I remember that Robert lived in Georgia at the time and he and I were certain of voter fraud in Florida and that the media were actively covering it up. Robert ran the election numbers and sent them to me. At the time I forwarded the information to every single member of the Florida House and Senate in a push for fraud-proof electronic voting. What Robert mathematically deduced was that Florida was the victim of a massive vote fraud scheme in Palm Beach County. Robert recounted his analysis and sent it to Michael Reagan. This short report is required reading for anyone who really wants to understand what actually happened in the 2000 Florida Presidential election.
The analysis leaves exactly zero room for the possibility for anything other than massive vote fraud. As Newsmax.com's Carl Limbacher reported: "Robert is a nuclear engineer with a track record for analyzing and correcting trends, errors and mistakes in heavy construction projects (ships, power plants, nuclear reactors, military and aerospace vehicles, etc.) for more than twenty years, put forth a compelling case that the 19,120 presidential race ballots at issue in Palm Beach County were 'destroyed by deliberate double-punching ballots with a "second punch" for Al Gore or Pat Buchanan.'" The results are shockingly clear evidence of vote fraud:
Only Palm Beach County, Florida voters seem incapable of understanding and using this style of ballot (butterfly ballot -- chosen by local Democrats).
Only in Palm Beach, FL were 15,000 ballots "invalidated" (for double-punched ballots) in the 1996 Presidential election. (Past history of vote fraud in 1996.)
Only in Palm Beach (and in only the most heavily Democratic precincts) were 19,120 ballots rejected in 2000 for double-punching.
Only in Palm Beach did this "double-punch" error happen only in the Gore-Bush-Buchanan selections for President.
Only in Palm Beach has the news media complained about "massive" ballot confusion.
Only in Palm Beach did Gore gain 750 votes in a recount.
Only in Palm Beach County that more than 20% of the registered Republicans "forgot" to vote for their party's presidential candidate.
Only in Palm Beach did Bush receive less than 65% of the registered Republican voters.
Only in Palm Beach did Buchanan get less than half of the votes he received before in 1996.
Cook provides the probable means by which a Democrat conspirator could have disenfranchised thousands of voters and destroyed their "punch ballot cards":
Stamping 45,000 ballots with a tool (or other device) through the Gore slot gives: Every Gore vote = still a valid Gore vote. (No change in the total, no change in the recount.) Every Bush, Buchanan, Workers Party, and Libertarian Party ballot IS IMMEDIATELY INVALID. They will be thrown out because they have two votes. They NEVER were counted in the first place = no change in the recount. The double-punch occurs ONLY in the presidential race, and no position on the ballot is disturbed. All other races are correctly counted. EVERY ballot that had no vote (a "protest vote" against both major candidates) becomes a Gore vote. All other races on the ballot are not disturbed, and are correctly counted.
In this way, stacks of ballots cards (valid votes) were destroyed in a matter a few fevered post election moments. This simple vote fraud technique explains all the ridiculously improbable statistical outliers of that election. There simply is no other plausible mathematical explanation.
As the 2012 election looms, concerned voters should recall the nationwide voter registration frauds of ACORN, Al Franken's brazenly stolen Minnesota Senate election, and George Soros' SOS Project which seeks to install crony Secretaries of State to "oversee" how close elections are "decided." The massive vote fraud in Florida in 2000 ought to concern every voter in every state. If the Democrat party so brazenly tried to steal Florida's 2000 election, chances are very good that they will try to steal other "close" elections in 2012.
Recall too that the groundwork is already being laid for vote fraud in 2012. Donna Brazile is already complaining about nonexistent "voter disenfranchisement" (just as the Democrats did in 2000). Editorials are being written and lawsuits are being filed in an attempt to thwart any meaningful measures to eliminate vote fraud. Whomever the GOP nominates for president, he or she will face Obama's vicious nonstop smear machine, the usual network media bias, and a massive George Soros-funded effort to steal this election. With Obama's poll numbers as bad as they are and with his reelection prospects as bleak as any President's in living memory, a massive and nationwide voter fraud campaign is already underway. And, if past elections are any indication, this vote fraud campaign will be successful to varying degrees. The degree to which the 2012 Democrat vote fraud campaign will be successful depends on whether voters who care enough to show up to vote care enough that their votes are being stolen and complain about it. And if they care that they are the voters who are actually being "disenfranchised."
Of my most bitter memories of the 2000 Florida recount (and attempted election theft) was that our military votes were being challenged at our local courthouse by Gore lawyers dressed in pinstriped suits with thick New Jersey accents. This was simultaneously happening all across Florida. Gore's "election" lawyers were dressed like (and talked like) the typical Hollywood typecast depiction of a sleazy mobster. Another laughable and lighter moment was when Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley offered to "help" us Floridians "count" our votes. That would be like asking Al Gore for a weather report.
The 2000 Florida Presidential election was severely marred by Al Gore's botched election robbery. The massive vote fraud in Palm Beach County stands as immutable proof of the extent that crooked Democrats will go to steal an election. After botching the robbery in "ballot box boiler rooms," the Democrats resorted to stall tactics, the courts, and endless recounts to steal the election for Gore. The only mistake the voter frauds made is that they did not destroy enough valid votes.
Only in Palm Beach
Robert Cook emailed me during and after the 2000 Florida recounts. I remember that Robert lived in Georgia at the time and he and I were certain of voter fraud in Florida and that the media were actively covering it up. Robert ran the election numbers and sent them to me. At the time I forwarded the information to every single member of the Florida House and Senate in a push for fraud-proof electronic voting. What Robert mathematically deduced was that Florida was the victim of a massive vote fraud scheme in Palm Beach County. Robert recounted his analysis and sent it to Michael Reagan. This short report is required reading for anyone who really wants to understand what actually happened in the 2000 Florida Presidential election.
The analysis leaves exactly zero room for the possibility for anything other than massive vote fraud. As Newsmax.com's Carl Limbacher reported: "Robert is a nuclear engineer with a track record for analyzing and correcting trends, errors and mistakes in heavy construction projects (ships, power plants, nuclear reactors, military and aerospace vehicles, etc.) for more than twenty years, put forth a compelling case that the 19,120 presidential race ballots at issue in Palm Beach County were 'destroyed by deliberate double-punching ballots with a "second punch" for Al Gore or Pat Buchanan.'" The results are shockingly clear evidence of vote fraud:
Only Palm Beach County, Florida voters seem incapable of understanding and using this style of ballot (butterfly ballot -- chosen by local Democrats).
Only in Palm Beach, FL were 15,000 ballots "invalidated" (for double-punched ballots) in the 1996 Presidential election. (Past history of vote fraud in 1996.)
Only in Palm Beach (and in only the most heavily Democratic precincts) were 19,120 ballots rejected in 2000 for double-punching.
Only in Palm Beach did this "double-punch" error happen only in the Gore-Bush-Buchanan selections for President.
Only in Palm Beach has the news media complained about "massive" ballot confusion.
Only in Palm Beach did Gore gain 750 votes in a recount.
Only in Palm Beach County that more than 20% of the registered Republicans "forgot" to vote for their party's presidential candidate.
Only in Palm Beach did Bush receive less than 65% of the registered Republican voters.
Only in Palm Beach did Buchanan get less than half of the votes he received before in 1996.
Cook provides the probable means by which a Democrat conspirator could have disenfranchised thousands of voters and destroyed their "punch ballot cards":
Stamping 45,000 ballots with a tool (or other device) through the Gore slot gives: Every Gore vote = still a valid Gore vote. (No change in the total, no change in the recount.) Every Bush, Buchanan, Workers Party, and Libertarian Party ballot IS IMMEDIATELY INVALID. They will be thrown out because they have two votes. They NEVER were counted in the first place = no change in the recount. The double-punch occurs ONLY in the presidential race, and no position on the ballot is disturbed. All other races are correctly counted. EVERY ballot that had no vote (a "protest vote" against both major candidates) becomes a Gore vote. All other races on the ballot are not disturbed, and are correctly counted.
In this way, stacks of ballots cards (valid votes) were destroyed in a matter a few fevered post election moments. This simple vote fraud technique explains all the ridiculously improbable statistical outliers of that election. There simply is no other plausible mathematical explanation.
As the 2012 election looms, concerned voters should recall the nationwide voter registration frauds of ACORN, Al Franken's brazenly stolen Minnesota Senate election, and George Soros' SOS Project which seeks to install crony Secretaries of State to "oversee" how close elections are "decided." The massive vote fraud in Florida in 2000 ought to concern every voter in every state. If the Democrat party so brazenly tried to steal Florida's 2000 election, chances are very good that they will try to steal other "close" elections in 2012.
Recall too that the groundwork is already being laid for vote fraud in 2012. Donna Brazile is already complaining about nonexistent "voter disenfranchisement" (just as the Democrats did in 2000). Editorials are being written and lawsuits are being filed in an attempt to thwart any meaningful measures to eliminate vote fraud. Whomever the GOP nominates for president, he or she will face Obama's vicious nonstop smear machine, the usual network media bias, and a massive George Soros-funded effort to steal this election. With Obama's poll numbers as bad as they are and with his reelection prospects as bleak as any President's in living memory, a massive and nationwide voter fraud campaign is already underway. And, if past elections are any indication, this vote fraud campaign will be successful to varying degrees. The degree to which the 2012 Democrat vote fraud campaign will be successful depends on whether voters who care enough to show up to vote care enough that their votes are being stolen and complain about it. And if they care that they are the voters who are actually being "disenfranchised."
Of my most bitter memories of the 2000 Florida recount (and attempted election theft) was that our military votes were being challenged at our local courthouse by Gore lawyers dressed in pinstriped suits with thick New Jersey accents. This was simultaneously happening all across Florida. Gore's "election" lawyers were dressed like (and talked like) the typical Hollywood typecast depiction of a sleazy mobster. Another laughable and lighter moment was when Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley offered to "help" us Floridians "count" our votes. That would be like asking Al Gore for a weather report.
FCC sends net neutrality rules to White House
The FCC sent its proposed rules to the White House Office of Management and Budget, where the OMB will gather data from internet service providers on their networks and performance before making recommendations on the rules. (Top Senate Republicans call for more transparency in debt limit negotiations)
Full approval of the FCC’s proposal is still likely a few months away. Besides OMB review, the rules still must go through several other steps, including public comment period, before they become official.
Net neutrality would prohibit Internet service providers from limiting access to their consumers, both in terms of bandwidth and content. Proponents say it would prevent providers from creating a tiered Internet or intentionally slowing down service for lower-paying consumers. Critics say net neutrality isn’t necessary and, even if it was, free-market competition would fix the problem anyways.
Some Republicans are trying to stop the FCC from enforcing net neutrality, but their efforts appear to have little chance of success. The president has said he will veto any such attempts.
Full approval of the FCC’s proposal is still likely a few months away. Besides OMB review, the rules still must go through several other steps, including public comment period, before they become official.
Net neutrality would prohibit Internet service providers from limiting access to their consumers, both in terms of bandwidth and content. Proponents say it would prevent providers from creating a tiered Internet or intentionally slowing down service for lower-paying consumers. Critics say net neutrality isn’t necessary and, even if it was, free-market competition would fix the problem anyways.
Some Republicans are trying to stop the FCC from enforcing net neutrality, but their efforts appear to have little chance of success. The president has said he will veto any such attempts.
The Essential Ingredients of Capitalism
Welcome! For a first column, we will explore the basics of a vibrant economy.
Economics essentially studies the transformation of scarce resources through time and space into the products that best meet the unlimited wants and needs of market participants. Broadly speaking, a robust economy requires respect for property and the profit motive, impartial application of the law, a people of substance and sound money.
Thus free, the market unveils a natural canvas allowing its participants to create masterpieces enriching and beautifying life.
Property Rights
Ludwig von Mises highlighted property as the cornerstone of sound economics. Property, the accumulated capital of those who produce, represents the basis for a functioning market. Surely producers should enjoy the benefits of their production. This includes not merely the right to trade in what manners seen fit, but also the right to not trade, not hire or not deal in manners found unfit.
Unencumbered property rights should also allow the free movement of prices as the guiding signal instructing producers how to focus their efforts. When government obstructs the fluctuation of prices, it smears the tapestry. Shortages and other distortions inevitably result.
The sanctity of private property also demands moderate taxes and a minimally invasive regulatory infrastructure. We must be allowed to retain our lawful gains and be free to employ our property accordingly. Taxes must be sufficient to protect and enforce the rights resident in our persons and property, but the growth of government invariably comes at the expense of liberty. As Ronald Reagan warned, “Governments don’t control things. Governments control people.” A primary control mechanism involves dictating the use of our property.
The more freely we are left to conduct our affairs and exploit our belongings, the better aligned our efforts will be to gainful enterprise.
The Rule of Law
Other than some very basic supports such as ensuring honest scales and the impartial enforcement of contracts, governments can do very little except impede the natural flow of commerce. Bureaucrats should be like sport officials: absolutely impartial in every decision and performing at their best when their presence goes unnoticed.
Impartial application of the law ensures trade remains fair, i.e. between consenting parties acting in their mutual self-interest. However, value — economically speaking — is purely subjective. Assuming an honest measurement, fairness is determined entirely by the transacting parties. It’s not government’s just role to ensure or abet politically expedient outcomes.
Governments should never pick favorites. It’s our tapestry. Progressive tax policies and politicized spending to favor certain industries or demographics are hardly impartial. Regulations that deliberately tilt the scale to favor “green” energy or other politically correct shenanigans mock this principle.
President Obama promises a simplified, more efficient regulatory system. Here’s hoping we’re pleasantly surprised, but recent gargantuan intrusions like ObamaCare and FinReg invite skepticism.
The Character of the People
The drive to improve our material circumstances, i.e. the profit motive, manifests itself naturally, assuming our “betters” don’t squelch the entrepreneurial spirit through punitive tax policies or overly cumbersome regulations. Our instinctual drive for gain must be channeled into positive activity. We shouldn’t satisfy wants by robbing our neighbors. Nor do we want handouts given without accountability rewarding sloth or irresponsible behaviors.
Very little should be held in “common” to prevent parasitism and government safety-nets such as unemployment insurance or corporate bailouts must be minimized. Propping up the failures of the past prevents the successes of the future.
A government which tempers its innate longing to control its populace clears the tapestry for private citizens to create masterpieces of innovation and advancement.
Respect for the Profit Motive
It has long befuddled historians why certain nations emerging from the Reformation such as the Dutch Republic and England enjoyed such astounding prosperity. This nascent capitalism was once attributed to the Protestant Work Ethic: the notion that Calvinists working diligently in fear of eternal damnation spurred economic growth.
However, the underlying factor prompting this phenomenal prosperity was confidence, not trepidation. Thanks in part to Calvinist doctrine, profits finally garnered respect instead of jealousy. If fear drove productivity, communism might have endured, or at least it wouldn’t have failed so spectacularly. Slavery wouldn’t have long been recognized as an economic retardant yielding general impoverishment to all but the large slaveholders.
These nations thrived and ushered in the modern because for perhaps the first time in world history, wealth creation was recognized as socially beneficial. Previously, profits were considered evidence of a swindle and un-inherited wealth a cause for disdain since it threatened the nobility.
It takes ingenuity, discipline and perseverance to create. We all gain from the new inventions and rising living standards. Rather than demeaning the successful, we ought to emulate them.
Sound Money
As the primary measuring stick for almost every transaction, the dollar’s value reflects a vital arbiter for each of the above. Are we truly free when government technocrats can deliberately pilfer our property’s value through inflation?
Why delude ourselves concerning legal impartiality when Washington willfully alters the scale by obfuscating dollar denominated measurements?
Trading and investing require an element of faith that our transactions will be fairly measured. Ideally, we know that we can unequivocally trust the veracity of those with whom we trade. Short of such confidence, we expect the government apparatus to redress grievances. That every transaction conducted using debased dollars has been artificially swayed to one party’s detriment hardly provides an inducement for risk taking enterprise.
And finally, since the monetary stewards rarely admit their guilt, as inflation roars, businesses will be pilloried as profiteers due to the inevitable rising prices. W-I-N buttons anyone?
Sound money thus supports each of these other ingredients. We will explore what constitutes sound money next week.
America presently violates to some extent each of these principles. We remain an amazingly prosperous society thanks to the accumulation of capital bequeathed to us by our more prudent forbearers. We cannot live off this legacy forever.
It would behoove our present generations to remember from whence the wealth we enjoy came.
Economics essentially studies the transformation of scarce resources through time and space into the products that best meet the unlimited wants and needs of market participants. Broadly speaking, a robust economy requires respect for property and the profit motive, impartial application of the law, a people of substance and sound money.
Thus free, the market unveils a natural canvas allowing its participants to create masterpieces enriching and beautifying life.
Property Rights
Ludwig von Mises highlighted property as the cornerstone of sound economics. Property, the accumulated capital of those who produce, represents the basis for a functioning market. Surely producers should enjoy the benefits of their production. This includes not merely the right to trade in what manners seen fit, but also the right to not trade, not hire or not deal in manners found unfit.
Unencumbered property rights should also allow the free movement of prices as the guiding signal instructing producers how to focus their efforts. When government obstructs the fluctuation of prices, it smears the tapestry. Shortages and other distortions inevitably result.
The sanctity of private property also demands moderate taxes and a minimally invasive regulatory infrastructure. We must be allowed to retain our lawful gains and be free to employ our property accordingly. Taxes must be sufficient to protect and enforce the rights resident in our persons and property, but the growth of government invariably comes at the expense of liberty. As Ronald Reagan warned, “Governments don’t control things. Governments control people.” A primary control mechanism involves dictating the use of our property.
The more freely we are left to conduct our affairs and exploit our belongings, the better aligned our efforts will be to gainful enterprise.
The Rule of Law
Other than some very basic supports such as ensuring honest scales and the impartial enforcement of contracts, governments can do very little except impede the natural flow of commerce. Bureaucrats should be like sport officials: absolutely impartial in every decision and performing at their best when their presence goes unnoticed.
Impartial application of the law ensures trade remains fair, i.e. between consenting parties acting in their mutual self-interest. However, value — economically speaking — is purely subjective. Assuming an honest measurement, fairness is determined entirely by the transacting parties. It’s not government’s just role to ensure or abet politically expedient outcomes.
Governments should never pick favorites. It’s our tapestry. Progressive tax policies and politicized spending to favor certain industries or demographics are hardly impartial. Regulations that deliberately tilt the scale to favor “green” energy or other politically correct shenanigans mock this principle.
President Obama promises a simplified, more efficient regulatory system. Here’s hoping we’re pleasantly surprised, but recent gargantuan intrusions like ObamaCare and FinReg invite skepticism.
The Character of the People
The drive to improve our material circumstances, i.e. the profit motive, manifests itself naturally, assuming our “betters” don’t squelch the entrepreneurial spirit through punitive tax policies or overly cumbersome regulations. Our instinctual drive for gain must be channeled into positive activity. We shouldn’t satisfy wants by robbing our neighbors. Nor do we want handouts given without accountability rewarding sloth or irresponsible behaviors.
Very little should be held in “common” to prevent parasitism and government safety-nets such as unemployment insurance or corporate bailouts must be minimized. Propping up the failures of the past prevents the successes of the future.
A government which tempers its innate longing to control its populace clears the tapestry for private citizens to create masterpieces of innovation and advancement.
Respect for the Profit Motive
It has long befuddled historians why certain nations emerging from the Reformation such as the Dutch Republic and England enjoyed such astounding prosperity. This nascent capitalism was once attributed to the Protestant Work Ethic: the notion that Calvinists working diligently in fear of eternal damnation spurred economic growth.
However, the underlying factor prompting this phenomenal prosperity was confidence, not trepidation. Thanks in part to Calvinist doctrine, profits finally garnered respect instead of jealousy. If fear drove productivity, communism might have endured, or at least it wouldn’t have failed so spectacularly. Slavery wouldn’t have long been recognized as an economic retardant yielding general impoverishment to all but the large slaveholders.
These nations thrived and ushered in the modern because for perhaps the first time in world history, wealth creation was recognized as socially beneficial. Previously, profits were considered evidence of a swindle and un-inherited wealth a cause for disdain since it threatened the nobility.
It takes ingenuity, discipline and perseverance to create. We all gain from the new inventions and rising living standards. Rather than demeaning the successful, we ought to emulate them.
Sound Money
As the primary measuring stick for almost every transaction, the dollar’s value reflects a vital arbiter for each of the above. Are we truly free when government technocrats can deliberately pilfer our property’s value through inflation?
Why delude ourselves concerning legal impartiality when Washington willfully alters the scale by obfuscating dollar denominated measurements?
Trading and investing require an element of faith that our transactions will be fairly measured. Ideally, we know that we can unequivocally trust the veracity of those with whom we trade. Short of such confidence, we expect the government apparatus to redress grievances. That every transaction conducted using debased dollars has been artificially swayed to one party’s detriment hardly provides an inducement for risk taking enterprise.
And finally, since the monetary stewards rarely admit their guilt, as inflation roars, businesses will be pilloried as profiteers due to the inevitable rising prices. W-I-N buttons anyone?
Sound money thus supports each of these other ingredients. We will explore what constitutes sound money next week.
America presently violates to some extent each of these principles. We remain an amazingly prosperous society thanks to the accumulation of capital bequeathed to us by our more prudent forbearers. We cannot live off this legacy forever.
It would behoove our present generations to remember from whence the wealth we enjoy came.
Saddam Hussein's torture doctor has been working in British hospitals for SEVEN years
Dr Mohammed Kassim Al-Byati given a permit to work in NHS by Labour in 2004
'Horrified' Home Secretary orders urgent inquiry
A doctor involved in horrific torture by Saddam Hussein’s henchmen is working in British hospitals.
In an astonishing immigration scandal, border officials have allowed the suspected war criminal to treat thousands of British patients.
Dr Mohammed Kassim Al-Byati was given a permit to work as a doctor in the NHS by the Labour government in 2004.
Checks failed to uncover his history of working for the notorious Iraqi Intelligence Agency, which ran the country in a reign of terror during the Saddam years.
His job was to patch up torture victims so that they could be subjected to more appalling treatment.
In 2007, Al-Byati contacted the Home Office to confess to his horrific past so that he could claim asylum.
But, incredibly, this did not prevent him from carrying on earning tens of thousands of pounds working at a hospital in Wales.
Even now, despite his file being referred to a specialist war crimes unit, he remains cleared by the General Medical Council, and has been working in the West Midlands.
The details have only now been unearthed by Home Secretary Theresa May, who was ‘horrified’ to discover what had been taking place.
She has ordered an urgent inquiry, and is planning changes to the rules to stop any similar cases slipping through the net.
There will also be a shake-up of the UK Border Agency war crimes unit.
Whitehall sources say the case shows the total shambles which UKBA became under Labour.
At its heart lies the Human Rights Act and a little-known EU directive which permitted the doctor to work even when his past was known.
It follows the controversy earlier this week of UKBA failing to stop a banned extremist, Raed Salah, from entering the country.
Under Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime countless Iraqis were tortured, maimed and imprisoned.
Favoured methods used by his secret police included eye-gouging; piercing of hands with an electric drill; suspension from a ceiling; electric shock; rape and other forms of sexual abuse; beating of the soles of feet; mock executions; extinguishing cigarettes on the body, and acid baths.
A case history seen by the Mail shows that Al-Byati arrived in Britain on a six-month visitor visa in January 2000, nine years after the end of the first Gulf War which left Saddam in power.
Officials twice extended his leave to stay so he could undertake clinical attachments as a doctor.
In January 2004, by which time Iraq had been invaded again, a work permit was granted and he was employed at a hospital in Wolverhampton until February 2007.
At this point, Al-Byati claimed asylum. In his witness statement he says he worked for the Iraqi Intelligence Agency.
In March 2007, while being interviewed by UKBA, Al-Byati stated that he patched people up after torture and was aware that the victims were returning to torture, but did not feel he could do anything about it.
A month later, his file was referred to the war crimes unit.
In 2008, he applied for permission to work as he had the offer of a four-month contract with a hospital in Wales.
Normally, asylum seekers are barred from working. But there is an EU directive that allows an asylum seeker to work if the case has not been dealt with for 12 months or more through no fault of their own.
As a result, since 2008 Al-Byati has been working full-time as a locum registrar and occasionally as a consultant in the West Midlands.
The scandal was unearthed because UKBA has just given advice to its chief executive that Al-Byati should be granted leave to remain, or asylum.
At this point, the stunned Home Secretary was made aware of what was happening. Leave to remain has not been granted.
A senior source said: ‘The Home Secretary was horrified to find out that this has been allowed to carry on for so long. She dragged the acting chief executive into her office and he got the hairdryer treatment.’
The source continued: ‘We always knew that Labour let the immigration system get out of control but we were genuinely stunned. The Home Secretary is seriously considering having a review of the way the entire agency works.’
The Home Secretary has also been demanding answers from the GMC, which is supposed to check a doctor’s background, but has been frustrated by slow response.
One perversity of the asylum system is that the worse the crimes an applicant has been involved in, the more likely he is to be allowed to stay.
He can claim that, if sent back to the country where the offences were committed, he may be subjected to degrading treatment, which is not allowed under the Human Rights Act.
In the past some asylum seekers have made their past exploits sound worse to bolster their case.
A report last year branded Britain a ‘safe haven’ for war criminals with hundreds of people wanted for murder and torture living here free from prosecution.
The GMC said last night: ‘We have recently become aware of concerns regarding this doctor.’
‘These people were beaten, probably with wood, then I patched them up. They were alive when they left me’
By Fay Schlesinger
Mohammed Kassim Al-Byati last night told how he witnessed the horrifying injuries inflicted by Saddam Hussein’s henchmen – before patching up the victims and leaving them in the hands of their tormentors.
Sitting in the living room of the detached four-bedroom house he shares with his wife and three children in a leafy suburb of Birmingham, the grossly overweight doctor launched into a staunch defence of his actions.
With Wimbledon showing on the television screen beside him, he insisted: ‘What I have done was my normal doctor duty...which I am doing here (in Britain) every minute.’
Since 2002, Al-Byati says he has worked at hospitals across the country, including Wolverhampton, Solihull, Blackpool, Manchester, Ipswich and Llandudno.
Specialising in rheumatology, the senior registrar works as a locum and runs clinics for thousands of unsuspecting British patients, who had no idea of the role he played in Saddam’s brutal regime.
In 1992, aged 27, he was party to the Iraqi regime’s deadly treatment of prisoners in Baghdad.
Al-Byati, now 46, worked for the country’s secret intelligence unit for 15 months after qualifying as a junior doctor.
It was part of the military service required by the regime, and Al-Byati claims he ‘had no choice’ over the matter.
The intelligence agency had a top-security prison in Kadhimiya, where Saddam was eventually executed in 2006.
It was there that Al-Byati was taken when the vicious guards realised they had gone too far and risked having a death on their hands.
Speaking to the Mail last night, the doctor at first tried to play down the extent of the prisoners’ injuries. He said: ‘There were some bruises, some cuts.’
But on further probing, he admitted that three men he treated had been left ‘for one or two days’ without treatment after vicious beatings.
He said: ‘There were some bruises, some cut wounds, mostly on the arms. Not with a knife, probably with a wood thing.
'Not bleeding much because it was one day, two days before they called me. They looked like somebody who had a big accident.
‘There are two men with you and the prisoner can’t even look at you. I can’t do more than dressing, only simple suturing.
'I said two people need to be transferred to hospital.
‘What’s going to happen after that? Are they going to torture them? I would say yes but I haven’t seen with my own eyes. It’s just assumption.’
Asked whether he thought the prisoners had survived, Al-Byati said: ‘They were alive when I left,’ and then laughed.
The doctor said he would have been killed or his family harmed if he had tried to alert humanitarian groups.
He told no one, and continued working in Baghdad until 1995, before departing for Jordan and then Libya.
In 2000 he moved to the UK to complete British medical qualifications, and then worked in hospitals as a well-paid registrar.
Everything was going swimmingly until 2007, he said, when his visa lapsed and the Home Office blocked his application for a replacement.
So Al-Byati decided to apply for asylum, on the grounds that the lives of his wife Yousra and children, now aged seven, 12 and 17, will be at risk if they are forced to return to Iraq.
From 2007, Al-Byati could not work for a year, he said, but was able to claim benefits and a council house. He then applied for a work permit and it was granted.
He said: ‘The money as a locum is very good. I have not worked for the past three months but I have saved.’
But Al-Byati said life now is ‘very difficult’. He said: ‘I can’t go out of this country. I want to see my 70-year-old mother and my brother in America. My wife has family in Jordan, she wants to go there. But we have no passport. It’s like my wife and children are in prison.
‘I can’t get a job, I can’t progress. To be honest, I’m very upset.’ Al-Byati said he does not consider himself to be a war criminal or to have colluded in the atrocities.
Neither does he regret the 15 months he worked for the secret service.
His message to the Home Office is unequivocal: ‘If you think I’m a collaborator, reject me. I’ve been in this country for 11 years. If anything was wrong they would refuse my application at the first time.
‘I’ve done my job as a doctor, nothing more. So if you think that treating people who were tortured was a crime, it’s up to you. For me, I was the one who was helping them.’
'Horrified' Home Secretary orders urgent inquiry
A doctor involved in horrific torture by Saddam Hussein’s henchmen is working in British hospitals.
In an astonishing immigration scandal, border officials have allowed the suspected war criminal to treat thousands of British patients.
Dr Mohammed Kassim Al-Byati was given a permit to work as a doctor in the NHS by the Labour government in 2004.
Checks failed to uncover his history of working for the notorious Iraqi Intelligence Agency, which ran the country in a reign of terror during the Saddam years.
His job was to patch up torture victims so that they could be subjected to more appalling treatment.
In 2007, Al-Byati contacted the Home Office to confess to his horrific past so that he could claim asylum.
But, incredibly, this did not prevent him from carrying on earning tens of thousands of pounds working at a hospital in Wales.
Even now, despite his file being referred to a specialist war crimes unit, he remains cleared by the General Medical Council, and has been working in the West Midlands.
The details have only now been unearthed by Home Secretary Theresa May, who was ‘horrified’ to discover what had been taking place.
She has ordered an urgent inquiry, and is planning changes to the rules to stop any similar cases slipping through the net.
There will also be a shake-up of the UK Border Agency war crimes unit.
Whitehall sources say the case shows the total shambles which UKBA became under Labour.
At its heart lies the Human Rights Act and a little-known EU directive which permitted the doctor to work even when his past was known.
It follows the controversy earlier this week of UKBA failing to stop a banned extremist, Raed Salah, from entering the country.
Under Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime countless Iraqis were tortured, maimed and imprisoned.
Favoured methods used by his secret police included eye-gouging; piercing of hands with an electric drill; suspension from a ceiling; electric shock; rape and other forms of sexual abuse; beating of the soles of feet; mock executions; extinguishing cigarettes on the body, and acid baths.
A case history seen by the Mail shows that Al-Byati arrived in Britain on a six-month visitor visa in January 2000, nine years after the end of the first Gulf War which left Saddam in power.
Officials twice extended his leave to stay so he could undertake clinical attachments as a doctor.
In January 2004, by which time Iraq had been invaded again, a work permit was granted and he was employed at a hospital in Wolverhampton until February 2007.
At this point, Al-Byati claimed asylum. In his witness statement he says he worked for the Iraqi Intelligence Agency.
In March 2007, while being interviewed by UKBA, Al-Byati stated that he patched people up after torture and was aware that the victims were returning to torture, but did not feel he could do anything about it.
A month later, his file was referred to the war crimes unit.
In 2008, he applied for permission to work as he had the offer of a four-month contract with a hospital in Wales.
Normally, asylum seekers are barred from working. But there is an EU directive that allows an asylum seeker to work if the case has not been dealt with for 12 months or more through no fault of their own.
As a result, since 2008 Al-Byati has been working full-time as a locum registrar and occasionally as a consultant in the West Midlands.
The scandal was unearthed because UKBA has just given advice to its chief executive that Al-Byati should be granted leave to remain, or asylum.
At this point, the stunned Home Secretary was made aware of what was happening. Leave to remain has not been granted.
A senior source said: ‘The Home Secretary was horrified to find out that this has been allowed to carry on for so long. She dragged the acting chief executive into her office and he got the hairdryer treatment.’
The source continued: ‘We always knew that Labour let the immigration system get out of control but we were genuinely stunned. The Home Secretary is seriously considering having a review of the way the entire agency works.’
The Home Secretary has also been demanding answers from the GMC, which is supposed to check a doctor’s background, but has been frustrated by slow response.
One perversity of the asylum system is that the worse the crimes an applicant has been involved in, the more likely he is to be allowed to stay.
He can claim that, if sent back to the country where the offences were committed, he may be subjected to degrading treatment, which is not allowed under the Human Rights Act.
In the past some asylum seekers have made their past exploits sound worse to bolster their case.
A report last year branded Britain a ‘safe haven’ for war criminals with hundreds of people wanted for murder and torture living here free from prosecution.
The GMC said last night: ‘We have recently become aware of concerns regarding this doctor.’
‘These people were beaten, probably with wood, then I patched them up. They were alive when they left me’
By Fay Schlesinger
Mohammed Kassim Al-Byati last night told how he witnessed the horrifying injuries inflicted by Saddam Hussein’s henchmen – before patching up the victims and leaving them in the hands of their tormentors.
Sitting in the living room of the detached four-bedroom house he shares with his wife and three children in a leafy suburb of Birmingham, the grossly overweight doctor launched into a staunch defence of his actions.
With Wimbledon showing on the television screen beside him, he insisted: ‘What I have done was my normal doctor duty...which I am doing here (in Britain) every minute.’
Since 2002, Al-Byati says he has worked at hospitals across the country, including Wolverhampton, Solihull, Blackpool, Manchester, Ipswich and Llandudno.
Specialising in rheumatology, the senior registrar works as a locum and runs clinics for thousands of unsuspecting British patients, who had no idea of the role he played in Saddam’s brutal regime.
In 1992, aged 27, he was party to the Iraqi regime’s deadly treatment of prisoners in Baghdad.
Al-Byati, now 46, worked for the country’s secret intelligence unit for 15 months after qualifying as a junior doctor.
It was part of the military service required by the regime, and Al-Byati claims he ‘had no choice’ over the matter.
The intelligence agency had a top-security prison in Kadhimiya, where Saddam was eventually executed in 2006.
It was there that Al-Byati was taken when the vicious guards realised they had gone too far and risked having a death on their hands.
Speaking to the Mail last night, the doctor at first tried to play down the extent of the prisoners’ injuries. He said: ‘There were some bruises, some cuts.’
But on further probing, he admitted that three men he treated had been left ‘for one or two days’ without treatment after vicious beatings.
He said: ‘There were some bruises, some cut wounds, mostly on the arms. Not with a knife, probably with a wood thing.
'Not bleeding much because it was one day, two days before they called me. They looked like somebody who had a big accident.
‘There are two men with you and the prisoner can’t even look at you. I can’t do more than dressing, only simple suturing.
'I said two people need to be transferred to hospital.
‘What’s going to happen after that? Are they going to torture them? I would say yes but I haven’t seen with my own eyes. It’s just assumption.’
Asked whether he thought the prisoners had survived, Al-Byati said: ‘They were alive when I left,’ and then laughed.
The doctor said he would have been killed or his family harmed if he had tried to alert humanitarian groups.
He told no one, and continued working in Baghdad until 1995, before departing for Jordan and then Libya.
In 2000 he moved to the UK to complete British medical qualifications, and then worked in hospitals as a well-paid registrar.
Everything was going swimmingly until 2007, he said, when his visa lapsed and the Home Office blocked his application for a replacement.
So Al-Byati decided to apply for asylum, on the grounds that the lives of his wife Yousra and children, now aged seven, 12 and 17, will be at risk if they are forced to return to Iraq.
From 2007, Al-Byati could not work for a year, he said, but was able to claim benefits and a council house. He then applied for a work permit and it was granted.
He said: ‘The money as a locum is very good. I have not worked for the past three months but I have saved.’
But Al-Byati said life now is ‘very difficult’. He said: ‘I can’t go out of this country. I want to see my 70-year-old mother and my brother in America. My wife has family in Jordan, she wants to go there. But we have no passport. It’s like my wife and children are in prison.
‘I can’t get a job, I can’t progress. To be honest, I’m very upset.’ Al-Byati said he does not consider himself to be a war criminal or to have colluded in the atrocities.
Neither does he regret the 15 months he worked for the secret service.
His message to the Home Office is unequivocal: ‘If you think I’m a collaborator, reject me. I’ve been in this country for 11 years. If anything was wrong they would refuse my application at the first time.
‘I’ve done my job as a doctor, nothing more. So if you think that treating people who were tortured was a crime, it’s up to you. For me, I was the one who was helping them.’
War by Euphemism
War is the health of euphemism. As was demonstrated once again when Robert Gates, who now has served as secretary of defense under two successive presidents, appeared on Fox News the other day. Mr. Gates is (a) a dedicated public servant whose competence the country has relied on for years, and (b) an honest man obliged to explain his boss' disingenuousness.
It ain't easy, but he gives the assignment his unconvincing best. For example: Asked whether the country is engaged in hostilities in Libya, a legal point of some interest in the debate over the War Powers Act, our game secretary of defense said that, at the Pentagon, they prefer to say "we're involved in a limited kinetic operation."
There you have the hallmark of euphemism: It obfuscates meaning by expanding language, turning a solid into a gas. In physics it's called sublimation, in politics rationalization. It's quite a process. It can give the bloodiest deeds an antiseptic sound. Although the people killed as a result are just as dead.
Calling hostilities another name scarcely changes the reality on the ground. Civilians killed in bombing raids may now be known as collateral damage, but the change in terminology scarcely minimizes their suffering. It only disguises it. If not very well.
Mr. Gates does have a sense of humor, if of the gallows variety. For he added, "If I'm in Gadhafi's palace, I suspect I think I'm at war." Maybe because of the corpses that litter the place on deadly occasion.
Onward, NATO -- in peace or limited kinetic operations.
If the key to wisdom, its very purpose, is to call things by their right names, the object of American policy in, around and in the general vicinity of Libya seems to consist of calling things not even by their wrong ones, which at least might lead to some meaningful disagreement.
Instead, things are given names so vague there's nothing there even to disagree with. How do you authorize or oppose, take a stand for or against, limited kinetic operations?
There used to be two kinds of rhetoricians -- those who raised the level of public discourse and those who lowered it.
Now there is a third, and it begins to dominate our public discourse: those who just muddy the discussion.
Unable to win or even lose the war against Moammar Gadhafi's crumbling but still cruel regime, this administration claims it's not involved in the "hostilities" there. Even as it fires drones that run up the casualty lists, military and civilian. And supply the weaponry other members of the North Atlantic alliance use at our expense and to such deadly effect.
If this isn't war, it'll do till something even bloodier comes along, which it will, the world being the world, and man being man.
Yet none (in this administration anyway) dare call it war. That way, our president can hope his latest, uh, limited kinetic operation, or overseas contingency operation, or whatever the latest term of legal art is, can escape congressional scrutiny.
Call it multilateral diplomacy, to use another Obama-ism. What it means down on the ground in Libya is death and destruction. As a political term, multilateral diplomacy has the great advantage of diluting responsibility for deadly policies. For if all are multilaterally responsible for some murky war, nobody is.
In the end, in this all too painfully real world, there's no denying that the White House is waging war -- on the English language.
----------
As the killing goes on in Syria, where the regime grows more desperate, and therefore even more brutal, one of the thousands of Syrians who've taken refuge in neighboring Turkey was interviewed in a refugee camp. "What is our guilt?" asked the 27-year-old identified only as Mohammed. "We just demanded freedom and democracy, nothing else."
Young man, that is exactly your guilt. It can even be a capital offense in your country. And a lot of others across the Arab world.
Whether it be a Moammar Gadhafi or Bashar al-Assad shooting down his own people in hopes of surviving himself, the slaughter of the innocents continues.
And what is the American response to these horrors? Euphemisms galore. Pick your own favorite. There are so many to choose from. For this administration's policy toward the Arab Spring, which is now in the process of becoming the Arab Winter, is to have no policy. Or at least no clear one.
The longer you dig into the statements out of the White House and State Department, the more you realize all this verbiage is being used not to explain any policy but to substitute for one.
Call it diplomatic kudzu. It's not a crop, just a cover.
It ain't easy, but he gives the assignment his unconvincing best. For example: Asked whether the country is engaged in hostilities in Libya, a legal point of some interest in the debate over the War Powers Act, our game secretary of defense said that, at the Pentagon, they prefer to say "we're involved in a limited kinetic operation."
There you have the hallmark of euphemism: It obfuscates meaning by expanding language, turning a solid into a gas. In physics it's called sublimation, in politics rationalization. It's quite a process. It can give the bloodiest deeds an antiseptic sound. Although the people killed as a result are just as dead.
Calling hostilities another name scarcely changes the reality on the ground. Civilians killed in bombing raids may now be known as collateral damage, but the change in terminology scarcely minimizes their suffering. It only disguises it. If not very well.
Mr. Gates does have a sense of humor, if of the gallows variety. For he added, "If I'm in Gadhafi's palace, I suspect I think I'm at war." Maybe because of the corpses that litter the place on deadly occasion.
Onward, NATO -- in peace or limited kinetic operations.
If the key to wisdom, its very purpose, is to call things by their right names, the object of American policy in, around and in the general vicinity of Libya seems to consist of calling things not even by their wrong ones, which at least might lead to some meaningful disagreement.
Instead, things are given names so vague there's nothing there even to disagree with. How do you authorize or oppose, take a stand for or against, limited kinetic operations?
There used to be two kinds of rhetoricians -- those who raised the level of public discourse and those who lowered it.
Now there is a third, and it begins to dominate our public discourse: those who just muddy the discussion.
Unable to win or even lose the war against Moammar Gadhafi's crumbling but still cruel regime, this administration claims it's not involved in the "hostilities" there. Even as it fires drones that run up the casualty lists, military and civilian. And supply the weaponry other members of the North Atlantic alliance use at our expense and to such deadly effect.
If this isn't war, it'll do till something even bloodier comes along, which it will, the world being the world, and man being man.
Yet none (in this administration anyway) dare call it war. That way, our president can hope his latest, uh, limited kinetic operation, or overseas contingency operation, or whatever the latest term of legal art is, can escape congressional scrutiny.
Call it multilateral diplomacy, to use another Obama-ism. What it means down on the ground in Libya is death and destruction. As a political term, multilateral diplomacy has the great advantage of diluting responsibility for deadly policies. For if all are multilaterally responsible for some murky war, nobody is.
In the end, in this all too painfully real world, there's no denying that the White House is waging war -- on the English language.
----------
As the killing goes on in Syria, where the regime grows more desperate, and therefore even more brutal, one of the thousands of Syrians who've taken refuge in neighboring Turkey was interviewed in a refugee camp. "What is our guilt?" asked the 27-year-old identified only as Mohammed. "We just demanded freedom and democracy, nothing else."
Young man, that is exactly your guilt. It can even be a capital offense in your country. And a lot of others across the Arab world.
Whether it be a Moammar Gadhafi or Bashar al-Assad shooting down his own people in hopes of surviving himself, the slaughter of the innocents continues.
And what is the American response to these horrors? Euphemisms galore. Pick your own favorite. There are so many to choose from. For this administration's policy toward the Arab Spring, which is now in the process of becoming the Arab Winter, is to have no policy. Or at least no clear one.
The longer you dig into the statements out of the White House and State Department, the more you realize all this verbiage is being used not to explain any policy but to substitute for one.
Call it diplomatic kudzu. It's not a crop, just a cover.
House Ethics Review (John Lewis, D-GA)
The U.S. House Ethics Committee is investigating the chief of staff to Democratic Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, reportedly over financial disclosures made by veteran aide Michael Collins.
Collins was named earlier in the day by the ethics panel, but initial press reports from Capitol Hill had not established what lawmaker he worked for.
The ethics review was confirmed to me late Friday night by Rep. Lewis' Press Secretary Brenda Jones.
"I spoke with Michael and he said this is regarding his financial disclosures," Jones said in an email.
"He is cooperating fully with the committee and is taking steps to satisfy its requests."
It was not immediately apparent how serious the investigation might be.
Jones gave no further information about the details of the review, or why it was red-flagged by the Office of Congressional Ethics, which relays possible cases to the Ethics Committee.
Collins did not respond to a request for comment.
The Committee announced on Friday that it will also take another 45 days to review ethics matters involving Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) and Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY).
Along with Collins, the chief of staff to Rep. Michael McCaul is also getting an extension on an ethics review into what was described as a "payroll matter."
Congressman McCaul, a Texas Republican, actually serves on the Ethics Committee.
The matter involving Rep. Meeks reporetedly deals with his failure to report a $40,000 loan from a New York businessman, an issue that has drawn the attention of outside ethics watchdog groups.
Rep. Schmidt's ethics review supposedly relates to legal aid she reportedly received from a Turkish-American group. She has denied any wrongdoing.
The ethics panel gave no details about any of these four ethics matters, as members issued the following statement:
“The committee notes that the mere fact of a referral or an extension, and the mandatory disclosure of such an extension and the name of the subject matter, does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred, or reflect any judgment on behalf of the committee."
The panel now has until mid-August to determine if further investigation is warranted on the cases of the two lawmakers and two staffers.
Collins was named earlier in the day by the ethics panel, but initial press reports from Capitol Hill had not established what lawmaker he worked for.
The ethics review was confirmed to me late Friday night by Rep. Lewis' Press Secretary Brenda Jones.
"I spoke with Michael and he said this is regarding his financial disclosures," Jones said in an email.
"He is cooperating fully with the committee and is taking steps to satisfy its requests."
It was not immediately apparent how serious the investigation might be.
Jones gave no further information about the details of the review, or why it was red-flagged by the Office of Congressional Ethics, which relays possible cases to the Ethics Committee.
Collins did not respond to a request for comment.
The Committee announced on Friday that it will also take another 45 days to review ethics matters involving Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) and Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY).
Along with Collins, the chief of staff to Rep. Michael McCaul is also getting an extension on an ethics review into what was described as a "payroll matter."
Congressman McCaul, a Texas Republican, actually serves on the Ethics Committee.
The matter involving Rep. Meeks reporetedly deals with his failure to report a $40,000 loan from a New York businessman, an issue that has drawn the attention of outside ethics watchdog groups.
Rep. Schmidt's ethics review supposedly relates to legal aid she reportedly received from a Turkish-American group. She has denied any wrongdoing.
The ethics panel gave no details about any of these four ethics matters, as members issued the following statement:
“The committee notes that the mere fact of a referral or an extension, and the mandatory disclosure of such an extension and the name of the subject matter, does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred, or reflect any judgment on behalf of the committee."
The panel now has until mid-August to determine if further investigation is warranted on the cases of the two lawmakers and two staffers.
Obama’s Declaration of Dependence
The self-reliant citizenry is history.
Dozens of countries have “Independence Days.” November 25th, for example: Independence Day in Suriname. In that instance as in most others, the designation signifies nothing more than transfer of de jure sovereignty and de facto operational control from a distant European capital to a more local regime. 1975 in Suriname’s case. They had the first military coup seven years later.
But in America “Independence” seemed as much a statement about the character of a people as a designation of jurisdictional status. The first Americans were British subjects who had outgrown a British king as benign and enlightened as any ruler on the planet. They demanded “independence” not from foreign rulers of another ethnicity but from their own compatriots with whom they had a disagreement about the nature of government. Long before the Revolutionary War, small New England townships governed themselves to a degree no old England towns did. “Independence” is not about the replacement of a king in London with a president in Washington but about the republican virtues of a self-reliant citizenry free to exploit its own potential.
Please, no snickering. The self-reliant citizen? In the damning formulation of contemporary American vernacular, he’s history — as in over and done with, fuhgeddabouttim. What’s left of that founding vision on this less than Glorious Fourth of July 2011 in the Brokest Nation in History? “You go talk to your constituents,” President Obama taunted Republicans on Wednesday, “and ask them, are they willing to compromise their kids’ safety so that some corporate-jet owner continues to get a tax break?”
In the Republic of Brokistan, that’s the choice, is it? Give me safe kids or give me corporate jets! No corporate aviation without safe kiddification! In his bizarre press conference on Wednesday, Obama made no fewer than six references to corporate-jet owners. Just for the record, the tax break for corporate jets was part of the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009” — i.e., the stimulus. The Obama stimulus. The Obama-Pelosi-Reid stimulus. The Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Democratic-party stimulus that every single Republican House member and all but three Republican senators voted against. The Obama–Corporate Jet stimulus that some guy called Obama ostentatiously signed into law in Denver after jetting in to host an “economic forum.”
Charles Krauthammer did the math. If you eliminate the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Corporate Jet Tax Break, you would save so much dough that, after 5,000 years, you would have clawed back enough money to cover one year of Obama’s debt. Five thousand years is the year 7011. Boy, our kids’ll really be safe by then. I see some leftie at MSNBC has just been suspended for characterizing the president’s performance on Wednesday as that of a demotic synonym for the male reproductive organ. So I shall be more circumspect and say only that even being a hollow unprincipled demagogue requires a certain lightness of touch Obama can’t seem to find.
Speaking of corporate jets, did the president fly commercial to Denver? Oh, but that’s different! He’s in “public service.” A couple of weeks before he flew Air Force One to Denver, he flew Air Force One to Williamsburg, Va. From the White House (well, via Andrews Air Force Base). That’s 150 miles, a 30-minute flight. He took a 747, a wide-bodied jet designed to carry 500 people to the other side of the planet, for a puddle-jump across the Potomac.
Oh, but it was for another “economic forum.” This time with House Democrats — the ones who voted for the Obama Corporate Jet Tax Break. “Economic forums” are what we have instead of an economy these days.
Aside from the Sultan of Brunei and one or two similar potentates, no other head of state goes around like this. In a self-governing republic, it ought to be unbecoming. But in the Brokest Nation in History it’s ridiculous. And the least the beneficiary of such decadence could do is not condescendingly lecture those who pay for their own transportation. America’s debt is an existential crisis, and playing shell games with shriveled peas of demonizable irrelevancies only advertises your contempt for the citizenry.
By the way, one way to cut back on corporate jettage would be to restore civilized standards of behavior in American commercial flight. Two weeks ago, a wheelchair-bound 95-year-old woman at Northwest Florida Regional Airport flying to Michigan to be with her family for the final stage of her terminal leukemia was made to remove her adult diaper by the crack agents of the Transport Stupidity Administration. George III wouldn’t have done this to her.
Oh, c’mon, do you want to compromise your kids’ safety in order to give grope breaks to dying nonagenarians? A spokesgroper for the Transport Stupidity Administration explained that security procedures have to be “the same for everyone” — because it would be totally unreasonable to expect timeserving government bureaucrats to exercise individual human judgment. Oddly enough, it’s not “the same for everyone” if you’re Olajide Oluwaseun Noibi from Nigeria, who on June 24 got on a flight at JFK with a college ID and an expired boarding pass in somebody else’s name. Why, that slippery devil! If only he’d been three-quarters of a century older, in a wheelchair, and dying of leukemia, we’d have got him! He was arrested upon landing at LAX, and we’re now going to spend millions of dollars prosecuting him. Why? We should thank him for his invaluable exposé of America’s revolting security theater, and make him head of the TSA.
What else isn’t “the same for everyone”? A lot of things, these days. The president has a point about “tax breaks.” We have too many. And on the scale of the present tax code that’s a dagger at the heart of one of the most basic principles of free societies — equality before the law. But, of course, the president is not opposed to exemptions and exceptions and special privileges on principle: After all, he’s issued — what is it now? — over a thousand “waivers” for his own Obamacare law. If you knew who to call in Washington, maybe you got one. If you didn’t, tough.
But that’s the point. Big Government on America’s unprecedented money-no-object scale will always be profoundly wasteful (as on that Williamsburg flight), stupid (as at the TSA), and arbitrary (as in those waivers). But it’s not republican in any sense the Founders would recognize. If (like Obama) you’re a lifetime member of the government class, you can survive it. For the rest, it ought to be a source of shame to today’s Americans that this will be the first generation in U.S. history to bequeath its children the certainty of poorer, meaner lives — if not a broader decay into a fetid swamp divided between a well-connected Latin American–style elite enjoying their waivers and a vast downwardly mobile morass. On Independence Day 2011, debt-ridden America is now dependent, not on far-off kings but on global bond and currency markets, which fulfill the same role the cliff edge does in a Wile E. Coyote cartoon. At some point, Wile looks down and realizes he’s outrun solid ground. You know what happens next.
That’s all, folks!
Dozens of countries have “Independence Days.” November 25th, for example: Independence Day in Suriname. In that instance as in most others, the designation signifies nothing more than transfer of de jure sovereignty and de facto operational control from a distant European capital to a more local regime. 1975 in Suriname’s case. They had the first military coup seven years later.
But in America “Independence” seemed as much a statement about the character of a people as a designation of jurisdictional status. The first Americans were British subjects who had outgrown a British king as benign and enlightened as any ruler on the planet. They demanded “independence” not from foreign rulers of another ethnicity but from their own compatriots with whom they had a disagreement about the nature of government. Long before the Revolutionary War, small New England townships governed themselves to a degree no old England towns did. “Independence” is not about the replacement of a king in London with a president in Washington but about the republican virtues of a self-reliant citizenry free to exploit its own potential.
Please, no snickering. The self-reliant citizen? In the damning formulation of contemporary American vernacular, he’s history — as in over and done with, fuhgeddabouttim. What’s left of that founding vision on this less than Glorious Fourth of July 2011 in the Brokest Nation in History? “You go talk to your constituents,” President Obama taunted Republicans on Wednesday, “and ask them, are they willing to compromise their kids’ safety so that some corporate-jet owner continues to get a tax break?”
In the Republic of Brokistan, that’s the choice, is it? Give me safe kids or give me corporate jets! No corporate aviation without safe kiddification! In his bizarre press conference on Wednesday, Obama made no fewer than six references to corporate-jet owners. Just for the record, the tax break for corporate jets was part of the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009” — i.e., the stimulus. The Obama stimulus. The Obama-Pelosi-Reid stimulus. The Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Democratic-party stimulus that every single Republican House member and all but three Republican senators voted against. The Obama–Corporate Jet stimulus that some guy called Obama ostentatiously signed into law in Denver after jetting in to host an “economic forum.”
Charles Krauthammer did the math. If you eliminate the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Corporate Jet Tax Break, you would save so much dough that, after 5,000 years, you would have clawed back enough money to cover one year of Obama’s debt. Five thousand years is the year 7011. Boy, our kids’ll really be safe by then. I see some leftie at MSNBC has just been suspended for characterizing the president’s performance on Wednesday as that of a demotic synonym for the male reproductive organ. So I shall be more circumspect and say only that even being a hollow unprincipled demagogue requires a certain lightness of touch Obama can’t seem to find.
Speaking of corporate jets, did the president fly commercial to Denver? Oh, but that’s different! He’s in “public service.” A couple of weeks before he flew Air Force One to Denver, he flew Air Force One to Williamsburg, Va. From the White House (well, via Andrews Air Force Base). That’s 150 miles, a 30-minute flight. He took a 747, a wide-bodied jet designed to carry 500 people to the other side of the planet, for a puddle-jump across the Potomac.
Oh, but it was for another “economic forum.” This time with House Democrats — the ones who voted for the Obama Corporate Jet Tax Break. “Economic forums” are what we have instead of an economy these days.
Aside from the Sultan of Brunei and one or two similar potentates, no other head of state goes around like this. In a self-governing republic, it ought to be unbecoming. But in the Brokest Nation in History it’s ridiculous. And the least the beneficiary of such decadence could do is not condescendingly lecture those who pay for their own transportation. America’s debt is an existential crisis, and playing shell games with shriveled peas of demonizable irrelevancies only advertises your contempt for the citizenry.
By the way, one way to cut back on corporate jettage would be to restore civilized standards of behavior in American commercial flight. Two weeks ago, a wheelchair-bound 95-year-old woman at Northwest Florida Regional Airport flying to Michigan to be with her family for the final stage of her terminal leukemia was made to remove her adult diaper by the crack agents of the Transport Stupidity Administration. George III wouldn’t have done this to her.
Oh, c’mon, do you want to compromise your kids’ safety in order to give grope breaks to dying nonagenarians? A spokesgroper for the Transport Stupidity Administration explained that security procedures have to be “the same for everyone” — because it would be totally unreasonable to expect timeserving government bureaucrats to exercise individual human judgment. Oddly enough, it’s not “the same for everyone” if you’re Olajide Oluwaseun Noibi from Nigeria, who on June 24 got on a flight at JFK with a college ID and an expired boarding pass in somebody else’s name. Why, that slippery devil! If only he’d been three-quarters of a century older, in a wheelchair, and dying of leukemia, we’d have got him! He was arrested upon landing at LAX, and we’re now going to spend millions of dollars prosecuting him. Why? We should thank him for his invaluable exposé of America’s revolting security theater, and make him head of the TSA.
What else isn’t “the same for everyone”? A lot of things, these days. The president has a point about “tax breaks.” We have too many. And on the scale of the present tax code that’s a dagger at the heart of one of the most basic principles of free societies — equality before the law. But, of course, the president is not opposed to exemptions and exceptions and special privileges on principle: After all, he’s issued — what is it now? — over a thousand “waivers” for his own Obamacare law. If you knew who to call in Washington, maybe you got one. If you didn’t, tough.
But that’s the point. Big Government on America’s unprecedented money-no-object scale will always be profoundly wasteful (as on that Williamsburg flight), stupid (as at the TSA), and arbitrary (as in those waivers). But it’s not republican in any sense the Founders would recognize. If (like Obama) you’re a lifetime member of the government class, you can survive it. For the rest, it ought to be a source of shame to today’s Americans that this will be the first generation in U.S. history to bequeath its children the certainty of poorer, meaner lives — if not a broader decay into a fetid swamp divided between a well-connected Latin American–style elite enjoying their waivers and a vast downwardly mobile morass. On Independence Day 2011, debt-ridden America is now dependent, not on far-off kings but on global bond and currency markets, which fulfill the same role the cliff edge does in a Wile E. Coyote cartoon. At some point, Wile looks down and realizes he’s outrun solid ground. You know what happens next.
That’s all, folks!
White House Lies Again About Economy While 44.6 M Americans are on Food Stamps
You are no doubt going to hear the networks and liberal media and talk hosts discussing the “great” new White House report on the economy and jobs creation. Feel free to use the White House report to line the bird cage. Here are the FACTS:
The Obama administration keeps rolling out “reports” telling us what a good job he’s done with the economy, but they all boil down to the same thing:
–They make up “facts.”
–They get “called out” on the facts.
–They fall back to the same old jibble that it would have been so much worse if he hadn’t spent billions on stimulus and pork spending.
–It’s kind of hard to argue with what might have been, or not….after all.
Every month, however, there is little-publicized but damning proof that Obamanomics is an utter failure and there is no recovery: The shocking, ever-increasing number of people on food stamps. If everything is so great, why are 44.6 million Americans [and rising] not able to buy food?
Here’s the latest Friday night White House document “dump:”
“A White House report released Friday said the 2009 stimulus bill raised GDP by as much as 3.2 percent in the first quarter of 2011.
The report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers said the stimulus added 2.3 to 3.2 percent to gross domestic product in the first quarter relative to what it otherwise would have been.
The stimulus package also increased employment relative to what it otherwise would have been by between 2.4 and 3.6 million jobs, the report said.
Obama and Republicans have butted heads over the effectiveness of the stimulus, which was estimated to cost $787 billion when enacted.
Republicans, pointing to the latest report that unemployment rose again to 9.1 percent in May, claim it was a waste of money that did nothing to slow the recession. Obama maintains that the economy would be in worse shape without the stimulus.”
Gateway Pundit has the truth-o-meter on the above:
Not true. The economy has lost 2.5 million jobs since Obama moved into the White House.
Barack Obama continues to make his mark as the worst jobs president since the Great Depression.
That’s not all…
A new report shows that real GDP has risen 0.8% over the 13 quarters since the recession began, compared to an average increase of 9.9% in past recoveries.
As Tyler Durden @ ZeroHedge puts it:
The one and only clearest indication of just how effective the recovery and QE2 in general has been, comes courtesy of the USDA, whose just released update of April participation in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), better known as “foodstamps”, shows yet another record, this time 44.647 million people, an increase from May’s 44.587 million. And after rising modestly in the last month, the average monthly benefit per household dropped again to a post April 2009 revision low of $282.38/month.
The Obama administration keeps rolling out “reports” telling us what a good job he’s done with the economy, but they all boil down to the same thing:
–They make up “facts.”
–They get “called out” on the facts.
–They fall back to the same old jibble that it would have been so much worse if he hadn’t spent billions on stimulus and pork spending.
–It’s kind of hard to argue with what might have been, or not….after all.
Every month, however, there is little-publicized but damning proof that Obamanomics is an utter failure and there is no recovery: The shocking, ever-increasing number of people on food stamps. If everything is so great, why are 44.6 million Americans [and rising] not able to buy food?
Here’s the latest Friday night White House document “dump:”
“A White House report released Friday said the 2009 stimulus bill raised GDP by as much as 3.2 percent in the first quarter of 2011.
The report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers said the stimulus added 2.3 to 3.2 percent to gross domestic product in the first quarter relative to what it otherwise would have been.
The stimulus package also increased employment relative to what it otherwise would have been by between 2.4 and 3.6 million jobs, the report said.
Obama and Republicans have butted heads over the effectiveness of the stimulus, which was estimated to cost $787 billion when enacted.
Republicans, pointing to the latest report that unemployment rose again to 9.1 percent in May, claim it was a waste of money that did nothing to slow the recession. Obama maintains that the economy would be in worse shape without the stimulus.”
Gateway Pundit has the truth-o-meter on the above:
Not true. The economy has lost 2.5 million jobs since Obama moved into the White House.
Barack Obama continues to make his mark as the worst jobs president since the Great Depression.
That’s not all…
A new report shows that real GDP has risen 0.8% over the 13 quarters since the recession began, compared to an average increase of 9.9% in past recoveries.
As Tyler Durden @ ZeroHedge puts it:
The one and only clearest indication of just how effective the recovery and QE2 in general has been, comes courtesy of the USDA, whose just released update of April participation in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), better known as “foodstamps”, shows yet another record, this time 44.647 million people, an increase from May’s 44.587 million. And after rising modestly in the last month, the average monthly benefit per household dropped again to a post April 2009 revision low of $282.38/month.
America Carrying Load in Libya While Pretending Otherwise
The US handing Libya over to NATO is “like Beyonce saying she’s ceding control to Sasha Fierce!” – Jon Stewart
National Journal‘s Michael Hirsh points to a long trend in American politics toward “Defining Down War.”
Each day for the last three months, NATO has issued a classified order dividing the ongoing air war in Libya—uhh, let’s call it “mission”—into offensive and defensive operations.
The latter category is America’s job, and it is huge. It includes Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses, which consists mainly of U.S. jets “loitering” in Libyan air space to watch for surface-to-air missiles that might threaten the “offensive” part of the mission: the French, British, Canadian, Norwegian, and Danish planes attacking Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces.
The United States is also supplying most of NATO’s intelligence-gathering, surveillance, and reconnaissance capability in Libya, along with air-to-air refueling for NATO strike forces. By NATO’s own evidence, President Obama was somewhat disingenuous in claiming at his Wednesday news conference that U.S. forces were not “carrying the lion’s share of this operation.” U.S. planes, in fact, “represent the majority of aircraft within the theater, and they have done so from the beginning,” NATO spokesman Tony White told National Journal on Thursday. “The U.S. role continues to be fundamental to the mission” and is “supremely important in every strike sortie.”
Thus, by playing “defense” and putting no U.S. soldiers on the ground, Obama has effectively gone to war in Libya while denying that America is pursuing “hostilities” that might trigger the War Powers Resolution requiring congressional approval. Whatever you think about his legal argument, Obama’s approach may be working. As he said on Wednesday: “We have not seen a single U.S. casualty.”
When Doug Mataconis passed on word Thursday that “As of today, and since 31 March, the U.S. has flown a total of 3,475 sorties in support of OUP. Of those, 801 were strike sorties, 132 of which actually dropped ordnance,” Dave Schuler wondered about the ratio of sorties to drops, thinking it unusual. I gathered that it was mostly refueling and what in the vernacular is called ISR (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance). But apparently the SEAD missions are much more prevalent than advertised.
By my lights, SEAD is not a “support” mission in the way that aerial refueling or even ISR are. The whole point is to be ready to shoot at a moment’s notice. That’s a combat mission, pure and simple.
The bottom line is that, while our NATO allies are indeed playing the lead role in the “kinetic” part of this operation–discounting, naturally, the first few days of heavy fighting–it’s still mostly an American operation. This is necessary for the reasons that Robert Gates outlined on his way out of office: The Europeans have underfunded their militaries for so long that they’re simply not capable of carrying out even relatively small operations against the likes of Gaddafi’s pathetic forces on their own.
National Journal‘s Michael Hirsh points to a long trend in American politics toward “Defining Down War.”
Each day for the last three months, NATO has issued a classified order dividing the ongoing air war in Libya—uhh, let’s call it “mission”—into offensive and defensive operations.
The latter category is America’s job, and it is huge. It includes Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses, which consists mainly of U.S. jets “loitering” in Libyan air space to watch for surface-to-air missiles that might threaten the “offensive” part of the mission: the French, British, Canadian, Norwegian, and Danish planes attacking Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces.
The United States is also supplying most of NATO’s intelligence-gathering, surveillance, and reconnaissance capability in Libya, along with air-to-air refueling for NATO strike forces. By NATO’s own evidence, President Obama was somewhat disingenuous in claiming at his Wednesday news conference that U.S. forces were not “carrying the lion’s share of this operation.” U.S. planes, in fact, “represent the majority of aircraft within the theater, and they have done so from the beginning,” NATO spokesman Tony White told National Journal on Thursday. “The U.S. role continues to be fundamental to the mission” and is “supremely important in every strike sortie.”
Thus, by playing “defense” and putting no U.S. soldiers on the ground, Obama has effectively gone to war in Libya while denying that America is pursuing “hostilities” that might trigger the War Powers Resolution requiring congressional approval. Whatever you think about his legal argument, Obama’s approach may be working. As he said on Wednesday: “We have not seen a single U.S. casualty.”
When Doug Mataconis passed on word Thursday that “As of today, and since 31 March, the U.S. has flown a total of 3,475 sorties in support of OUP. Of those, 801 were strike sorties, 132 of which actually dropped ordnance,” Dave Schuler wondered about the ratio of sorties to drops, thinking it unusual. I gathered that it was mostly refueling and what in the vernacular is called ISR (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance). But apparently the SEAD missions are much more prevalent than advertised.
By my lights, SEAD is not a “support” mission in the way that aerial refueling or even ISR are. The whole point is to be ready to shoot at a moment’s notice. That’s a combat mission, pure and simple.
The bottom line is that, while our NATO allies are indeed playing the lead role in the “kinetic” part of this operation–discounting, naturally, the first few days of heavy fighting–it’s still mostly an American operation. This is necessary for the reasons that Robert Gates outlined on his way out of office: The Europeans have underfunded their militaries for so long that they’re simply not capable of carrying out even relatively small operations against the likes of Gaddafi’s pathetic forces on their own.
Palestinian Authority Proudly Indoctrinates its Youth Against Peace
If you want to know the real obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace, take a look at what Israel’s “peace partner” is doing in the Balata refugee camp near Nablus. Taysir Nasrallah, a senior member of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah party who is currently director-general of the Nablus governor’s office, gave Haaretzreporter Avi Issacharoff a tour of Balata’s seven-year-old community center this week. And while the term “community center” evokes images of peaceful, wholesome activity, what’s actually going on there, by Nasrallah’s own proud account, is anything but:
“We give the kids courses on the right of return and teach them that the Israelis stole their lands. We’ve sent hundreds of camp children into Israel to see the villages and towns that were taken from us. We took them to Jaffa, Ramle.
“Our message is that without a doubt they will return to the places from which they were driven out,” he says.
Jaffa and Ramle aren’t West Bank settlements; they are towns in pre-1967 Israel. And these are the locales Israel’s “peace partner” is teaching Palestinian children to consider their own. Indeed, Issacharoff reported, Nasrallah’s “dream is to have the [community] center move to Jaffa when the day comes”; hence its name: the Jaffa Center. Moreover, children are regularly assigned presentations involving a map of Israel, but “for them it has always been and remains the map of Palestine.”
Then there’s the fact the children are being taught “Israelis stole their lands” – in other words, that Jews have no right to a state in any portion of what is today Israel; they are thieves who must be stripped of their ill-gotten gains. That’s hardly a message conducive to peaceful coexistence.
Nor is the effort to indoctrinate them into demanding a “right of return” – a euphemism for flooding pre-1967 Israel with 4.8 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants who, together with Israel’s 1.6 million Arab citizens, would outnumber its 5.8 million Jews and turn the Jewish state into a second Palestinian one (the first being the judenrein Palestinian state slated for the West Bank and Gaza).
And remember, this isn’t Hamas conducting these indoctrination sessions: It’s Israel’s “peace partner,” the “moderate” Fatah-led Palestinian Authority. Moreover, the PA is targeting precisely those youths it sees as future leaders. Just this week, Issacharoff reported, 35 children completed a leadership course at the center.
It ought to be obvious peace will never be possible as long as even Palestinian “moderates” insist Jews have no right to statehood in any part of this land, that Palestinians should seek to obtain pre-1967 Israel as well as the West Bank and Gaza, and that pre-1967 Israel should become another Arab-majority state instead of a Jewish one. Indeed, this is obvious to most Israelis; that’s why Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu keeps reiterating that Palestinian recognition of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is the key to peace.
Unfortunately, most Westerners still don’t seem to get it, and that’s precisely why all their efforts to broker a deal keep failing. To solve any problem, you first have to acknowledge its existence.
“We give the kids courses on the right of return and teach them that the Israelis stole their lands. We’ve sent hundreds of camp children into Israel to see the villages and towns that were taken from us. We took them to Jaffa, Ramle.
“Our message is that without a doubt they will return to the places from which they were driven out,” he says.
Jaffa and Ramle aren’t West Bank settlements; they are towns in pre-1967 Israel. And these are the locales Israel’s “peace partner” is teaching Palestinian children to consider their own. Indeed, Issacharoff reported, Nasrallah’s “dream is to have the [community] center move to Jaffa when the day comes”; hence its name: the Jaffa Center. Moreover, children are regularly assigned presentations involving a map of Israel, but “for them it has always been and remains the map of Palestine.”
Then there’s the fact the children are being taught “Israelis stole their lands” – in other words, that Jews have no right to a state in any portion of what is today Israel; they are thieves who must be stripped of their ill-gotten gains. That’s hardly a message conducive to peaceful coexistence.
Nor is the effort to indoctrinate them into demanding a “right of return” – a euphemism for flooding pre-1967 Israel with 4.8 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants who, together with Israel’s 1.6 million Arab citizens, would outnumber its 5.8 million Jews and turn the Jewish state into a second Palestinian one (the first being the judenrein Palestinian state slated for the West Bank and Gaza).
And remember, this isn’t Hamas conducting these indoctrination sessions: It’s Israel’s “peace partner,” the “moderate” Fatah-led Palestinian Authority. Moreover, the PA is targeting precisely those youths it sees as future leaders. Just this week, Issacharoff reported, 35 children completed a leadership course at the center.
It ought to be obvious peace will never be possible as long as even Palestinian “moderates” insist Jews have no right to statehood in any part of this land, that Palestinians should seek to obtain pre-1967 Israel as well as the West Bank and Gaza, and that pre-1967 Israel should become another Arab-majority state instead of a Jewish one. Indeed, this is obvious to most Israelis; that’s why Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu keeps reiterating that Palestinian recognition of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is the key to peace.
Unfortunately, most Westerners still don’t seem to get it, and that’s precisely why all their efforts to broker a deal keep failing. To solve any problem, you first have to acknowledge its existence.
Schumer confirms White House considering ignoring debt limit
This morning we speculated that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was seriously considering just ignoring the statutory debt limit by claiming it was superseded by section Four of the 14th amendment. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., confirmed that that course of action has been considered by the White House. Talking Points Memo‘s Brian Beutler reports on a conference call with Schumer today:
I asked Schumer, a lawyer, whether, in his view, the administration had the power to continue issuing new debt even if Congress fails to raise the debt limit. He acknowledged that the question’s been discussed, but said the White House probably shouldn’t go there just yet.
[emphasis mine] Considering the ease with which Obama has violated bankruptcy law, refused to enforce voter fraud laws, and ignored the War Powers Act, what is stopping him from ignoring the debt ceiling.
I asked Schumer, a lawyer, whether, in his view, the administration had the power to continue issuing new debt even if Congress fails to raise the debt limit. He acknowledged that the question’s been discussed, but said the White House probably shouldn’t go there just yet.
[emphasis mine] Considering the ease with which Obama has violated bankruptcy law, refused to enforce voter fraud laws, and ignored the War Powers Act, what is stopping him from ignoring the debt ceiling.
An Obama-Friendly Solution To Unemployment
OK, to call this a "solution" to unemployment is a bit of oversell, but it certainly will help. And it's drawn directly from Obama's own words and beliefs.
Remember the Joe The Plumber incident? If you need a reminder, here are Obama's own words expounding on his economic theories.
"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too... My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're gonna be better off [...] if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
Spread the wealth around. Share the wealth. Spread the money around. Sounds like it could work out, if done properly.
Such as, say, cutting the minimum wage.
Not by a lot. Say, about 10%, from $7.25 to $6.50. That's still pretty decent, considering the demands of most minimum-wage jobs. And if it's cut 10%, that means that for every 9 employees currently making minimum wage, we could have 10 for the same payroll.
And let's be honest -- unemployment tends to hit the people at the bottom of the economic strata hardest. Increasing the number of minimum-wage jobs at a time when unemployment is over 9% will at least help a little towards getting people back to work.
It's at least as likely to help as the infamous stimulus package. Remember those projections of what unemployment would be with and without the stimulus? When you add in the actual unemployment figures, it is well above both lines.
We've tried the best ideas the left has, and it's gone nowhere. Unless, of course, you actually buy into the "we kept things from getting so, so much worse!" argument -- that's the perfect political excuse, as it is utterly unverifiable. No, it's much more honest to look at that chart, look at what the Democrats promised would happen, and what really happened.
So why not give this one a try?
Remember the Joe The Plumber incident? If you need a reminder, here are Obama's own words expounding on his economic theories.
"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too... My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're gonna be better off [...] if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
Spread the wealth around. Share the wealth. Spread the money around. Sounds like it could work out, if done properly.
Such as, say, cutting the minimum wage.
Not by a lot. Say, about 10%, from $7.25 to $6.50. That's still pretty decent, considering the demands of most minimum-wage jobs. And if it's cut 10%, that means that for every 9 employees currently making minimum wage, we could have 10 for the same payroll.
And let's be honest -- unemployment tends to hit the people at the bottom of the economic strata hardest. Increasing the number of minimum-wage jobs at a time when unemployment is over 9% will at least help a little towards getting people back to work.
It's at least as likely to help as the infamous stimulus package. Remember those projections of what unemployment would be with and without the stimulus? When you add in the actual unemployment figures, it is well above both lines.
We've tried the best ideas the left has, and it's gone nowhere. Unless, of course, you actually buy into the "we kept things from getting so, so much worse!" argument -- that's the perfect political excuse, as it is utterly unverifiable. No, it's much more honest to look at that chart, look at what the Democrats promised would happen, and what really happened.
So why not give this one a try?
Documents Uncovered by JW Detail Shocking Sex Slave Trafficking Operation in Houston, Texas, Operated by Illegal Aliens
Did Houston’s Illegal Alien Sanctuary Policy Enable a Previously Deported Illegal Alien Prostitute to Operate a Sex Trafficking Scheme Right under the Nose of the Houston PD?
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today it has obtained documents from the Houston Police Department detailing a shocking sex trafficking operation run by illegal aliens, including a former prostitute, Maria Rojas, who had previously been deported. The documents indicate that police officers responded to service calls to the business co-owned by Ms. Rojas on 60 occasions, and were well aware of the criminal activity taking place at these establishments, but apparently did not check the immigration status of any of the arrestees or Ms. Rojas. Houston, Texas, has in place an illegal alien sanctuary policy, Houston PD General Order 500-5, which prohibits police officers from inquiring about the citizenship status of any person.
On February 17, 2011, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas announced the indictment of Maria Rojas and her brother, Jose Luis Rojas, on sex trafficking conspiracy charges. They and eight co-defendants were also charged with conspiracy to harbor illegal aliens. Maria Rojas, who was deported following a 1999 arrest for prostitution, was charged with illegally reentering the country after deportation.
The indictment alleges that Maria and Jose Luis Rojas ran a sex slave trafficking ring since at least August 1999. The scheme involved luring young women into the country illegally from Mexico with false promises of employment, then forcing them to work as prostitutes at La Costeñita Bar and El Club Restaurante in Houston. Maria Rojas and Javier Guevara Belmontes (a legal resident) co-owned the locations. The remaining defendants were illegal aliens who served as managers or employees of the businesses.
Judicial Watch filed an open records request with the Houston Police Department (HPD) on March 8, 2011, seeking documents related to police contacts with the individuals named in the indictment and police activity at the locations related to the conspiracy. Documents produced to Judicial Watch from the HPD show law enforcement officers responded to service calls at the businesses co-owned by Maria Rojas on average once a month over a five-year period and to a residence co-owned by Maria Rojas and Javier Belmontes on an additional eight occasions:
Police documented 48 calls for service to La Costeñita between 2006 and 2011. Nine of these events involved vice squad investigations and/or arrests for prostitution, and during this time frame 12 individuals were arrested for prostitution. There were 17 cases of assault (including three shootings and a stabbing). There was one cocaine possession arrest (in May 2008) and one armed robbery arrest (in December 2007).
There were 12 documented police calls for service to El Club Restaurante between 2006 and 2010. These included four burglaries, two assaults and a shooting.
Between May 2006 and November 2010, Houston police responded to the residence of Maria Rojas and Javier Belmontes eight times. On three occasions, police spoke with and documented a complaint by Jose Luis Rojas. On November 1, 2010, Jose Luis Rojas reported an armed robbery by six unknown assailants. Three weeks later, Jose Luis Rojas reported receiving a telephonic death threat.
According to the Houston Chronicle, police officers were well aware of the illegal activity taking place at the La Costeñita location:
So notorious is the bar that undercover Texas alcohol investigators long ago documented its seedy intricacies: an escape hatch, a hidden passageway leading to decrepit and gated houses of prostitution described as “horse stalls.” Federal, state and local agents learned by name and face many key characters who operated La Costenita and made repeated — but only partially successful efforts — to stop them.
Despite the repeated visits to these establishments, Maria and Jose Luis Rojas continued to operate their sex trafficking operation unfettered for approximately a decade. A simple check with ICE about Ms. Rojas, any of the arrestees or the young girls forced into prostitution, would have indicated their illegal status, and might have led to the earlier termination of the sex slave trafficking ring.
However, Houston is a de facto sanctuary city because of Houston PD General Order 500-5. The order, signed by former chief Sam Nuchia in January 1990, states in part that “officers shall not make inquiries as to the citizenship status of any person, nor will officers detain or arrest persons solely on the belief that they are in this country illegally. Officers will contact the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) regarding a person only if that person is arrested on a separate criminal charge (other than a class C misdemeanor) and the officer knows the prisoner is an illegal alien.”
“Sanctuary policies in Houston allowed young women to be victimized by illegal alien sex traffickers. Houston and other sanctuary cities undermine the rule of law and thwart control of our borders. And they lead to the brutal crimes associated with human trafficking. So while the Obama administration goes after Arizona for furthering our nation’s immigration laws, it ignores cities like Houston that think they don’t have to obey laws concerning illegal immigration,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today it has obtained documents from the Houston Police Department detailing a shocking sex trafficking operation run by illegal aliens, including a former prostitute, Maria Rojas, who had previously been deported. The documents indicate that police officers responded to service calls to the business co-owned by Ms. Rojas on 60 occasions, and were well aware of the criminal activity taking place at these establishments, but apparently did not check the immigration status of any of the arrestees or Ms. Rojas. Houston, Texas, has in place an illegal alien sanctuary policy, Houston PD General Order 500-5, which prohibits police officers from inquiring about the citizenship status of any person.
On February 17, 2011, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas announced the indictment of Maria Rojas and her brother, Jose Luis Rojas, on sex trafficking conspiracy charges. They and eight co-defendants were also charged with conspiracy to harbor illegal aliens. Maria Rojas, who was deported following a 1999 arrest for prostitution, was charged with illegally reentering the country after deportation.
The indictment alleges that Maria and Jose Luis Rojas ran a sex slave trafficking ring since at least August 1999. The scheme involved luring young women into the country illegally from Mexico with false promises of employment, then forcing them to work as prostitutes at La Costeñita Bar and El Club Restaurante in Houston. Maria Rojas and Javier Guevara Belmontes (a legal resident) co-owned the locations. The remaining defendants were illegal aliens who served as managers or employees of the businesses.
Judicial Watch filed an open records request with the Houston Police Department (HPD) on March 8, 2011, seeking documents related to police contacts with the individuals named in the indictment and police activity at the locations related to the conspiracy. Documents produced to Judicial Watch from the HPD show law enforcement officers responded to service calls at the businesses co-owned by Maria Rojas on average once a month over a five-year period and to a residence co-owned by Maria Rojas and Javier Belmontes on an additional eight occasions:
Police documented 48 calls for service to La Costeñita between 2006 and 2011. Nine of these events involved vice squad investigations and/or arrests for prostitution, and during this time frame 12 individuals were arrested for prostitution. There were 17 cases of assault (including three shootings and a stabbing). There was one cocaine possession arrest (in May 2008) and one armed robbery arrest (in December 2007).
There were 12 documented police calls for service to El Club Restaurante between 2006 and 2010. These included four burglaries, two assaults and a shooting.
Between May 2006 and November 2010, Houston police responded to the residence of Maria Rojas and Javier Belmontes eight times. On three occasions, police spoke with and documented a complaint by Jose Luis Rojas. On November 1, 2010, Jose Luis Rojas reported an armed robbery by six unknown assailants. Three weeks later, Jose Luis Rojas reported receiving a telephonic death threat.
According to the Houston Chronicle, police officers were well aware of the illegal activity taking place at the La Costeñita location:
So notorious is the bar that undercover Texas alcohol investigators long ago documented its seedy intricacies: an escape hatch, a hidden passageway leading to decrepit and gated houses of prostitution described as “horse stalls.” Federal, state and local agents learned by name and face many key characters who operated La Costenita and made repeated — but only partially successful efforts — to stop them.
Despite the repeated visits to these establishments, Maria and Jose Luis Rojas continued to operate their sex trafficking operation unfettered for approximately a decade. A simple check with ICE about Ms. Rojas, any of the arrestees or the young girls forced into prostitution, would have indicated their illegal status, and might have led to the earlier termination of the sex slave trafficking ring.
However, Houston is a de facto sanctuary city because of Houston PD General Order 500-5. The order, signed by former chief Sam Nuchia in January 1990, states in part that “officers shall not make inquiries as to the citizenship status of any person, nor will officers detain or arrest persons solely on the belief that they are in this country illegally. Officers will contact the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) regarding a person only if that person is arrested on a separate criminal charge (other than a class C misdemeanor) and the officer knows the prisoner is an illegal alien.”
“Sanctuary policies in Houston allowed young women to be victimized by illegal alien sex traffickers. Houston and other sanctuary cities undermine the rule of law and thwart control of our borders. And they lead to the brutal crimes associated with human trafficking. So while the Obama administration goes after Arizona for furthering our nation’s immigration laws, it ignores cities like Houston that think they don’t have to obey laws concerning illegal immigration,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
PoSTCaRDs FRoM THe OBLiVioN (II)
PoSTCaRDs FRoM THe OBLiVioN (II)
Individual Links! (To keep the suspense going)
#1 Greetings from Iran
#2 Hint: Think Iran, think Tony Weiner
#3 Wall Streets best kept secret
#4 North Korea's favorite Chia Pet
#5 EXPOSED! The Democrat's Caccoon located in Nevada
#6 Bilderberg Builders Corporate Headquarters
#7 IMF Parking Garage?
#8 Welcome to beautiful Abbottabad
#9 A grass hut in the third world country of Gaza (notable devastation)
#10 Camp FEMA Orphanage for inspiring "civilian army" enlistees
#11 European Titanic (economy version)
#12 Democratic Swap Party ( Mortgage Edition)
#13 Detroit Welcomes You!!!
#14 Energy Appreciation Week (Sunstein Edition)
#15 Libyan Tourism Brochure
#16 SHALOM!!!
#17 Same day Delivery Guaranteed!
#18 What the French Maid saw!!
Just think of all the other great places you could be this Fourth of July Weekend...
Happy BBQ, Fireworks and Crypto-Democracy...
Individual Links! (To keep the suspense going)
#1 Greetings from Iran
#2 Hint: Think Iran, think Tony Weiner
#3 Wall Streets best kept secret
#4 North Korea's favorite Chia Pet
#5 EXPOSED! The Democrat's Caccoon located in Nevada
#6 Bilderberg Builders Corporate Headquarters
#7 IMF Parking Garage?
#8 Welcome to beautiful Abbottabad
#9 A grass hut in the third world country of Gaza (notable devastation)
#10 Camp FEMA Orphanage for inspiring "civilian army" enlistees
#11 European Titanic (economy version)
#12 Democratic Swap Party ( Mortgage Edition)
#13 Detroit Welcomes You!!!
#14 Energy Appreciation Week (Sunstein Edition)
#15 Libyan Tourism Brochure
#16 SHALOM!!!
#17 Same day Delivery Guaranteed!
#18 What the French Maid saw!!
Just think of all the other great places you could be this Fourth of July Weekend...
Happy BBQ, Fireworks and Crypto-Democracy...
Project Gunrunner Weapons Appear in Arizona Crimes
As the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (still known as ATF) is contending with the findings of a House Oversight Report regarding the failure of its Project Gunrunner, new evidence indicates even more negative consequences of the government operation. It is now known that ATF weapons — which U.S. officials involved in the project allowed to be purchased by suspicious individuals in the United States and then “walked” to and distributed in Mexico — have been turning up in Arizona drug crimes.
As reported by Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com, Project Gunrunner:
was a project of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fireworks [sic]. In late 2009, the ATF was alerted to suspicious buys at seven gun shops in the Phoenix area. Suspicious because the buyers paid cash, sometimes brought in paper bags. And they purchased classic “weapons of choice” used by Mexican drug traffickers — semi-automatic versions of military type rifles and pistols. According to news reports several gun shops wanted to stop the questionable sales, but the Bureau encouraged them to continue.
ATF managers allegedly made a controversial decision: allow most of the weapons on the streets. The idea, they said, was to gather intelligence and see where the guns ended up. Insiders say it’s a dangerous tactic called letting the guns “walk.”
The Bureau's project proved to be an abysmal failure for a number of reasons, including the fact that the very month in which the ATF permitted gun smugglers to purchase 359 guns, 958 people died from gunfire in Mexico. Likewise, the ATF's “walking” guns have been linked to the death of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.
An ABC15 news report from Phoenix now indicates that several weapons from local investigations of drug-related crimes have been tied to the ATF-approved sales permitted under Operation Fast and Furious, a.k.a. Project Gunrunner:
The ABC15 investigators uncovered documents showing [that] guns connected to at least two Glendale criminal cases and at least two Phoenix criminal cases also appear in the ATF’s Suspect Gun Database, a sort-of watch list for suspicious gun sales.
All four cases involve drug-related offenses. In one Glendale police report dated July 2010, police investigators working with DEA agents served search warrants at homes near 75th and Glendale avenues in Glendale, and 43rd and Glendale avenues in Phoenix as part of a “large scale marijuana trafficking” investigation.
Police investigators reported finding three guns inside the home, one of which appeared in an official ATF Suspect Gun Summary document in November 2009. ABC15 News continues:
In a separate Glendale Police Department case, dated November 2010, detectives discovered “bulk marijuana and weapons” inside a residence near 75th Avenue and Bethany Home Road in Glendale. Investigators recovered nearly 400 pounds of drugs and several firearms from the home.
One of the recovered weapons, a Romarm/Cugir WASR-10 rifle, appeared in an official ATF Suspect Gun Summary document in February 2010.
Recently, the House Oversight Committee released a report documenting a number of findings related to the failure of the Project Gunrunner program. The report included the testimony of four ATF agents who came forward, risking their careers, to speak out against the dangerous strategies being undertaken by the ATF.
The report implicates not only the ATF but also the Justice Department, which helped maintain records of the weapons that were permitted to "walk" and the crime areas in which they appeared.
As a result of the report, an investigation is being launched by the Department of Justice Inspector General; however, most analysts contend that the inquiry poses a conflict of interest, given the relationship between the DOJ and the ATF, and also the DOJ's role in the implementation of the project.
As reported by Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com, Project Gunrunner:
was a project of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fireworks [sic]. In late 2009, the ATF was alerted to suspicious buys at seven gun shops in the Phoenix area. Suspicious because the buyers paid cash, sometimes brought in paper bags. And they purchased classic “weapons of choice” used by Mexican drug traffickers — semi-automatic versions of military type rifles and pistols. According to news reports several gun shops wanted to stop the questionable sales, but the Bureau encouraged them to continue.
ATF managers allegedly made a controversial decision: allow most of the weapons on the streets. The idea, they said, was to gather intelligence and see where the guns ended up. Insiders say it’s a dangerous tactic called letting the guns “walk.”
The Bureau's project proved to be an abysmal failure for a number of reasons, including the fact that the very month in which the ATF permitted gun smugglers to purchase 359 guns, 958 people died from gunfire in Mexico. Likewise, the ATF's “walking” guns have been linked to the death of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.
An ABC15 news report from Phoenix now indicates that several weapons from local investigations of drug-related crimes have been tied to the ATF-approved sales permitted under Operation Fast and Furious, a.k.a. Project Gunrunner:
The ABC15 investigators uncovered documents showing [that] guns connected to at least two Glendale criminal cases and at least two Phoenix criminal cases also appear in the ATF’s Suspect Gun Database, a sort-of watch list for suspicious gun sales.
All four cases involve drug-related offenses. In one Glendale police report dated July 2010, police investigators working with DEA agents served search warrants at homes near 75th and Glendale avenues in Glendale, and 43rd and Glendale avenues in Phoenix as part of a “large scale marijuana trafficking” investigation.
Police investigators reported finding three guns inside the home, one of which appeared in an official ATF Suspect Gun Summary document in November 2009. ABC15 News continues:
In a separate Glendale Police Department case, dated November 2010, detectives discovered “bulk marijuana and weapons” inside a residence near 75th Avenue and Bethany Home Road in Glendale. Investigators recovered nearly 400 pounds of drugs and several firearms from the home.
One of the recovered weapons, a Romarm/Cugir WASR-10 rifle, appeared in an official ATF Suspect Gun Summary document in February 2010.
Recently, the House Oversight Committee released a report documenting a number of findings related to the failure of the Project Gunrunner program. The report included the testimony of four ATF agents who came forward, risking their careers, to speak out against the dangerous strategies being undertaken by the ATF.
The report implicates not only the ATF but also the Justice Department, which helped maintain records of the weapons that were permitted to "walk" and the crime areas in which they appeared.
As a result of the report, an investigation is being launched by the Department of Justice Inspector General; however, most analysts contend that the inquiry poses a conflict of interest, given the relationship between the DOJ and the ATF, and also the DOJ's role in the implementation of the project.
The genius of Democrat governance: 'Massive error' in new California tax code causes triple taxation on small businesses
When you've lost the San Francisco Chronicle...
California and Governor Jerry Brown made a massive error in the formation of a California Online Tax, that amounts to triple taxation in the state for online S-corporations. Amazon and Overstock aren't the only ones hurt by the new tax, and it should be challenged in court...
Unfortunately, Governor Brown has signed into law the bill that we emailed you about earlier today. As a result of this, contracts with all California residents participating in the Amazon Associates Program are terminated effective today, June 29, 2011...
...Frankly, while the law itself has many affiliates hoping mad, it was bound to happen. But the law's got a nasty bug in it that must be cleared up. I'll use my online sports game company as an example.
The State Of California has already taxed my Internet company for income earned. All of our sales are online. Plus, they get me for a personal income tax!
Under the new law, an online company like mine could be taxed three times: for total income tax, corporate, tax and then for sales tax. That's too much.
There's nothing in the law preventing such a scenario from happening, because there's to language to restrict the State Of California from such an action. If you're an online legal California Corporation, you're going to get taxed three times. It's that simple.
...It sets up a massive incentive for thousands of California Corporations to just quit the state and find other homes... One day next year, Governor Brown's going to wake up to the reality of no new taxes collected, and a massive exodus of Internet vendors. By then, any retro action would be too little, too late.
That's okay.
Send the businesses our way. We need smart, talented entrepreneurs who want to live in a free state. I mean, a Red State.
California and Governor Jerry Brown made a massive error in the formation of a California Online Tax, that amounts to triple taxation in the state for online S-corporations. Amazon and Overstock aren't the only ones hurt by the new tax, and it should be challenged in court...
Unfortunately, Governor Brown has signed into law the bill that we emailed you about earlier today. As a result of this, contracts with all California residents participating in the Amazon Associates Program are terminated effective today, June 29, 2011...
...Frankly, while the law itself has many affiliates hoping mad, it was bound to happen. But the law's got a nasty bug in it that must be cleared up. I'll use my online sports game company as an example.
The State Of California has already taxed my Internet company for income earned. All of our sales are online. Plus, they get me for a personal income tax!
Under the new law, an online company like mine could be taxed three times: for total income tax, corporate, tax and then for sales tax. That's too much.
There's nothing in the law preventing such a scenario from happening, because there's to language to restrict the State Of California from such an action. If you're an online legal California Corporation, you're going to get taxed three times. It's that simple.
...It sets up a massive incentive for thousands of California Corporations to just quit the state and find other homes... One day next year, Governor Brown's going to wake up to the reality of no new taxes collected, and a massive exodus of Internet vendors. By then, any retro action would be too little, too late.
That's okay.
Send the businesses our way. We need smart, talented entrepreneurs who want to live in a free state. I mean, a Red State.
Democrat Councilwoman Who Stuffed Bribe In Bra Pleads Guilty, Won’t Quit
A prominent Maryland councilwoman who made international headlines for flushing a bribe down the toilet and stuffing another in her underwear has pleaded guilty to a felony but won’t leave her $96,417-a-year public job.
The unbelievably pompous move has led the area’s largest newspaper to blast the lawmaker, Prince George’s County Councilwoman Leslie Johnson, as a “case study in arrogance.” Every day she serves in public office and every act she commits in her official capacity is a disgrace to the county and her constituents, the editorial says.
In November Johnson and her equally corrupt husband (Jack Johnson) got arrested for operating a large-scale bribery scheme. Jack, a former county executive, recently got convicted of accepting more than $400,000 in bribes from developers as the county’s top elected official. Leslie tried to cover up the bribes by flushing a $100,000 check down the toilet and stuffing nearly $80,000 in her bra when federal agents came snooping.
The Johnsons were well known in the state as an African-American power couple. As Maryland’s largest county with a population of about 835,000 and 27 municipalities, Prince George’s County has the distinction of being the nation’s wealthiest with a black majority of residents. The Johnsons have even appeared on the cover of a major newspaper’s Sunday magazine as the stars of an article touting the county as a hub for educated black professionals.
For years the feds suspected that Jack and other county officials had been taking bribes from real estate developers in exchange for personal and business favors. As FBI agents tried to search the Johnson mansion, Jack ordered his wife to flush a bribe from a developer down the toilet and hide the rest in her underwear.
The feds recorded the incriminating telephone conversation and subsequently found $79,000 in cash stuffed into Leslie Johnson’s bra, according to federal prosecutors. The bribes were paid to Jack Johnson by a developer who needed his help securing federal grants for affordable housing projects, according to the feds.
This week Leslie, who is an attorney and once served as a judge in the District of Columbia, pleaded guilty to destroying evidence, but she refuses to resign from the council despite calls from colleagues and the media to quit. “I look forward to continuing to serve and help the lives of those in need,” Johnson said told the media as she left court.
Leslie could go to jail for more than a year, which of course, means that she will then be forced to relinquish her public office. Her sentencing is scheduled for October. Under Maryland law elected officials convicted of felonies must resign but a conviction evidently isn’t final until sentencing. In the meantime, District 6 will be represented by a handsomely paid felon.
The unbelievably pompous move has led the area’s largest newspaper to blast the lawmaker, Prince George’s County Councilwoman Leslie Johnson, as a “case study in arrogance.” Every day she serves in public office and every act she commits in her official capacity is a disgrace to the county and her constituents, the editorial says.
In November Johnson and her equally corrupt husband (Jack Johnson) got arrested for operating a large-scale bribery scheme. Jack, a former county executive, recently got convicted of accepting more than $400,000 in bribes from developers as the county’s top elected official. Leslie tried to cover up the bribes by flushing a $100,000 check down the toilet and stuffing nearly $80,000 in her bra when federal agents came snooping.
The Johnsons were well known in the state as an African-American power couple. As Maryland’s largest county with a population of about 835,000 and 27 municipalities, Prince George’s County has the distinction of being the nation’s wealthiest with a black majority of residents. The Johnsons have even appeared on the cover of a major newspaper’s Sunday magazine as the stars of an article touting the county as a hub for educated black professionals.
For years the feds suspected that Jack and other county officials had been taking bribes from real estate developers in exchange for personal and business favors. As FBI agents tried to search the Johnson mansion, Jack ordered his wife to flush a bribe from a developer down the toilet and hide the rest in her underwear.
The feds recorded the incriminating telephone conversation and subsequently found $79,000 in cash stuffed into Leslie Johnson’s bra, according to federal prosecutors. The bribes were paid to Jack Johnson by a developer who needed his help securing federal grants for affordable housing projects, according to the feds.
This week Leslie, who is an attorney and once served as a judge in the District of Columbia, pleaded guilty to destroying evidence, but she refuses to resign from the council despite calls from colleagues and the media to quit. “I look forward to continuing to serve and help the lives of those in need,” Johnson said told the media as she left court.
Leslie could go to jail for more than a year, which of course, means that she will then be forced to relinquish her public office. Her sentencing is scheduled for October. Under Maryland law elected officials convicted of felonies must resign but a conviction evidently isn’t final until sentencing. In the meantime, District 6 will be represented by a handsomely paid felon.
Maid cleaning up as 'hooker'
* Big tips for extra 'turndown service' * Prosecutors list litany of lies, scams
Dominique Strauss-Kahn's accuser wasn't just a girl working at a hotel -- she was a working girl.
The Sofitel housekeeper who claims the former IMF boss sexually assaulted her in his room was doing double duty as a prostitute, collecting cash on the side from male guests, The Post has learned.
"There is information . . . of her getting extraordinary tips, if you know what I mean. And it's not for bringing extra f--king towels," a source close to the defense investigation said yesterday.
PHOTOS: DOMINIQUE STRAUSS-KAHN
FRENCH ARE READY TO FIGHT
FILTHY FROGGY STILL A WART HOG
'NO WAY SHE SURVIVES A CROSS EXAMINATION'
ANOTHER DEBACLE FOR BLACK-EYE CY
The woman was allegedly purposely assigned to the Midtown hotel by her union because it knew she would bring in big bucks.
"When you're a chambermaid at Local 6, when you first get to the US, you start at the motels at JFK [Airport]. You don't start at the Sofitel," the source said. "There's a whole squad of people who saw her as an earner."
The woman also had "a lot of her expenses -- hair braiding, salon expenses -- paid for by men not related to her," the source said.
Allegations that she worked as a hotel hooker may explain why Strauss-Kahn insists their encounter was consensual. His defense attorneys refused yesterday to comment on the damning evidence -- or say whether he paid her for sex.
Sources also told The Post Strauss-Kahn's probers uncovered evidence that she was part of a pyramid scheme that targeted immigrants from her native Guinea.
"We have people who have been victimized, who have claimed she ripped them off. Nice working people from her neighborhood," a source said.
The stunning new info surfaced yesterday as the accuser was unmasked as a pathological liar and scam artist by prosecutors whose rape case has unraveled.
Strauss-Kahn -- who was under house arrest with a $5 million bond -- was released without bail after the Manhattan DA's Office admitted that the maid repeatedly lied to them about the alleged attack and her personal history.
Most damning to the case is that she flat-out lied on her asylum application that she was the "victim of a gang rape" in Guinea -- memorizing a cassette tape that coached her on what to say, according to a letter prosecutors sent to the defense.
"She reiterated these falsehoods when questioned about her history and background, and stated that she did so in order to remain consistent with the statement that she had submitted as part of her application," prosecutors said in the letter.
"Presently, the complainant states that she would that she was raped in the past in her native country but in an incident different than the one that she described during initial interviews."
To get tax benefits, she also claimed she had a second child. She only has one, a 15-year-old daughter.
"She also admitted to misrepresenting her income in order to maintain her present housing," the letter said.
Prosecutors said the woman lied to a grand jury by testifying she immediately alerted a supervisor about the assault.
The maid actually cleaned a neighboring suite on the 28th floor and then scrubbed Strauss-Kahn's room before she reported the incident to her boss.
Twenty-eight hours after the alleged sexual assault, the woman talked to her boyfriend in an immigration jail in Arizona -- saying "words to the effect of, 'Don't worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I'm doing,' " The New York Times quoted an official saying.
The bombshell disclosures will likely force the DA to drop all charges against the banking big shot.
"I understand that the circumstances surrounding the case have changed substantially," Judge Michael Obus said as he ordered Strauss-Kahn's $1 million bail and $5 million bond returned and gave permission for him to travel anywhere in the United States without restriction.
His passport was not returned.
"In the meantime, there will be no rush to judgment in this case," said Obus, adding, "I expect the process will go on in a manner that is fair as can be."
Strauss-Kahn, considered before his May 14 arrest to be a leading candidate for the French presidency, happily strode out of Manhattan Supreme Court holding hands with loyal wife Anne Sinclair after the brief, dramatic hearing.
"On the eve of Independence Day, we get to celebrate with Mr. Strauss-Kahn and his family a bit of personal independence," said his lawyer, Benjamin Brafman. "This is a giant step in the right direction. The next step will lead to complete dismissal of the charges."
Strauss-Kahn's first taste of freedom came last night at the cozy -- and pricey -- Upper East Side Italian eatery Scalinatella, where he sipped red wine with his wife and a security detail at a celebratory meal that cost $700.
Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr., said that although his investigators have "raised concerns about the complaining witnesses' credibility . . . today's proceedings did not dismiss the indictment, or any of the charges."
The maid's lawyer, Kenneth Thompson, blasted Vance, accusing prosecutors of sabotaging their own case despite strong evidence of rape.
"Our concern is that District Attorney Vance is too afraid to try this case," Thompson said. "We believe he's afraid he's going to lose this high-profile case" like he did the trials over an alleged cop rape and the Deutsche Bank Building fire.
Thompson called allegations about her call to a jailed friend -- and that she had a bank account that contained $100,000 deposited by several people over two years -- "a lie."
When asked about the maid supposedly cleaning the rooms before reporting that she had been attacked, Thompson said she was very upset at the time and "did not know what to do."
The lawyer said there was other evidence against Strauss-Kahn, including hotel security video that shows him looking "nervous" afterward with "toothpaste smeared outside of his mouth."
Thompson admitted she lied on her asylum application but said she did so because "the victim is also a victim of female genital mutilation" and was desperate to shield her daughter from the same fate.
A spokesman for the hotel union denied it placed the victim at the Sofitel.
"These allegations are absurd," spokesman Josh Gold said. "She never registered at our hiring hall. We never sent her for a single interview. We absolutely did not place her at the hotel and we do not track tips."
The Lies She Told
“I cowered in fear after DSK’s attack.” She told a grand jury under oath that after she was sexually assaulted in DSK’s hotel Suite No. 2806, she fled down the hall, where she cowered until she saw him leave for the elevator. She then immediately told her supervisors of the attack, she said.
TRUTH: She eventually confessed to prosecutors that what she really did after the “attack” was clean two rooms, including Suite No. 2806. Only then did she tell hotel staff what had “happened.”
“I was gang-raped by Guinean soldiers.” DSK’s 32-year-old accuser swore in asylum paperwork that in retaliation for her family’s political opposition to Guinea’s dictatorship, she had been beaten and raped by a mob of soldiers. Prosecutors say she sobbed and “appeared distraught” as she recounted the ordeal.
TRUTH: “In subsequent interviews, she admitted that the gang rape had never occurred,” prosecutors told defense lawyers in legal documents. “Instead, she stated that she had lied about its occurrence and fabricated the details.”
“I have two children.” Prosecutors say that for the past two tax years, DSK’s accuser declared she had two children as dependents on her tax returns.
TRUTH: “She declared a friend’s child in addition to her own as a dependent on her tax returns for the purpose of increasing her tax refund beyond that to which she was entitled,” prosecutors say in court papers. She is actually the mother of only one child, a 15-year-old girl.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn's accuser wasn't just a girl working at a hotel -- she was a working girl.
The Sofitel housekeeper who claims the former IMF boss sexually assaulted her in his room was doing double duty as a prostitute, collecting cash on the side from male guests, The Post has learned.
"There is information . . . of her getting extraordinary tips, if you know what I mean. And it's not for bringing extra f--king towels," a source close to the defense investigation said yesterday.
PHOTOS: DOMINIQUE STRAUSS-KAHN
FRENCH ARE READY TO FIGHT
FILTHY FROGGY STILL A WART HOG
'NO WAY SHE SURVIVES A CROSS EXAMINATION'
ANOTHER DEBACLE FOR BLACK-EYE CY
The woman was allegedly purposely assigned to the Midtown hotel by her union because it knew she would bring in big bucks.
"When you're a chambermaid at Local 6, when you first get to the US, you start at the motels at JFK [Airport]. You don't start at the Sofitel," the source said. "There's a whole squad of people who saw her as an earner."
The woman also had "a lot of her expenses -- hair braiding, salon expenses -- paid for by men not related to her," the source said.
Allegations that she worked as a hotel hooker may explain why Strauss-Kahn insists their encounter was consensual. His defense attorneys refused yesterday to comment on the damning evidence -- or say whether he paid her for sex.
Sources also told The Post Strauss-Kahn's probers uncovered evidence that she was part of a pyramid scheme that targeted immigrants from her native Guinea.
"We have people who have been victimized, who have claimed she ripped them off. Nice working people from her neighborhood," a source said.
The stunning new info surfaced yesterday as the accuser was unmasked as a pathological liar and scam artist by prosecutors whose rape case has unraveled.
Strauss-Kahn -- who was under house arrest with a $5 million bond -- was released without bail after the Manhattan DA's Office admitted that the maid repeatedly lied to them about the alleged attack and her personal history.
Most damning to the case is that she flat-out lied on her asylum application that she was the "victim of a gang rape" in Guinea -- memorizing a cassette tape that coached her on what to say, according to a letter prosecutors sent to the defense.
"She reiterated these falsehoods when questioned about her history and background, and stated that she did so in order to remain consistent with the statement that she had submitted as part of her application," prosecutors said in the letter.
"Presently, the complainant states that she would that she was raped in the past in her native country but in an incident different than the one that she described during initial interviews."
To get tax benefits, she also claimed she had a second child. She only has one, a 15-year-old daughter.
"She also admitted to misrepresenting her income in order to maintain her present housing," the letter said.
Prosecutors said the woman lied to a grand jury by testifying she immediately alerted a supervisor about the assault.
The maid actually cleaned a neighboring suite on the 28th floor and then scrubbed Strauss-Kahn's room before she reported the incident to her boss.
Twenty-eight hours after the alleged sexual assault, the woman talked to her boyfriend in an immigration jail in Arizona -- saying "words to the effect of, 'Don't worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I'm doing,' " The New York Times quoted an official saying.
The bombshell disclosures will likely force the DA to drop all charges against the banking big shot.
"I understand that the circumstances surrounding the case have changed substantially," Judge Michael Obus said as he ordered Strauss-Kahn's $1 million bail and $5 million bond returned and gave permission for him to travel anywhere in the United States without restriction.
His passport was not returned.
"In the meantime, there will be no rush to judgment in this case," said Obus, adding, "I expect the process will go on in a manner that is fair as can be."
Strauss-Kahn, considered before his May 14 arrest to be a leading candidate for the French presidency, happily strode out of Manhattan Supreme Court holding hands with loyal wife Anne Sinclair after the brief, dramatic hearing.
"On the eve of Independence Day, we get to celebrate with Mr. Strauss-Kahn and his family a bit of personal independence," said his lawyer, Benjamin Brafman. "This is a giant step in the right direction. The next step will lead to complete dismissal of the charges."
Strauss-Kahn's first taste of freedom came last night at the cozy -- and pricey -- Upper East Side Italian eatery Scalinatella, where he sipped red wine with his wife and a security detail at a celebratory meal that cost $700.
Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr., said that although his investigators have "raised concerns about the complaining witnesses' credibility . . . today's proceedings did not dismiss the indictment, or any of the charges."
The maid's lawyer, Kenneth Thompson, blasted Vance, accusing prosecutors of sabotaging their own case despite strong evidence of rape.
"Our concern is that District Attorney Vance is too afraid to try this case," Thompson said. "We believe he's afraid he's going to lose this high-profile case" like he did the trials over an alleged cop rape and the Deutsche Bank Building fire.
Thompson called allegations about her call to a jailed friend -- and that she had a bank account that contained $100,000 deposited by several people over two years -- "a lie."
When asked about the maid supposedly cleaning the rooms before reporting that she had been attacked, Thompson said she was very upset at the time and "did not know what to do."
The lawyer said there was other evidence against Strauss-Kahn, including hotel security video that shows him looking "nervous" afterward with "toothpaste smeared outside of his mouth."
Thompson admitted she lied on her asylum application but said she did so because "the victim is also a victim of female genital mutilation" and was desperate to shield her daughter from the same fate.
A spokesman for the hotel union denied it placed the victim at the Sofitel.
"These allegations are absurd," spokesman Josh Gold said. "She never registered at our hiring hall. We never sent her for a single interview. We absolutely did not place her at the hotel and we do not track tips."
The Lies She Told
“I cowered in fear after DSK’s attack.” She told a grand jury under oath that after she was sexually assaulted in DSK’s hotel Suite No. 2806, she fled down the hall, where she cowered until she saw him leave for the elevator. She then immediately told her supervisors of the attack, she said.
TRUTH: She eventually confessed to prosecutors that what she really did after the “attack” was clean two rooms, including Suite No. 2806. Only then did she tell hotel staff what had “happened.”
“I was gang-raped by Guinean soldiers.” DSK’s 32-year-old accuser swore in asylum paperwork that in retaliation for her family’s political opposition to Guinea’s dictatorship, she had been beaten and raped by a mob of soldiers. Prosecutors say she sobbed and “appeared distraught” as she recounted the ordeal.
TRUTH: “In subsequent interviews, she admitted that the gang rape had never occurred,” prosecutors told defense lawyers in legal documents. “Instead, she stated that she had lied about its occurrence and fabricated the details.”
“I have two children.” Prosecutors say that for the past two tax years, DSK’s accuser declared she had two children as dependents on her tax returns.
TRUTH: “She declared a friend’s child in addition to her own as a dependent on her tax returns for the purpose of increasing her tax refund beyond that to which she was entitled,” prosecutors say in court papers. She is actually the mother of only one child, a 15-year-old girl.
Harvey Milk, the New Gay MLK?
The California State Senate just passed a bill called the Fair Education Act, which bears the same Orwellian relationship to fairness as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea does to democracy. According to Fox News:
[G]ay rights activists in California are moving closer to victory in the classroom, which, under pending legislation, would become "gender sensitive" zones, mandating history lessons about gays and transgender Americans.
If the State Assembly passes the bill, it will add the strength of law to what is perhaps an irreversible trend: transforming history class into an affirmative action program that retroactively rights the wrongs perpetrated by privileged white straight males. In the words of State Sen. Mark Leno, the bill's author, the Fair Education Act "will require that roles and contributions of LGBT Americans, not unlike African-Americans, Mexican Americans, women, and other traditionally overlooked groups, be included in school curriculum."
Since the school day is not infinite, every inclusion in the curriculum requires a subtraction. Thus high schoolers know more about Harriet Tubman than George Washington. Time is allocated to study Malcolm X, but World War II gets passing mention as the event that precipitated Japanese internment camps.
Victim classes require a representative face: black women have Rosa Parks, Mexican Americans have Cesar Chavez, etc. Who then should be the face of LGBT Americans? When I wrack my brain for towering historical figures in the transgender American community, I come up blank. RuPaul? Or is he a transvestite? It's so hard keeping all these categories straight. And why do we need both L and G? Aren't lesbians gay? But I digress. According to the Fox story: "Supporters suggest slain San Francisco politician Harvey Milk would be an appropriate choice" for inclusion in the curriculum.
As it happens, last month my eighth grade daughter was assigned to do a paper on Harvey Milk. Like most of us who live outside San Francisco, I was fuzzy about the murder of a politician in 1978, but knowing that Sean Penn played him in the movie was enough to raise my suspicions. My daughter asked for some help finding resources on Milk's life, and I suggested she expand the suggested hagiographic bibliography to things like the devastating account by Daniel Flynn that appeared in City Journal in May 2009. Flynn makes the following points:
--"As a supervisor, Milk sponsored only two laws-predictably, one barring anti-gay discrimination, and, less so, a law forcing dog owners to clean pets' messes from sidewalks." Eleven months on the city council," Flynn writes, "hardly seems the stuff of Hollywood legend."
"Milk was a short-tempered demagogue who cynically invented stories of victimhood to advance his political career," including falsely accusing Anita Bryant of setting off a bomb in front of his camera store. It is suspected that Milk himself set off the bomb to get publicity for his campaign.
--Milk's murderer was not motivated by homophobia.
--Milk was an admirer of Rev. Jim Jones (of Jonestown Kool-Aid-massacre fame). When Jones kidnapped a six-year old boy and brought him to Guyana, Milk wrote a letter to President Carter praising Jones and urging the President not to take action against the People's Temple.
None of these inconvenient facts matter to the proponents of Fair Education. All we need take away from history class is that Milk was a gay martyr slain by the homophobia that dominates American life, just as MLK was slain by omnipresent American racism. And isn't it eerie that the name MILK is so similar to MLK?
[G]ay rights activists in California are moving closer to victory in the classroom, which, under pending legislation, would become "gender sensitive" zones, mandating history lessons about gays and transgender Americans.
If the State Assembly passes the bill, it will add the strength of law to what is perhaps an irreversible trend: transforming history class into an affirmative action program that retroactively rights the wrongs perpetrated by privileged white straight males. In the words of State Sen. Mark Leno, the bill's author, the Fair Education Act "will require that roles and contributions of LGBT Americans, not unlike African-Americans, Mexican Americans, women, and other traditionally overlooked groups, be included in school curriculum."
Since the school day is not infinite, every inclusion in the curriculum requires a subtraction. Thus high schoolers know more about Harriet Tubman than George Washington. Time is allocated to study Malcolm X, but World War II gets passing mention as the event that precipitated Japanese internment camps.
Victim classes require a representative face: black women have Rosa Parks, Mexican Americans have Cesar Chavez, etc. Who then should be the face of LGBT Americans? When I wrack my brain for towering historical figures in the transgender American community, I come up blank. RuPaul? Or is he a transvestite? It's so hard keeping all these categories straight. And why do we need both L and G? Aren't lesbians gay? But I digress. According to the Fox story: "Supporters suggest slain San Francisco politician Harvey Milk would be an appropriate choice" for inclusion in the curriculum.
As it happens, last month my eighth grade daughter was assigned to do a paper on Harvey Milk. Like most of us who live outside San Francisco, I was fuzzy about the murder of a politician in 1978, but knowing that Sean Penn played him in the movie was enough to raise my suspicions. My daughter asked for some help finding resources on Milk's life, and I suggested she expand the suggested hagiographic bibliography to things like the devastating account by Daniel Flynn that appeared in City Journal in May 2009. Flynn makes the following points:
--"As a supervisor, Milk sponsored only two laws-predictably, one barring anti-gay discrimination, and, less so, a law forcing dog owners to clean pets' messes from sidewalks." Eleven months on the city council," Flynn writes, "hardly seems the stuff of Hollywood legend."
"Milk was a short-tempered demagogue who cynically invented stories of victimhood to advance his political career," including falsely accusing Anita Bryant of setting off a bomb in front of his camera store. It is suspected that Milk himself set off the bomb to get publicity for his campaign.
--Milk's murderer was not motivated by homophobia.
--Milk was an admirer of Rev. Jim Jones (of Jonestown Kool-Aid-massacre fame). When Jones kidnapped a six-year old boy and brought him to Guyana, Milk wrote a letter to President Carter praising Jones and urging the President not to take action against the People's Temple.
None of these inconvenient facts matter to the proponents of Fair Education. All we need take away from history class is that Milk was a gay martyr slain by the homophobia that dominates American life, just as MLK was slain by omnipresent American racism. And isn't it eerie that the name MILK is so similar to MLK?
Here's How World Markets Really Performed During QE2:
QE2 is over.
It ended Friday. And though markets have been on a surprising spurt of optimism over the last few days, there's still considerable concern about how markets will behave now that it's over.
We won't hazard a guess here, but in case you haven't seen it, we put together a quick guide to how various markets around the world behaved since QE2 began with Bernanke's famous Jackson Hole speech.
Click here to see what happened during QE2 >
It ended Friday. And though markets have been on a surprising spurt of optimism over the last few days, there's still considerable concern about how markets will behave now that it's over.
We won't hazard a guess here, but in case you haven't seen it, we put together a quick guide to how various markets around the world behaved since QE2 began with Bernanke's famous Jackson Hole speech.
Click here to see what happened during QE2 >
Obama Campaign to Combat Pro-Israel Groups
The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent – the go-to reporter for the White House’s opinion on the White House’s relationship with Jewish voters – writes today the Obama campaign is planning to send out surrogates to go on the offensive against pro-Israel groups critical of the president’s Israel policy.
“We will have highly credible spokespeople and surrogates speak out in a general manner in support of what this administration has done, and articulate it in a way that we think will resonate with voters who care about this issue,” former Conference of Presidents leader Alan Solow told Sargent. “We will meet with supporters who have expressed concerns or want to be briefed on these issues on a one-on-one basis.”
Sargent reports the surrogates will include a star-studded cast of B-list Jewish Obama fundraisers, including Solow, former U.S. Reps. Mel Levine and Robert Wexler, and left-of-J-Street businesswoman Penny Pritzker.
It’s unclear whether this unremarkable line-up is a result of the White House simply being unaware of who the relevant figures are in the pro-Israel community, or whether the administration just wasn’t able to get any influential Israel supporters to join its efforts.
But the new strategy indicates that something – perhaps internal polling data or problems with key pro-Israel donors – is suddenly making the Obama campaign very concerned about losing Jewish supporters.
“We will have highly credible spokespeople and surrogates speak out in a general manner in support of what this administration has done, and articulate it in a way that we think will resonate with voters who care about this issue,” former Conference of Presidents leader Alan Solow told Sargent. “We will meet with supporters who have expressed concerns or want to be briefed on these issues on a one-on-one basis.”
Sargent reports the surrogates will include a star-studded cast of B-list Jewish Obama fundraisers, including Solow, former U.S. Reps. Mel Levine and Robert Wexler, and left-of-J-Street businesswoman Penny Pritzker.
It’s unclear whether this unremarkable line-up is a result of the White House simply being unaware of who the relevant figures are in the pro-Israel community, or whether the administration just wasn’t able to get any influential Israel supporters to join its efforts.
But the new strategy indicates that something – perhaps internal polling data or problems with key pro-Israel donors – is suddenly making the Obama campaign very concerned about losing Jewish supporters.
Comprehensive Amnesty Threat
Sen. Sessions: New DREAM Act is Worse than Before
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has issued a statement highlighing 10 things Americans need to know about the newly introduced DREAM Act. On Tuesday, the Senate Immigration Subcommittee held its first ever hearing on the DREAM Act, but few Senators were in attendance because of conflicts with other committee meetings and votes on the Senate floor.
In the release, Sen. Sessions said that the bill "would offer amnesty to over 2 million illegal aliens" and according to the Congressional Budget Office would add "more than $5 billion to the federal deficit".
Sen. Sessions 10 points include:
1. The DREAM Act Is NOT Limited to Children
Proponents of the DREAM Act frequently claim the bill offers relief only to illegal alien “children.” Incredibly, previous versions of the DREAM Act had no age limit at all, so illegal aliens of any age who satisfied the Act’s requirements—not just children—could obtain lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. In response to this criticism, S.952 includes a requirement that aliens be under the age of 35 on the date of enactment to be eligible for LPR status. Even with this cap, many could be much older before petitioning for status—hardly the “children” the Act’s advocates talk about. The bill’s 35- year-old age cap on “children” applies only to the date of enactment, and the registration window will remain open indefinitely regardless of future age.
2. The DREAM Act Will Be Funded On the Backs Of Hard-Working, Law-Abiding Americans
Proponents of the DREAM Act still have failed to acknowledge previous CBO estimates that its enactment would increase projected deficits by more than $5 billion. But the number is likely to be dramatically higher, as CBO estimates failed to account for a number of major cost factors with the DREAM Act, including increased unemployment of U.S. citizens, public education costs, chain migration, litigation and fraud. Nor did the CBO account for what history has proven: passing amnesty will incentivize even more illegality and lawlessness at the border. In addition, the CBO assumed a large portion of those who receive amnesty will obtain jobs, but there is no surplus of job opportunities. According to a June 2011 Report by the Center for Immigration Studies, the employment situation for U.S.-born workers and citizens who are young and less-educated – those most likely to compete with illegal aliens – is already bleak, with unemployment rates for those who have not completed high school at 34.6 percent.[1] Furthermore, previous scores failed to account for those who cannot get jobs because of this competition and will claim unemployment benefits.
In addition, DHS/USCIS will have to process DREAM Act applications (applications that would require complex, multi-step adjudication) though S.952 accounts for no fees to handle processing. This increased burden would require either additional Congressional appropriations, or for USCIS, a primarily fee-funded agency, to raise fees on other types of immigration benefit applications. This would unfairly spread the costs of administering the DREAM Act legalization program among applicants and petitioners who have abided by U.S. laws and would force taxpayers to pay for amnesty.
Though the DREAM Act does not mention fees, the CBO previously assumed all illegal aliens will pay a $700 fee to submit an application. USCIS, however, recently implemented a formal process whereby fees can be waived for hardship. It is likely that most of those petitioning for status under this bill will fall within a hardship exception and not pay any fees at all. Taxpayers would also be on the hook for federal benefits the DREAM Act seeks to offer illegal aliens, including student loans and grants, and states would be on the hook for in-state tuition for illegal aliens.
3. The DREAM Act Provides a Safe Harbor for Any Alien, Including Criminals, From Being Removed or Deported If They Simply Submit An Application
Although DREAM Act proponents claim it will benefit only those who meet certain age, presence, and educational requirements, amazingly S.952 protects ANY alien who simply submits an application for status no matter how frivolous. The bill forbids the Secretary of Homeland Security from removing “any alien who has a pending application for conditional nonimmigrant status”—regardless of age or criminal record—providing a safe harbor for millions. Though the bill requires a modest “prima facie” showing of eligibility, this is the lowest standard of legal proof and could likely be satisfied by the alien’s signature. This loophole will open the floodgates for applications that could stay pending for many years or be litigated as a delay tactic to prevent an illegal alien’s removal from the United States. Such delays will increase the number of those released on bail and will increase the number of absconders. The provision will further erode any chances of ending the rampant illegality and fraud in the existing system.
4. Certain Inadmissible Aliens and ALL Deportable Aliens, Including Those From High-Risk Regions, Will Be Eligible For Amnesty Under The DREAM Act
Certain categories of criminal aliens who are inadmissible to the United States will be eligible for DREAM Act amnesty, including alien gang members. The DREAM Act allows the following illegal aliens to be eligible for amnesty: alien absconders (aliens who failed to attend their removal proceedings), aliens who have engaged in document fraud, aliens who have falsely claimed U.S. citizenship, and aliens who have been unlawfully present in the United States, even after being previously removed.
The exemption for fraud is particularly troubling because it creates a potential loophole for unknown terrorists who have defrauded immigration authorities—as was the case with the 9/11 hijackers. At the same time, limited federal resources that are better utilized tracking down such fraud will have to be directed towards reviewing potentially fraudulent claims on millions of DREAM applications. Making matters worse, the DREAM Act allows all aliens subject to deportation, including criminals and terrorists, to be eligible for amnesty.
5. Certain Criminal Aliens—Including Drunk Drivers—Will Be Eligible For Amnesty Under The DREAM Act
Certain categories of criminal aliens can qualify for status under the DREAM Act. The bill includes a 1 felony/3-misdemeanor rule, similar to the 1986 amnesty rule. As a result, criminal aliens who have less than 3 misdemeanor convictions will remain eligible for legal, permanent status through the DREAM Act. Some misdemeanors can be extremely serious, such as driving under the influence, certain drug offenses, gang activity, some charges of sexual abuse of a minor, assault and battery, and even prostitution.
6. Conservative Estimates Suggest That At Least 2.1 Million Illegal Aliens Will Be Eligible For the DREAM Act Amnesty; In Reality, We Have No Idea How Many Illegal Aliens Will Apply
The DREAM Act waives all numerical limitations on green cards, and prohibits any numerical limitation on the number of aliens eligible for amnesty under its provisions. Last year, the Migration Policy Institute estimated that the DREAM Act would make approximately 2.1[2] million illegal aliens eligible for amnesty immediately. It is highly likely that the number of illegal aliens receiving amnesty under the DREAM Act will be much higher than estimated due to widespread fraud and our inherent inability to accurately estimate the illegal alien population. Estimates also fail to account for the chain migration that will inevitably occur once these illegal aliens are naturalized, and for children who will be eligible years down the road. The bill allows the Secretary to make those who have already met the Act’s requirements to become immediately eligible for LPR status.
7. The DREAM Act Does Not Require That an Illegal Alien Finish Any Type of Degree (Vocational, Two-Year, or Bachelor’s Degree) As a Condition of Amnesty
DREAM Act supporters would have you believe that the bill is intended to benefit illegal immigrants who have graduated from high school and are on their way to earning college degrees. However, the bill is careful to ensure that illegal alien high school drop-outs will also be put on a pathway to citizenship—they simply have to obtain a GED and be admitted to “an institution of higher education.”
Under the Higher Education Act, an “institution of higher education” includes institutions that provide 2-year programs (community colleges) and any “school that provides not less than a 1-year program of training to prepare students for gainful employment” (a vocational school). To get LPR status, the alien must prove only that they finished 2 years of a bachelor’s degree program, not that they completed any program or earned any degree. If the alien is unable to complete 2 years of college but can demonstrate that their removal would result in hardship to themselves or their U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, child, or parent (the ones who broke the law in the first place by bringing them to the United States illegally), the education requirement can be waived altogether.
Additionally, the bill provides no mechanism to combat the extensive fraud the will inevitably ensue—there is no meaningful way to verify that applicants have met even the bill’s loosest residency and education provisions. The bill is subject to extensive abuse and will worsen an already chaotic immigration situation.
8. The DREAM Act Does Not Require That an Illegal Alien Complete Military Service As a Condition For Amnesty, and There Is Already a Legal Process in Place For Illegal Aliens to Obtain U.S. Citizenship Through Military Service
DREAM Act supporters would have you believe that illegal aliens who do not go to college will earn their citizenship through service in the U.S. Armed Forces. However, the bill does not require aliens join the U.S. Armed Forces (the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Cops); instead it requires enlistment in the “uniformed services,” which covers more than simply the Armed Services. This means that aliens need only go to work for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or Public Health Service for 2 years to get U.S. citizenship. If the alien is unable to complete 2 years in the “uniformed services,” and can demonstrate that their removal would result in hardship to themselves or their U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, child, or parent (the ones who broke the law in the first place by bringing them to the United States illegally), the military service requirement can be waived altogether. Such claims will likely engender significant litigation and place a huge burden on DHS.
Furthermore, under current law (10 USC § 504), the Secretary of Defense can authorize the enlistment of illegal aliens. Once enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces, under 8 USC § 1440, these illegal aliens can become naturalized citizens through expedited processing, often obtaining U.S. citizenship in six months. Moreover, all branches of the military are currently meeting their recruitment goals.
9. Despite Their Current Illegal Status, DREAM Act Aliens Will Be Given All the Rights That Legal Immigrants Receive—Including the Legal Right To Sponsor Their Parents and Extended Family Members For Immigration
Under current federal law, U.S. citizens have the right to immigrate their “immediate relatives” to the United States without regard to numerical caps. Similarly, lawful permanent residents can immigrate their spouses and children to the United States as long as they retain their status. This means illegal aliens who receive amnesty under the DREAM Act will have the right to petition for their family members—including the parents who sent for or brought them to the United States illegally in the first place—in unlimited numbers as soon as they become U.S. citizens and are 21 years of age.
Additionally, amnestied aliens who become U.S. citizens will be able to petition for their adult siblings living abroad to immigrate to the United States, further incentivizing chain migration and potentially illegal entry into the United States (for those who do not want to wait for the petition process overseas). When an adult brother or sister receives a green card, the family (spouse and children) of the adult sibling receive green cards as well.
10. Current Illegal Aliens Will Get Federal Student Loans, Federal Work Study Programs, and Other Forms of Federal Financial Aid
Section 9 of S.952 allows illegal aliens amnestied under the bill’s provisions to immediately qualify for federal student assistance under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) in the form of federal student loans, grants, work-study programs, and other education services such as tutoring and counseling.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has issued a statement highlighing 10 things Americans need to know about the newly introduced DREAM Act. On Tuesday, the Senate Immigration Subcommittee held its first ever hearing on the DREAM Act, but few Senators were in attendance because of conflicts with other committee meetings and votes on the Senate floor.
In the release, Sen. Sessions said that the bill "would offer amnesty to over 2 million illegal aliens" and according to the Congressional Budget Office would add "more than $5 billion to the federal deficit".
Sen. Sessions 10 points include:
1. The DREAM Act Is NOT Limited to Children
Proponents of the DREAM Act frequently claim the bill offers relief only to illegal alien “children.” Incredibly, previous versions of the DREAM Act had no age limit at all, so illegal aliens of any age who satisfied the Act’s requirements—not just children—could obtain lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. In response to this criticism, S.952 includes a requirement that aliens be under the age of 35 on the date of enactment to be eligible for LPR status. Even with this cap, many could be much older before petitioning for status—hardly the “children” the Act’s advocates talk about. The bill’s 35- year-old age cap on “children” applies only to the date of enactment, and the registration window will remain open indefinitely regardless of future age.
2. The DREAM Act Will Be Funded On the Backs Of Hard-Working, Law-Abiding Americans
Proponents of the DREAM Act still have failed to acknowledge previous CBO estimates that its enactment would increase projected deficits by more than $5 billion. But the number is likely to be dramatically higher, as CBO estimates failed to account for a number of major cost factors with the DREAM Act, including increased unemployment of U.S. citizens, public education costs, chain migration, litigation and fraud. Nor did the CBO account for what history has proven: passing amnesty will incentivize even more illegality and lawlessness at the border. In addition, the CBO assumed a large portion of those who receive amnesty will obtain jobs, but there is no surplus of job opportunities. According to a June 2011 Report by the Center for Immigration Studies, the employment situation for U.S.-born workers and citizens who are young and less-educated – those most likely to compete with illegal aliens – is already bleak, with unemployment rates for those who have not completed high school at 34.6 percent.[1] Furthermore, previous scores failed to account for those who cannot get jobs because of this competition and will claim unemployment benefits.
In addition, DHS/USCIS will have to process DREAM Act applications (applications that would require complex, multi-step adjudication) though S.952 accounts for no fees to handle processing. This increased burden would require either additional Congressional appropriations, or for USCIS, a primarily fee-funded agency, to raise fees on other types of immigration benefit applications. This would unfairly spread the costs of administering the DREAM Act legalization program among applicants and petitioners who have abided by U.S. laws and would force taxpayers to pay for amnesty.
Though the DREAM Act does not mention fees, the CBO previously assumed all illegal aliens will pay a $700 fee to submit an application. USCIS, however, recently implemented a formal process whereby fees can be waived for hardship. It is likely that most of those petitioning for status under this bill will fall within a hardship exception and not pay any fees at all. Taxpayers would also be on the hook for federal benefits the DREAM Act seeks to offer illegal aliens, including student loans and grants, and states would be on the hook for in-state tuition for illegal aliens.
3. The DREAM Act Provides a Safe Harbor for Any Alien, Including Criminals, From Being Removed or Deported If They Simply Submit An Application
Although DREAM Act proponents claim it will benefit only those who meet certain age, presence, and educational requirements, amazingly S.952 protects ANY alien who simply submits an application for status no matter how frivolous. The bill forbids the Secretary of Homeland Security from removing “any alien who has a pending application for conditional nonimmigrant status”—regardless of age or criminal record—providing a safe harbor for millions. Though the bill requires a modest “prima facie” showing of eligibility, this is the lowest standard of legal proof and could likely be satisfied by the alien’s signature. This loophole will open the floodgates for applications that could stay pending for many years or be litigated as a delay tactic to prevent an illegal alien’s removal from the United States. Such delays will increase the number of those released on bail and will increase the number of absconders. The provision will further erode any chances of ending the rampant illegality and fraud in the existing system.
4. Certain Inadmissible Aliens and ALL Deportable Aliens, Including Those From High-Risk Regions, Will Be Eligible For Amnesty Under The DREAM Act
Certain categories of criminal aliens who are inadmissible to the United States will be eligible for DREAM Act amnesty, including alien gang members. The DREAM Act allows the following illegal aliens to be eligible for amnesty: alien absconders (aliens who failed to attend their removal proceedings), aliens who have engaged in document fraud, aliens who have falsely claimed U.S. citizenship, and aliens who have been unlawfully present in the United States, even after being previously removed.
The exemption for fraud is particularly troubling because it creates a potential loophole for unknown terrorists who have defrauded immigration authorities—as was the case with the 9/11 hijackers. At the same time, limited federal resources that are better utilized tracking down such fraud will have to be directed towards reviewing potentially fraudulent claims on millions of DREAM applications. Making matters worse, the DREAM Act allows all aliens subject to deportation, including criminals and terrorists, to be eligible for amnesty.
5. Certain Criminal Aliens—Including Drunk Drivers—Will Be Eligible For Amnesty Under The DREAM Act
Certain categories of criminal aliens can qualify for status under the DREAM Act. The bill includes a 1 felony/3-misdemeanor rule, similar to the 1986 amnesty rule. As a result, criminal aliens who have less than 3 misdemeanor convictions will remain eligible for legal, permanent status through the DREAM Act. Some misdemeanors can be extremely serious, such as driving under the influence, certain drug offenses, gang activity, some charges of sexual abuse of a minor, assault and battery, and even prostitution.
6. Conservative Estimates Suggest That At Least 2.1 Million Illegal Aliens Will Be Eligible For the DREAM Act Amnesty; In Reality, We Have No Idea How Many Illegal Aliens Will Apply
The DREAM Act waives all numerical limitations on green cards, and prohibits any numerical limitation on the number of aliens eligible for amnesty under its provisions. Last year, the Migration Policy Institute estimated that the DREAM Act would make approximately 2.1[2] million illegal aliens eligible for amnesty immediately. It is highly likely that the number of illegal aliens receiving amnesty under the DREAM Act will be much higher than estimated due to widespread fraud and our inherent inability to accurately estimate the illegal alien population. Estimates also fail to account for the chain migration that will inevitably occur once these illegal aliens are naturalized, and for children who will be eligible years down the road. The bill allows the Secretary to make those who have already met the Act’s requirements to become immediately eligible for LPR status.
7. The DREAM Act Does Not Require That an Illegal Alien Finish Any Type of Degree (Vocational, Two-Year, or Bachelor’s Degree) As a Condition of Amnesty
DREAM Act supporters would have you believe that the bill is intended to benefit illegal immigrants who have graduated from high school and are on their way to earning college degrees. However, the bill is careful to ensure that illegal alien high school drop-outs will also be put on a pathway to citizenship—they simply have to obtain a GED and be admitted to “an institution of higher education.”
Under the Higher Education Act, an “institution of higher education” includes institutions that provide 2-year programs (community colleges) and any “school that provides not less than a 1-year program of training to prepare students for gainful employment” (a vocational school). To get LPR status, the alien must prove only that they finished 2 years of a bachelor’s degree program, not that they completed any program or earned any degree. If the alien is unable to complete 2 years of college but can demonstrate that their removal would result in hardship to themselves or their U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, child, or parent (the ones who broke the law in the first place by bringing them to the United States illegally), the education requirement can be waived altogether.
Additionally, the bill provides no mechanism to combat the extensive fraud the will inevitably ensue—there is no meaningful way to verify that applicants have met even the bill’s loosest residency and education provisions. The bill is subject to extensive abuse and will worsen an already chaotic immigration situation.
8. The DREAM Act Does Not Require That an Illegal Alien Complete Military Service As a Condition For Amnesty, and There Is Already a Legal Process in Place For Illegal Aliens to Obtain U.S. Citizenship Through Military Service
DREAM Act supporters would have you believe that illegal aliens who do not go to college will earn their citizenship through service in the U.S. Armed Forces. However, the bill does not require aliens join the U.S. Armed Forces (the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Cops); instead it requires enlistment in the “uniformed services,” which covers more than simply the Armed Services. This means that aliens need only go to work for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or Public Health Service for 2 years to get U.S. citizenship. If the alien is unable to complete 2 years in the “uniformed services,” and can demonstrate that their removal would result in hardship to themselves or their U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, child, or parent (the ones who broke the law in the first place by bringing them to the United States illegally), the military service requirement can be waived altogether. Such claims will likely engender significant litigation and place a huge burden on DHS.
Furthermore, under current law (10 USC § 504), the Secretary of Defense can authorize the enlistment of illegal aliens. Once enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces, under 8 USC § 1440, these illegal aliens can become naturalized citizens through expedited processing, often obtaining U.S. citizenship in six months. Moreover, all branches of the military are currently meeting their recruitment goals.
9. Despite Their Current Illegal Status, DREAM Act Aliens Will Be Given All the Rights That Legal Immigrants Receive—Including the Legal Right To Sponsor Their Parents and Extended Family Members For Immigration
Under current federal law, U.S. citizens have the right to immigrate their “immediate relatives” to the United States without regard to numerical caps. Similarly, lawful permanent residents can immigrate their spouses and children to the United States as long as they retain their status. This means illegal aliens who receive amnesty under the DREAM Act will have the right to petition for their family members—including the parents who sent for or brought them to the United States illegally in the first place—in unlimited numbers as soon as they become U.S. citizens and are 21 years of age.
Additionally, amnestied aliens who become U.S. citizens will be able to petition for their adult siblings living abroad to immigrate to the United States, further incentivizing chain migration and potentially illegal entry into the United States (for those who do not want to wait for the petition process overseas). When an adult brother or sister receives a green card, the family (spouse and children) of the adult sibling receive green cards as well.
10. Current Illegal Aliens Will Get Federal Student Loans, Federal Work Study Programs, and Other Forms of Federal Financial Aid
Section 9 of S.952 allows illegal aliens amnestied under the bill’s provisions to immediately qualify for federal student assistance under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) in the form of federal student loans, grants, work-study programs, and other education services such as tutoring and counseling.
Follow the Money No. 73 - Obama energy strategy: one part black magic, two parts propaganda
Follow the Money No. 73
Obama energy strategy: one part black magic, two parts propaganda
Sol Sanders
Again, and again, we must return to energy, the mother’s milk of the economy where the Obama Administration’s ham-fisted tactics are strangling the baby of recovery in the crib.
In his June 29th press conference, the President again singled out rebates to push U.S. fossil fuel production in his demand for tax increases for an economy already threatened by double-dip recession. The proposal compounds regulatory mischief: blocking oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico while Chinese and other foreign companies drill off Cuba almost within sight of Florida beaches, forfeiting 250,000 jobs. “Regs” threaten West Texas fields contributing 20% of U.S. new production because of an obscure lizard. The White House dallies over a pipeline to bring Canadian oil sands crude to Texas refineries. While Moscow pushes Arctic prospecting, Juneau can’t get Washington to open up 14.7 million acres of state land with the critical Alaskan pipeline faltering from declining throughput.
Mr. Obama’s token strategic oil release – into the international crude pool rather than reducing U.S. pump prices – was one more feint in Mr. Obama’s ideological war on fossil fuels. [Never mind ignoring the reserve’s national defense character; it was never meant as a price instrument – nor political toy.]
All this is done under the rubric of protecting the environment. “Junk science”, as many highly qualified skeptics believe, may underpin claims fossil fuels consumption decisively impacts climate change. It will take decades to know, given our shallow data for changing climate through the ages.
But “junk economics” is all too evident in the Administration’s energy strategies. Granted, impediments to cheap energy were inherited from previous governments and imperfect markets. But Mr. Obama’s drive for “renewable sources” mimics earlier Carter Administration’s abandoned “alternative energy” skeletons still littering the landscape.
Mr. Obama’s wind power subsides are indeed producing jobs – for China and Spain – with transferred American companies' technology. Chinese windmills and solar panels are exported to the U.S., often replacing American manufacture.
The vignette of former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger entertaining the possibility of Chinese “high-speed rail” proposals with federal stimulus funds – just before California all but bankrupted -- is quintessential of a mind set. High salaried propagandists for tax free non-governmental organizations [NGOs] promote “the environment” through advocacy of “mass transit”, citing China’s example. They fail to note deficit-ridden Chinese government railways – whose two top executives recently were arrested for stealing tens of millions – blackmailed European and U.S. companies for technology transfers in exchange for a phantom Chinese market. Now Beijing attempts exports while their own projects operate with anemic passenger loads -- at lower speeds because of faulty engineering. The misrepresentation is all too typical of limitless, mindless propaganda pumped out on a daily basis, for example on that other Washington subsidized enterprise, National Public Radio, by the Obama cheering section.
In fact, a whole new era in fossil fuels is beginning. So-called “peak oil”, the crisis posited when diminishing reserves supposedly would meet rising consumption, has vanished. New vistas have developed worldwide with expanding deep-water drilling technology – a Norwegian billion-dollar floating platform in deep water off Rio de Janeiro, a good example. New fields await discovery in our own Gulf of Mexico – the less than cataclysmic British Petroleum oil spill notwithstanding. Recovering Iraq with the world’s second largest reserves, many yet untapped, is returning with 10 million barrels a day.
Even more spectacular, a new era for natural gas suddenly has emerged with new technology exploiting vast shale reserves lying deep below rock formations in a dozen countries, not the least the U.S. [An ironic comment on priorities: Beijing is investing government billions into American companies to get at that technology.] Of course, there already has been a half-baked university “study” by enviromentalistas arguing “fracking” – the process of getting at that gas – would poison ground drinking water. The study produces not a single instance nor does it explain the risk with most such deposits lying well below aquifers.
“Politically correct” spokesmen and the mainstream media promise black magic energy solutions, for example, electric cars, ignoring almost three quarters of our electricity for recharging batteries is met with coal and gas – much less the enormous costs and problems of grid expansion required for a massive changeover.
This conjuror’s trick has gone wrong; Mr. Obama is actually cutting the beautiful young lady in half as he cripples the energy sector.
Obama energy strategy: one part black magic, two parts propaganda
Sol Sanders
Again, and again, we must return to energy, the mother’s milk of the economy where the Obama Administration’s ham-fisted tactics are strangling the baby of recovery in the crib.
In his June 29th press conference, the President again singled out rebates to push U.S. fossil fuel production in his demand for tax increases for an economy already threatened by double-dip recession. The proposal compounds regulatory mischief: blocking oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico while Chinese and other foreign companies drill off Cuba almost within sight of Florida beaches, forfeiting 250,000 jobs. “Regs” threaten West Texas fields contributing 20% of U.S. new production because of an obscure lizard. The White House dallies over a pipeline to bring Canadian oil sands crude to Texas refineries. While Moscow pushes Arctic prospecting, Juneau can’t get Washington to open up 14.7 million acres of state land with the critical Alaskan pipeline faltering from declining throughput.
Mr. Obama’s token strategic oil release – into the international crude pool rather than reducing U.S. pump prices – was one more feint in Mr. Obama’s ideological war on fossil fuels. [Never mind ignoring the reserve’s national defense character; it was never meant as a price instrument – nor political toy.]
All this is done under the rubric of protecting the environment. “Junk science”, as many highly qualified skeptics believe, may underpin claims fossil fuels consumption decisively impacts climate change. It will take decades to know, given our shallow data for changing climate through the ages.
But “junk economics” is all too evident in the Administration’s energy strategies. Granted, impediments to cheap energy were inherited from previous governments and imperfect markets. But Mr. Obama’s drive for “renewable sources” mimics earlier Carter Administration’s abandoned “alternative energy” skeletons still littering the landscape.
Mr. Obama’s wind power subsides are indeed producing jobs – for China and Spain – with transferred American companies' technology. Chinese windmills and solar panels are exported to the U.S., often replacing American manufacture.
The vignette of former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger entertaining the possibility of Chinese “high-speed rail” proposals with federal stimulus funds – just before California all but bankrupted -- is quintessential of a mind set. High salaried propagandists for tax free non-governmental organizations [NGOs] promote “the environment” through advocacy of “mass transit”, citing China’s example. They fail to note deficit-ridden Chinese government railways – whose two top executives recently were arrested for stealing tens of millions – blackmailed European and U.S. companies for technology transfers in exchange for a phantom Chinese market. Now Beijing attempts exports while their own projects operate with anemic passenger loads -- at lower speeds because of faulty engineering. The misrepresentation is all too typical of limitless, mindless propaganda pumped out on a daily basis, for example on that other Washington subsidized enterprise, National Public Radio, by the Obama cheering section.
In fact, a whole new era in fossil fuels is beginning. So-called “peak oil”, the crisis posited when diminishing reserves supposedly would meet rising consumption, has vanished. New vistas have developed worldwide with expanding deep-water drilling technology – a Norwegian billion-dollar floating platform in deep water off Rio de Janeiro, a good example. New fields await discovery in our own Gulf of Mexico – the less than cataclysmic British Petroleum oil spill notwithstanding. Recovering Iraq with the world’s second largest reserves, many yet untapped, is returning with 10 million barrels a day.
Even more spectacular, a new era for natural gas suddenly has emerged with new technology exploiting vast shale reserves lying deep below rock formations in a dozen countries, not the least the U.S. [An ironic comment on priorities: Beijing is investing government billions into American companies to get at that technology.] Of course, there already has been a half-baked university “study” by enviromentalistas arguing “fracking” – the process of getting at that gas – would poison ground drinking water. The study produces not a single instance nor does it explain the risk with most such deposits lying well below aquifers.
“Politically correct” spokesmen and the mainstream media promise black magic energy solutions, for example, electric cars, ignoring almost three quarters of our electricity for recharging batteries is met with coal and gas – much less the enormous costs and problems of grid expansion required for a massive changeover.
This conjuror’s trick has gone wrong; Mr. Obama is actually cutting the beautiful young lady in half as he cripples the energy sector.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)