After nearly two weeks of raucous protests, sabotage, and union calls to torture replacement workers, things got ugly in Long Island Friday afternoon when a fight broke out between the brother of a union boss and a Verizon manager.
According to Riverheadlocal.com:
A Verizon manager crossing a picket line on West Second Street, where Verizon was working inside an office building, exchanged words with one of the picketing strikers.
The Verizon manager, Edward Googe of Hamden, Conn. and striking worker Dennis Dunn of Mattituck became involved in an altercation, according to Riverhead police.
Witnesses on the scene said Googe pulled Dunn by the neck and slammed his head into the wall of a building, then punched him several times before other men broke up the fight. Googe then fled the scene in a Verizon van, driving north on Roanoke Avenue according to witnesses.
Googe was arrested a short time later.
Of course, the “witnesses” were likely the Verizon strikers whose picket line the manager crossed. Nor is there word why Googe fled the scene (other than perhaps his own safety?).
According to the LongIslandPress.com, the fight occurred in front of the Suffolk County National Bank on West 2nd Street in Riverhead.
Donald Dunn, executive Vice President of Communications Workers of America Local 1108, is the brother of the hospitalized union member.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Obama Motors like it's Creator, betrays America
New GM said not responsible to fix Impala made by old GM
* Suspension problem said to cause excessive tire wear
By Jonathan Stempel
NEW YORK, Aug 19 (Reuters) - General Motors Co (GM.N) is seeking to dismiss a lawsuit over a suspension problem on more than 400,000 Chevrolet Impalas from the 2007 and 2008 model years, saying it should not be responsible for repairs because the flaw predated its bankruptcy.
The lawsuit, filed on June 29 by Donna Trusky of Blakely, Pennsylvania, contended that her Impala suffered from faulty rear spindle rods, causing her rear tires to wear out after just 6,000 miles.
Seeking class-action status and alleging breach of warranty, the lawsuit demands that GM fix the rods, saying that it had done so on Impala police vehicles.
But in a recent filing with the U.S. District Court in Detroit, GM noted that the cars were made by its predecessor General Motors Corp, now called Motors Liquidation Co or "Old GM," before its 2009 bankruptcy and federal bailout.
The current company, called "New GM," said it did not assume responsibility under the reorganization to fix the Impala problem, but only to make repairs "subject to conditions and limitations" in express written warranties. In essence, the automaker said, Trusky sued the wrong entity.
"New GM's warranty obligations for vehicles sold by Old GM are limited to the express terms and conditions in the Old GM written warranties on a going-forward basis," wrote Benjamin Jeffers, a lawyer for GM. "New GM did not assume responsibility for Old GM's design choices, conduct, or alleged breaches of liability under the warranty."
David Fink, Trusky's lawyer, declined to comment.
John Penn, a former president of the American Bankruptcy Institute who is not involved in the case, said the question of "successor liability" is common for manufacturing companies that go through bankruptcy.
"The fact it comes up now is not a surprise, as this type of issue was widely discussed during GM's bankruptcy," said Penn, now a partner at Haynes and Boone in Fort Worth, Texas. "The court will need to evaluate the claims to see if they fit within any cubbyhole of liability that New GM assumed."
GM said an argument similar to Trusky's failed this year in a case involving its OnStar security and navigation product.
"There are no specific factual allegations that New GM -- as opposed to Old GM -- did anything at all in relation to her vehicle," Jeffers wrote. "Plaintiff here is trying to saddle new GM with the alleged liability and conduct of old GM."
In late afternoon trading, GM shares were down $1.62 at $21.98 on the New York Stock Exchange.
The case is Trusky v. General Motors Co, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, No. 11-12815. (Editing by Robert MacMillan)
BONUS: Vengeance! GOV'T MOTORS stock hits new low
* Suspension problem said to cause excessive tire wear
By Jonathan Stempel
NEW YORK, Aug 19 (Reuters) - General Motors Co (GM.N) is seeking to dismiss a lawsuit over a suspension problem on more than 400,000 Chevrolet Impalas from the 2007 and 2008 model years, saying it should not be responsible for repairs because the flaw predated its bankruptcy.
The lawsuit, filed on June 29 by Donna Trusky of Blakely, Pennsylvania, contended that her Impala suffered from faulty rear spindle rods, causing her rear tires to wear out after just 6,000 miles.
Seeking class-action status and alleging breach of warranty, the lawsuit demands that GM fix the rods, saying that it had done so on Impala police vehicles.
But in a recent filing with the U.S. District Court in Detroit, GM noted that the cars were made by its predecessor General Motors Corp, now called Motors Liquidation Co or "Old GM," before its 2009 bankruptcy and federal bailout.
The current company, called "New GM," said it did not assume responsibility under the reorganization to fix the Impala problem, but only to make repairs "subject to conditions and limitations" in express written warranties. In essence, the automaker said, Trusky sued the wrong entity.
"New GM's warranty obligations for vehicles sold by Old GM are limited to the express terms and conditions in the Old GM written warranties on a going-forward basis," wrote Benjamin Jeffers, a lawyer for GM. "New GM did not assume responsibility for Old GM's design choices, conduct, or alleged breaches of liability under the warranty."
David Fink, Trusky's lawyer, declined to comment.
John Penn, a former president of the American Bankruptcy Institute who is not involved in the case, said the question of "successor liability" is common for manufacturing companies that go through bankruptcy.
"The fact it comes up now is not a surprise, as this type of issue was widely discussed during GM's bankruptcy," said Penn, now a partner at Haynes and Boone in Fort Worth, Texas. "The court will need to evaluate the claims to see if they fit within any cubbyhole of liability that New GM assumed."
GM said an argument similar to Trusky's failed this year in a case involving its OnStar security and navigation product.
"There are no specific factual allegations that New GM -- as opposed to Old GM -- did anything at all in relation to her vehicle," Jeffers wrote. "Plaintiff here is trying to saddle new GM with the alleged liability and conduct of old GM."
In late afternoon trading, GM shares were down $1.62 at $21.98 on the New York Stock Exchange.
The case is Trusky v. General Motors Co, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, No. 11-12815. (Editing by Robert MacMillan)
BONUS: Vengeance! GOV'T MOTORS stock hits new low
City Ban on Food Stamps for Sodas Rejected
Federal Officials Reject City’s Plan to Ban Food Stamps for Soda
By PATRICK MCGEEHAN
Federal officials on Friday rejected Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s proposal to bar New York City’s food stamp users from buying soda and other sugary drinks with their benefits.
In October, the city proposed a two-year experiment to see if the prohibition would reduce obesity among people who buy their groceries with food stamps. But in a letter Friday, an administrator of the food stamp program in Washington said the city’s proposed experiment would have been “too large and complex” to implement and evaluate.
Tom Vilsack, the secretary of agriculture, said in a statement that the United States Department of Agriculture “has a longstanding tradition of supporting and promoting incentive-based solutions that are better suited for the working families, elderly and other low-income individuals” who rely on food stamps. “We are confident that we can solve the problem of obesity and promote good nutrition and health for all Americans and stand ready to work with New York City to achieve these goals.”
The city’s proposal was part of Mr. Bloomberg’s campaign to make the city a healthier place, which has included banning smoking indoors and in public parks, barring restaurants from cooking with trans fats and requiring them to inform customers about calorie counts.
The mayor was not pleased with the rejection on Friday.
“We think our innovative pilot would have done more to protect people from the crippling effects of preventable illnesses like diabetes and obesity than anything else being proposed elsewhere in this country — and at little or no cost to taxpayers,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a statement. “We’re disappointed that the federal government didn’t agree, and sorry that families and children may suffer from their unwillingness to explore our proposal. New York City will continue to pursue new and unconventional ways to combat the health problems that hurt New Yorkers and Americans from coast to coast.”
By PATRICK MCGEEHAN
Federal officials on Friday rejected Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s proposal to bar New York City’s food stamp users from buying soda and other sugary drinks with their benefits.
In October, the city proposed a two-year experiment to see if the prohibition would reduce obesity among people who buy their groceries with food stamps. But in a letter Friday, an administrator of the food stamp program in Washington said the city’s proposed experiment would have been “too large and complex” to implement and evaluate.
Tom Vilsack, the secretary of agriculture, said in a statement that the United States Department of Agriculture “has a longstanding tradition of supporting and promoting incentive-based solutions that are better suited for the working families, elderly and other low-income individuals” who rely on food stamps. “We are confident that we can solve the problem of obesity and promote good nutrition and health for all Americans and stand ready to work with New York City to achieve these goals.”
The city’s proposal was part of Mr. Bloomberg’s campaign to make the city a healthier place, which has included banning smoking indoors and in public parks, barring restaurants from cooking with trans fats and requiring them to inform customers about calorie counts.
The mayor was not pleased with the rejection on Friday.
“We think our innovative pilot would have done more to protect people from the crippling effects of preventable illnesses like diabetes and obesity than anything else being proposed elsewhere in this country — and at little or no cost to taxpayers,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a statement. “We’re disappointed that the federal government didn’t agree, and sorry that families and children may suffer from their unwillingness to explore our proposal. New York City will continue to pursue new and unconventional ways to combat the health problems that hurt New Yorkers and Americans from coast to coast.”
TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN 'UNTIL 2024'
America and Afghanistan are close to signing a strategic pact which would allow thousands of United States troops to remain in the country until at least 2024, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
Mr Sediqqi said a suicide bomber detonated a car laden with explosives outside the British Council in the western part of the city.
A second bomber penetrated inside the complex and set off an explosives vest.
The blasts set off a five-hour-long gunbattle between Afghan security forces and an unknown number of insurgents inside the compound.
Sediqqi told reporters that troops were hunting for one of the attackers believed to be hiding in the compound.
British troops deployed to the scene were also seen entering a house where the attacker was believed to be hiding.
A spokesman for the Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack.
The dead included eight Afghan policemen, a security guard whose nationality was not immediately known and an Afghan municipal worker, according to Kabul police official.
In London, the British Foreign Office confirmed that all UK nationals were safe following the attack.
Mr Sediqqi said a suicide bomber detonated a car laden with explosives outside the British Council in the western part of the city.
A second bomber penetrated inside the complex and set off an explosives vest.
The blasts set off a five-hour-long gunbattle between Afghan security forces and an unknown number of insurgents inside the compound.
Sediqqi told reporters that troops were hunting for one of the attackers believed to be hiding in the compound.
British troops deployed to the scene were also seen entering a house where the attacker was believed to be hiding.
A spokesman for the Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack.
The dead included eight Afghan policemen, a security guard whose nationality was not immediately known and an Afghan municipal worker, according to Kabul police official.
In London, the British Foreign Office confirmed that all UK nationals were safe following the attack.
Doggonit, Sarah Palin May Very Well be Jumping In
Is there any other conclusion after watching the Iowa video?
It is warm and inviting and part of the reintroduction that began with the Steve Bannon movie.
I have long thought that Governor Palin has been honestly trying to figure out the best use of the energy and attention — and anger! — that swirls around the name Sarah Palin.
And with this video, I think she just shared which way she is leaning.
By Kathryn Jean Lopez
It is warm and inviting and part of the reintroduction that began with the Steve Bannon movie.
I have long thought that Governor Palin has been honestly trying to figure out the best use of the energy and attention — and anger! — that swirls around the name Sarah Palin.
And with this video, I think she just shared which way she is leaning.
By Kathryn Jean Lopez
Obama Sets Up America for Helter Skelter 2012 Summer
When Obama won the election against John McCain in 2008; he did so with a majority of the white vote. That's saying a lot considering the United States is the only nation on the planet whose citizens willingly elected, as their leader, a man who hails from the very class of people that was once considered only 3/5 human.
So if we Americans have grown beyond our racist past, then why is the first black president going after communities across America because he believes they are racist for not having enough blacks and Hispanics living there? Why did Obama instruct his DOJ to stop pursuing civil rights violations committed by nonwhite Americans? Not my accusation, but that of a former leading prosecutor of the DOJ, J. Christian Adams, who resigned over the administration's refusal to prosecute black violators. Adams wrote in a commentary for the New York Times;
"Citizens would be shocked to learn about the open and pervasive hostility within the Justice department to bringing civil rights cases against nonwhite defendants on behalf of white victims. Equal enforcement of justice is not a priority of this administration. Open contempt is voiced for these types of cases.
If Obama really wants to be, as he said, the president of all Americans, then why has he not asked the DOJ to investigate the escalating black on white violence across America? After all, Obama claimed that hate crimes would not be tolerated by his administration when he signed the new hate crime legislation in October of 2009. I guess he only meant hate crimes against blacks, Hispanics, and gay people, because what is happening across America today is unconscionable. Roving mobs of black teens and young adult men are randomly beating up white people in Chicago, Peoria, Boston, Philadelphia, Akron. Then there are the reports from cities like LA and Washington D.C. where black youths have been rampaging through stores and taking whatever they want.
I would never suggest that the crimes committed against blacks in America through the years were minor, nor justified, but as bad white Americans treated blacks, there has never been instances where white teenagers roamed the parks, beaches, and fairgrounds for the express purpose of attacking people just because they are black. If they did, there would have been hell to pay by both the law and their parents.
As I pondered the lack of legal actions against the mobs of marauding blacks, I was reminded of the time in the late 1990s when Wayne LaPierre stated that then president Bill Clinton had accepted a certain amount of violence to further his pursuit of more gun-control laws. Simply put, the NRA executive accused the Clinton administration of not enforcing gun laws already on the books so that he could justify the need for stricter gun laws. Looking at the way gun violence in America decreased when Bush became president proves that LaPierre was right about the Clinton administration. As much as George Bush believed in the 2nd Amendment, he was also firm believer in enforcing the law. So unlike the prior administration Bush instructed his DOJ to enforce the gun laws on the books. An interesting, but expected, thing happens when you enforce the laws, would be criminals are less likely to violate them.
So now we have another liberal Democrat as president, and like Clinton did, he too has instructed his DOJ not to enforce a certain aspect of the law. You can always guess what a liberal administration is up to by what laws they conveniently ignore. In Obama's case it's the civil rights laws. Oh he may be enforcing certain aspects of the civil rights laws, like the ones that white Americans violate, but his justice dept is ignoring the ones violated by black Americans. I guess Obama could be accepting a certain amount of civil rights violations so he can pursue more civil rights laws, but I doubt it. No, instead I believe he has other reasons for ignoring the escalation in violence being perpetrated against white Americans since he became president.
One reason would be that I truly believe Obama is racist against white people. After all, he sat in a pew while listening to a preacher speak of the tenants of Black Liberation Theology. A cult that teaches how blacks are God's Chosen People, while white people are wicked and inferior. For 20 years he listened to such anti white rhetoric and never once tried to find another church.
In the book he wrote about his pursuit of a racial identity, "Dreams of My father", Obama never once wrote about his pursuit of a non-racial American identity. However, he did write about rejecting his white heritage while insatiably searching for his black heritage. What's really telling is what he wrote about Black Nationalism, especially when you consider the teachings of his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
"If [black] nationalism could create a strong and effective insularity, deliver on its promise of self-respect, then the hurt it might cause well-meaning whites, or the inner turmoil it caused people like me, would be of little consequence." Barack Obama, "Dreams of My father"
The MSM will never report the facts about Obama like they willingly repeated the lies told about George Bush. When you look at the facts, there's more evidence to prove Obama's racism then there is to even suggest that George Bush is one. Yet for the last 10 years we have listened to political analysts, comedians, actors, singers, elected Democrats, and most liberal black leaders accused Bush of being a racist. That being said, I think the biggest reason Obama has not said or done anything about the black on white violence is because he's setting America up for a Helter Skelter summer come 2012.
I firmly believe Obama is allowing a certain amount of black anger against white people to exist because he is hoping that at some point whites will begin retaliating. If these unprovoked attacks continue, it will be just a matter of time before some angry white people retaliate in a way that will allow the MSM and the left to blame conservatives of being Republican voters the racists tea party conservatives. It would be Obama's Oklahoma City Bombing moment.
Just as Clinton used the Oklahoma City bombing to attack talk radio and turn Americans off of the militia movements of the early 1990s, Obama hopes that any retaliatory attacks against blacks will discredit the conservative tea party movement. Then maybe the Republican candidates will distance themselves from the Tea Party, and thus temper the turnout for him to win re-election. It's my opinion that the MSM will do all they can to help the Democrats tie any white on black violence to the tea party conservatives.
By telegraphing a message that his Justice Dept is not going to go after any blacks for crimes against white people, Obama is guaranteeing more black on white violence. So come summer time when the primary elections are heating up and the Obama's recession continues to keep a majority of black teens unemployed, there could be a Helter Skelter Summer in 2012 that would make Charles Manson jealous.
Chuck Ness is a professional blogger who writes about politics and human interest stories from a Christian conservative point of view. Contact him by writing to NewsBlaze
By Chuck Ness
So if we Americans have grown beyond our racist past, then why is the first black president going after communities across America because he believes they are racist for not having enough blacks and Hispanics living there? Why did Obama instruct his DOJ to stop pursuing civil rights violations committed by nonwhite Americans? Not my accusation, but that of a former leading prosecutor of the DOJ, J. Christian Adams, who resigned over the administration's refusal to prosecute black violators. Adams wrote in a commentary for the New York Times;
"Citizens would be shocked to learn about the open and pervasive hostility within the Justice department to bringing civil rights cases against nonwhite defendants on behalf of white victims. Equal enforcement of justice is not a priority of this administration. Open contempt is voiced for these types of cases.
If Obama really wants to be, as he said, the president of all Americans, then why has he not asked the DOJ to investigate the escalating black on white violence across America? After all, Obama claimed that hate crimes would not be tolerated by his administration when he signed the new hate crime legislation in October of 2009. I guess he only meant hate crimes against blacks, Hispanics, and gay people, because what is happening across America today is unconscionable. Roving mobs of black teens and young adult men are randomly beating up white people in Chicago, Peoria, Boston, Philadelphia, Akron. Then there are the reports from cities like LA and Washington D.C. where black youths have been rampaging through stores and taking whatever they want.
I would never suggest that the crimes committed against blacks in America through the years were minor, nor justified, but as bad white Americans treated blacks, there has never been instances where white teenagers roamed the parks, beaches, and fairgrounds for the express purpose of attacking people just because they are black. If they did, there would have been hell to pay by both the law and their parents.
As I pondered the lack of legal actions against the mobs of marauding blacks, I was reminded of the time in the late 1990s when Wayne LaPierre stated that then president Bill Clinton had accepted a certain amount of violence to further his pursuit of more gun-control laws. Simply put, the NRA executive accused the Clinton administration of not enforcing gun laws already on the books so that he could justify the need for stricter gun laws. Looking at the way gun violence in America decreased when Bush became president proves that LaPierre was right about the Clinton administration. As much as George Bush believed in the 2nd Amendment, he was also firm believer in enforcing the law. So unlike the prior administration Bush instructed his DOJ to enforce the gun laws on the books. An interesting, but expected, thing happens when you enforce the laws, would be criminals are less likely to violate them.
So now we have another liberal Democrat as president, and like Clinton did, he too has instructed his DOJ not to enforce a certain aspect of the law. You can always guess what a liberal administration is up to by what laws they conveniently ignore. In Obama's case it's the civil rights laws. Oh he may be enforcing certain aspects of the civil rights laws, like the ones that white Americans violate, but his justice dept is ignoring the ones violated by black Americans. I guess Obama could be accepting a certain amount of civil rights violations so he can pursue more civil rights laws, but I doubt it. No, instead I believe he has other reasons for ignoring the escalation in violence being perpetrated against white Americans since he became president.
One reason would be that I truly believe Obama is racist against white people. After all, he sat in a pew while listening to a preacher speak of the tenants of Black Liberation Theology. A cult that teaches how blacks are God's Chosen People, while white people are wicked and inferior. For 20 years he listened to such anti white rhetoric and never once tried to find another church.
In the book he wrote about his pursuit of a racial identity, "Dreams of My father", Obama never once wrote about his pursuit of a non-racial American identity. However, he did write about rejecting his white heritage while insatiably searching for his black heritage. What's really telling is what he wrote about Black Nationalism, especially when you consider the teachings of his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
"If [black] nationalism could create a strong and effective insularity, deliver on its promise of self-respect, then the hurt it might cause well-meaning whites, or the inner turmoil it caused people like me, would be of little consequence." Barack Obama, "Dreams of My father"
The MSM will never report the facts about Obama like they willingly repeated the lies told about George Bush. When you look at the facts, there's more evidence to prove Obama's racism then there is to even suggest that George Bush is one. Yet for the last 10 years we have listened to political analysts, comedians, actors, singers, elected Democrats, and most liberal black leaders accused Bush of being a racist. That being said, I think the biggest reason Obama has not said or done anything about the black on white violence is because he's setting America up for a Helter Skelter summer come 2012.
I firmly believe Obama is allowing a certain amount of black anger against white people to exist because he is hoping that at some point whites will begin retaliating. If these unprovoked attacks continue, it will be just a matter of time before some angry white people retaliate in a way that will allow the MSM and the left to blame conservatives of being Republican voters the racists tea party conservatives. It would be Obama's Oklahoma City Bombing moment.
Just as Clinton used the Oklahoma City bombing to attack talk radio and turn Americans off of the militia movements of the early 1990s, Obama hopes that any retaliatory attacks against blacks will discredit the conservative tea party movement. Then maybe the Republican candidates will distance themselves from the Tea Party, and thus temper the turnout for him to win re-election. It's my opinion that the MSM will do all they can to help the Democrats tie any white on black violence to the tea party conservatives.
By telegraphing a message that his Justice Dept is not going to go after any blacks for crimes against white people, Obama is guaranteeing more black on white violence. So come summer time when the primary elections are heating up and the Obama's recession continues to keep a majority of black teens unemployed, there could be a Helter Skelter Summer in 2012 that would make Charles Manson jealous.
Chuck Ness is a professional blogger who writes about politics and human interest stories from a Christian conservative point of view. Contact him by writing to NewsBlaze
By Chuck Ness
POTUS Goes Rogue
Above The Law?
By G. Perry
The Obama reelection campaign has begun in earnest with the announcement yesterday that the administration will henceforth be ignoring the expressed will of Congress, its Constitutional obligations, and the desires of the American public. In a move that President Obama’s functionaries have been telegraphing for months, and which was made official yesterday, the White House has announced that it will be “reviewing” the cases of individuals who are in the process of deportation, or who are subject to deportation, in what is effectively a sweeping amnesty for nearly all illegal aliens currently residing in this country. The Wall Street Journal has a brief summary of who is now eligible for the amnesty jackpot, including a description of the aforementioned Morton memo, but a better question is, “who isn’t eligible?”
Although much of the media is framing the issue as one of the admistration implementing the DREAM Act that an anti-immigrant faction of Congress was loathe to enact, the truth is that this decision is much broader and encompasses more than simply potential DREAM recipients, which as Hans von Spakovsky points out on the Heritage Blog is itself a blatantly unconstitutional act. Nearly every illegal alien who falls within one of the amorphous, Morton-defined categories will be given the opportunity to remain in this country indefinitely, and the “criminals” whom the Department of Homeland Security and BICE will allegedly be honing its sites on are not defined. Presumably, the unlucky aliens will not include petty, inconsequential criminals such as car thieves.
There are a number of conclusions to be drawn from the Obama amnesty, but for the time being I’d like to focus on the most overlooked but ineluctable one. Namely, the breathtaking effectiveness of the open borders lobby. Despite the fact it does not represent American voters-the overwhelming majority of whom support tougher immigration enforcement-it was able to lobby, protest, and hector Barack Obama into adopting its stance of complete non-enforcement of this nation’s immigration laws. As puerile as some of its tactics might have struck us, the fact is that they campaigned for the Obama administration to flout the law and implement amnesty from the moment the DREAM Act failed to gain cloture during the last lame duck session of Congress. While patriotic, pro-enforcement activists concentrated on taking proactive measures in Congress and in the states, the open borders dogmatists devoted most of their resources to convincing the Obama administration to defy Congress and simply ignore the law. Although they were pushing against an open door-one guarded by people like Janet Napolitano, La Raza’s Cecilia Munoz, and John Morton-don’t discount the influence they exerted upon the White Hosue’s decision-making process. The sustained action of our enemies, combined with flagging support for the President among Hispanic voters, is how we came to this pass.
Now we have to figure out what can be done to mitigate the situation we now find ourselves enmeshed in. The best long term solution, obviously, is thwarting President Obama’s reelection. Ideally, the new president would not only subscribe to the beliefs espoused by websites such as this, but also believe in limitations on executive powers and the constitutional separation of powers that Barack Obama has so brazenly defied this week. In other words, we need a presidential candidate who is willing to uphold his or her oath of office. However, this solution does nothing to ameliorate the situation at hand, or prevent the wholesale abandonment of immigration laws that will, barring a miracle, remain the status quo for the next year and a half. That’s why I’m posting a link to Stand with Arizona’s website, which provides some useful links and helpful suggestions for how you can combat this latest outrageous decision by Team Obama.
As Governor Jan Brewer pointed out in her statement condemning the White House’s extraconstitutional action, President Obama lied when he told his friends at the National Council of La Raza that he would not bypass Congress in order to enact amnesty by executive order. Even if we can’t do much to obstruct the decisions made by an administration intent on foisting amnesty upon an hostile American public, we can begin to regain the momentum that was pivotal in preventing Congress from implementing this plan legislatively last year. Although we now have an essentially lawless administration beholden to anti-American special interest groups like La Raza, we still have power as individual citizens, which is something the gang at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue can not change through administrative diktat.
By G. Perry
The Obama reelection campaign has begun in earnest with the announcement yesterday that the administration will henceforth be ignoring the expressed will of Congress, its Constitutional obligations, and the desires of the American public. In a move that President Obama’s functionaries have been telegraphing for months, and which was made official yesterday, the White House has announced that it will be “reviewing” the cases of individuals who are in the process of deportation, or who are subject to deportation, in what is effectively a sweeping amnesty for nearly all illegal aliens currently residing in this country. The Wall Street Journal has a brief summary of who is now eligible for the amnesty jackpot, including a description of the aforementioned Morton memo, but a better question is, “who isn’t eligible?”
Although much of the media is framing the issue as one of the admistration implementing the DREAM Act that an anti-immigrant faction of Congress was loathe to enact, the truth is that this decision is much broader and encompasses more than simply potential DREAM recipients, which as Hans von Spakovsky points out on the Heritage Blog is itself a blatantly unconstitutional act. Nearly every illegal alien who falls within one of the amorphous, Morton-defined categories will be given the opportunity to remain in this country indefinitely, and the “criminals” whom the Department of Homeland Security and BICE will allegedly be honing its sites on are not defined. Presumably, the unlucky aliens will not include petty, inconsequential criminals such as car thieves.
There are a number of conclusions to be drawn from the Obama amnesty, but for the time being I’d like to focus on the most overlooked but ineluctable one. Namely, the breathtaking effectiveness of the open borders lobby. Despite the fact it does not represent American voters-the overwhelming majority of whom support tougher immigration enforcement-it was able to lobby, protest, and hector Barack Obama into adopting its stance of complete non-enforcement of this nation’s immigration laws. As puerile as some of its tactics might have struck us, the fact is that they campaigned for the Obama administration to flout the law and implement amnesty from the moment the DREAM Act failed to gain cloture during the last lame duck session of Congress. While patriotic, pro-enforcement activists concentrated on taking proactive measures in Congress and in the states, the open borders dogmatists devoted most of their resources to convincing the Obama administration to defy Congress and simply ignore the law. Although they were pushing against an open door-one guarded by people like Janet Napolitano, La Raza’s Cecilia Munoz, and John Morton-don’t discount the influence they exerted upon the White Hosue’s decision-making process. The sustained action of our enemies, combined with flagging support for the President among Hispanic voters, is how we came to this pass.
Now we have to figure out what can be done to mitigate the situation we now find ourselves enmeshed in. The best long term solution, obviously, is thwarting President Obama’s reelection. Ideally, the new president would not only subscribe to the beliefs espoused by websites such as this, but also believe in limitations on executive powers and the constitutional separation of powers that Barack Obama has so brazenly defied this week. In other words, we need a presidential candidate who is willing to uphold his or her oath of office. However, this solution does nothing to ameliorate the situation at hand, or prevent the wholesale abandonment of immigration laws that will, barring a miracle, remain the status quo for the next year and a half. That’s why I’m posting a link to Stand with Arizona’s website, which provides some useful links and helpful suggestions for how you can combat this latest outrageous decision by Team Obama.
As Governor Jan Brewer pointed out in her statement condemning the White House’s extraconstitutional action, President Obama lied when he told his friends at the National Council of La Raza that he would not bypass Congress in order to enact amnesty by executive order. Even if we can’t do much to obstruct the decisions made by an administration intent on foisting amnesty upon an hostile American public, we can begin to regain the momentum that was pivotal in preventing Congress from implementing this plan legislatively last year. Although we now have an essentially lawless administration beholden to anti-American special interest groups like La Raza, we still have power as individual citizens, which is something the gang at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue can not change through administrative diktat.
Who Is Behind the ‘US Day of Rage’ to ‘Occupy’ Wall Street this September 17th?
Tiffany Gabbay
What, exactly, is a “US Day of Rage?” Well, on September 17th we may find out for certain, but until then, The Blaze is revealing what information does exist about this very nefarious-sounding campaign.
A US Day of Rage is the title given to a day of ostensibly “non-violent” civil disobedience orchestrated by a group of radicals — that reportedly include SEIU’s Stephen Lerner and ACORN founder Wade Rathke (who, coincidentally, formerly served as president of SEIU’s local New Orleans branch) — targeting Wall Street and U.S. capitalism. It’s worth noting that the title of the movement — if its intentions are indeed non-violent in nature — appears to contradict itself slightly.
But what is perhaps even more interesting than its title is who is allegedly behind the movement.
You may recall that back in March The Blaze exposed Lerner for stating his aspirations to destroy JP Morgan Chase and cause the collapse of the entire stock market.
Now, the US Day of Rage protests, staged by a collective of activist groups allegedly in conjunction with Lerner and Rathke, are planning the actual “occupation” of Wall Street September 17, complete with a tent city set smack-dab in the middle of Manhattan’s financial district. Similar protests are purportedly set to take place across the nation — and even world — at the same time. Some Day of Rage organizers are even calling on activists to squat in Manhattan’s financial district for months at a time.
The Blaze’s report on Lerner, who serves on SEIU’s International Executive Board, caught the union agitator stating:
So, a bunch of us around the country are thinking about who would be a really good company to hate? We decided that would be JP Morgan Chase. …. And so we’re going to roll out over the next couple of months what will hopefully be an exciting campaign about JP Morgan Chase that is really about challenge the power of Wall Street. And so what we’re looking at is in the first week of May, we get enough people together – we’re starting now – to really have a week of action in New York with the goal of … I don’t want to go into any details because I don’t know which police agents are in the room, but the goal would be that we would roll out in New York the first week in May.
Then, like clockwork, some 400 activists brought Lerner’s dream to fruition and converged on JP Morgan Chase’s annual shareholders’ meeting in May — this time in Columbus, Ohio rather than New York. The group that staged this particular protest, the National People’s Action, reportedly confirmed it was there as part of its “Showdown in America” campaign against the big banks. Since the location of JP Morgan Chase’s meeting was surrounded by a moat, the activists, who likened themselves to Robin Hood, even brought a collapsible bridge to “storm the castle.”
It is also perhaps worth noting that in March, The Blaze reported Rathke and Lerner called for “days of rage in ten cities around JP Morgan Chase.” Rathke mentioned some of Lerner’s key assertions:
While labeling Lerner an ex-SEIU official who was signaling that unions and community organizations were “dead,” also reported hook-line-and-sinker that in May, according to Lerner, there would be days of rage in ten cities around JP Morgan Chase signally the beginning of the anti-banking jihad.
So it might add up now that Klein Online reported Rathke’s efforts are being organized by Lerner, who, as part of his planned protests, called for “a week of civil disobedience, direct action all over the city:”
The planned Sept. 17 day of rage seems to be the culmination of Rathke’s efforts.
Those efforts are being organized by Stephen Lerner, an SEIU board member who reportedly visited the Obama White House at least four times.
The aim, according to Lerner, is to “destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement.”
“How do we bring down the stock market? How do we bring down their bonuses? How do we interfere with their ability to, to be rich?” Lerner asked rhetorically in March.
So, it appears, Columbus could have been one of the ten U.S. cities en route to New York for the “big day.”
Listen to The Blaze original video from March where Lerner, who has been dubbed a domestic terrorist, reveals his true intentions about JP Morgan. Then read further as we explain how the upcoming Day of Rage campaign in September could actually serve as the launchpad for Lerner’s war against JP Morgan and Wall Street as a whole:
Below is Lerner’s response to The Blaze’s audio that captured his damning statements:
In a follow-up report later in March, The Blaze revealed that Lerner penned an OpEd in a progressive publication outlining his campaign to bring down the economy and “stoke simmering discontent into concrete, concerted direct action“ in a move to ”turn the tables” on Wall Street.
But the Days of Rage campaign might go even further than originally thought. While one US Day of Rage website is somewhat vague about its slated activities, other Days of Rage organizers are quite bold in revealing their intentions to occupy Wall Street September 17 and remain there for literally months, in a kind of “US Tahrir Square.“AdBusters published a statement by a group dubbed ”Culture Jammers” that states:
On September 17, we want to see 20,000 people flood into lower Manhattan, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and occupy Wall Street for a few months. Once there, we shall incessantly repeat our one simple demand until Barack Obama capitulates.
…there is a very real danger that if we naively put our cards on the table and rally around the “overthrow of capitalism” or some equally outworn utopian slogan, then our Tahrir moment will quickly fizzle into another inconsequential ultra-lefty spectacle soon forgotten. But if we have the cunning to come up with a deceptively simple Trojan Horse demand …
…
See you on Wall St. Sept 17. Bring Tent.
Not to mention the myriad coordinated Days of Rage AdBusters reveals are set to roll out at other stock exchanges worldwide:
Inspired by the visceral potential of the Wall Street occupation, the Indignados of Spain just sent us word that on September 17th they too will set up camp outside the Madrid Stock Exchange. The surprise announcement, that their #TOMALABOLSA will join your #OCCUPYWALLSTREET, may embolden other cities as well. A rumor suggests the financial district of Paris may be next … or will it be Toronto’s Bay Street, Sydney’s Martin Place, or some yet to be chosen site in London?
Then on October 6th another kind of encampment begins in Washington, DC.
With a bit of luck, and the right mix of nonviolence and tenacity, S17 just might cascade into a Tahrir Moment on an international scale – wouldn’t that be something?
We call on jammers across the world to occupy financial districts on September 17:
#TOMALABOLSA in Madrid, Spain (Confirmed)
#OCCUPYFDSF in San Francisco, USA (Confirmed)
#OCCUPYBAYSTREET in Toronto, Canada
#OCCUPYCANARYWHARF in London, UK
#OCCUPYMARTINPLACE in Sydney, Australia
#OCCUPYBANKENVIERTEL in Frankfurt, Germany
#OCCUPYMARUNOUCHI in Tokyo, Japan
But if a group of enraged activists — endorsed by the likes of Stephen Lerner — occupying Wall Street with tent cities were not enough — it actually gets worse. The term “Day of Rage” finds origin in “Days of Rage,“ a violent set of riots waged in Chicago in 1969 by the Weathermen’s Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. The Weather Underground terrorist organized his “Rage” in an attempt to bring troops back home from Vietnam. Similarly, this most recent US Day of Rage is co-organized by a group that calls itself “The War Resistance League.”
Yet despite Ayers’ initial claim that his Day of Rage, too, would be “non-violent,” during the four day rampage that started in Chicago’s historic Lincoln Park, the Weathermen arrived in full-clad battle gear, helmets and weapons in tow, and called on activists to kill the rich and even their own parents.
During an interview with Chicago Mag, Ayers, with no regrets, summed up his riot’s intended purpose, stating, ”kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents—that‘s where it’s really at.”
As if inciting legions of radicals to kill anyone — rich or poor — were not abhorrent enough, Ayers and crew took it that one step further by calling on people to murder their own parents. One wonders if those taking part in the newly reborn Day of Rage, staged by ACORN and SEIU affiliates, harbor the same deep seated blood-lust and penchant for violence in their own hearts.
Ayers went on to explain away his Day of Rage, saying, “the rhetoric was excessive because the times were excessive.”
“The war had escalated, so naturally the language escalated. No one thought I meant that literally.” But as it turns out, Ayers did.
As the Weathermen marched on, smashing windows and vandalizing property through the tear-gassed streets of Chicago, nearly 300 militants were arrested and over 60 people were injured. Some reports estimate the damage climbed to hundreds of thousands of dollars, which, four decades ago, was a steep price indeed.
But, never breaking with character, the remorseless Ayers trivialized the destruction, stating that ”the Days of Rage was an attempt to break from the norms of kind of acceptable theatre of ‘here are the anti-war people: containable, marginal, predictable, and here‘s the little path they’re going to march down, and here’s where they can make their little statement.’ We wanted to say, “No, what we’re going to do is whatever we had to do to stop the violence in Vietnam.’”
Similarly, two of the activists from the new Day of Rage revealed similar intentions when they explained that physically “putting your body in the way” of an injustice is more effective than traditional means of non-violent protests.
But to Ayer’s delight, his Days of Rage ended with his band of radical protesters marauding the streets of Chicago causing complete destruction.
“The streets became sparkling and treacherous with the jagged remains of our rampage,” a nostalgic Ayers wrote about his window-smashing ”crystal chaos.”
Meanwhile, the broader US Day of Rage movement, that also operates under the moniker, “Occupy Wall Street,“ states it is an ”idea not a party” and lists its basic tenets and principles on the official website. Under the heading “We Have Had Enough,” Day of Rage states:
Legitimate government is born of the self-interest and will of the people expressed by its citizens in free and fair elections. It does not spring from a tyranny of special interests, patronage, or a system or ideology that runs counter to the aims of life.
The institutions of government were designed to protect the principles of our democratic republic and to serve the will of citizens.
Corporations, even those owned by foreign shareholders, use money to act as the voices of millions, while individual citizens, the legitimate voters, are silenced and demoralized by the farce.
US Day of Rage’s mission statement also says it is “here to help facilitate state and city level organization, and to organize the federal protest at the U.S. Capitol.”
So now we will have to wait and see what becomes of the latest Days of Rage incarnation. We are, however, given a little insight into the thinking some organizers of the US Day of Rage via several informational videos posted on Rage’s website.
The “how to” videos and“handbook” on civil disobedience provided by the movement’s organizers do include instruction on how to resist arrest and disrupt court hearings. Not a hopeful sign they intend to remain on the “civil” side of disobedience.
In the video, one of the organizers even likens his movement to Gandhi’s. We wonder what Gandhi would say about the use of the word “rage” at all, let alone if the protests turn out the same, violent way the Weathermen’s did. Will these new radicals, lead by SEIU’s Stephen Lerner, rampage through the streets of New York, vandalizing property, injuring people and wreaking havoc until the tear gas is deployed? We shudder to think.
Below are two US Day of Rage informational videos and a copy of their “Handbook for Nonviolent Campaigns” can be found here.
Followed by a video that came under a section titled “Jailhouse Solidarity” that deals with legal issues that can arise from engaging in protests:
What, exactly, is a “US Day of Rage?” Well, on September 17th we may find out for certain, but until then, The Blaze is revealing what information does exist about this very nefarious-sounding campaign.
A US Day of Rage is the title given to a day of ostensibly “non-violent” civil disobedience orchestrated by a group of radicals — that reportedly include SEIU’s Stephen Lerner and ACORN founder Wade Rathke (who, coincidentally, formerly served as president of SEIU’s local New Orleans branch) — targeting Wall Street and U.S. capitalism. It’s worth noting that the title of the movement — if its intentions are indeed non-violent in nature — appears to contradict itself slightly.
But what is perhaps even more interesting than its title is who is allegedly behind the movement.
You may recall that back in March The Blaze exposed Lerner for stating his aspirations to destroy JP Morgan Chase and cause the collapse of the entire stock market.
Now, the US Day of Rage protests, staged by a collective of activist groups allegedly in conjunction with Lerner and Rathke, are planning the actual “occupation” of Wall Street September 17, complete with a tent city set smack-dab in the middle of Manhattan’s financial district. Similar protests are purportedly set to take place across the nation — and even world — at the same time. Some Day of Rage organizers are even calling on activists to squat in Manhattan’s financial district for months at a time.
The Blaze’s report on Lerner, who serves on SEIU’s International Executive Board, caught the union agitator stating:
So, a bunch of us around the country are thinking about who would be a really good company to hate? We decided that would be JP Morgan Chase. …. And so we’re going to roll out over the next couple of months what will hopefully be an exciting campaign about JP Morgan Chase that is really about challenge the power of Wall Street. And so what we’re looking at is in the first week of May, we get enough people together – we’re starting now – to really have a week of action in New York with the goal of … I don’t want to go into any details because I don’t know which police agents are in the room, but the goal would be that we would roll out in New York the first week in May.
Then, like clockwork, some 400 activists brought Lerner’s dream to fruition and converged on JP Morgan Chase’s annual shareholders’ meeting in May — this time in Columbus, Ohio rather than New York. The group that staged this particular protest, the National People’s Action, reportedly confirmed it was there as part of its “Showdown in America” campaign against the big banks. Since the location of JP Morgan Chase’s meeting was surrounded by a moat, the activists, who likened themselves to Robin Hood, even brought a collapsible bridge to “storm the castle.”
It is also perhaps worth noting that in March, The Blaze reported Rathke and Lerner called for “days of rage in ten cities around JP Morgan Chase.” Rathke mentioned some of Lerner’s key assertions:
While labeling Lerner an ex-SEIU official who was signaling that unions and community organizations were “dead,” also reported hook-line-and-sinker that in May, according to Lerner, there would be days of rage in ten cities around JP Morgan Chase signally the beginning of the anti-banking jihad.
So it might add up now that Klein Online reported Rathke’s efforts are being organized by Lerner, who, as part of his planned protests, called for “a week of civil disobedience, direct action all over the city:”
The planned Sept. 17 day of rage seems to be the culmination of Rathke’s efforts.
Those efforts are being organized by Stephen Lerner, an SEIU board member who reportedly visited the Obama White House at least four times.
The aim, according to Lerner, is to “destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement.”
“How do we bring down the stock market? How do we bring down their bonuses? How do we interfere with their ability to, to be rich?” Lerner asked rhetorically in March.
So, it appears, Columbus could have been one of the ten U.S. cities en route to New York for the “big day.”
Listen to The Blaze original video from March where Lerner, who has been dubbed a domestic terrorist, reveals his true intentions about JP Morgan. Then read further as we explain how the upcoming Day of Rage campaign in September could actually serve as the launchpad for Lerner’s war against JP Morgan and Wall Street as a whole:
Below is Lerner’s response to The Blaze’s audio that captured his damning statements:
In a follow-up report later in March, The Blaze revealed that Lerner penned an OpEd in a progressive publication outlining his campaign to bring down the economy and “stoke simmering discontent into concrete, concerted direct action“ in a move to ”turn the tables” on Wall Street.
But the Days of Rage campaign might go even further than originally thought. While one US Day of Rage website is somewhat vague about its slated activities, other Days of Rage organizers are quite bold in revealing their intentions to occupy Wall Street September 17 and remain there for literally months, in a kind of “US Tahrir Square.“AdBusters published a statement by a group dubbed ”Culture Jammers” that states:
On September 17, we want to see 20,000 people flood into lower Manhattan, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and occupy Wall Street for a few months. Once there, we shall incessantly repeat our one simple demand until Barack Obama capitulates.
…there is a very real danger that if we naively put our cards on the table and rally around the “overthrow of capitalism” or some equally outworn utopian slogan, then our Tahrir moment will quickly fizzle into another inconsequential ultra-lefty spectacle soon forgotten. But if we have the cunning to come up with a deceptively simple Trojan Horse demand …
…
See you on Wall St. Sept 17. Bring Tent.
Not to mention the myriad coordinated Days of Rage AdBusters reveals are set to roll out at other stock exchanges worldwide:
Inspired by the visceral potential of the Wall Street occupation, the Indignados of Spain just sent us word that on September 17th they too will set up camp outside the Madrid Stock Exchange. The surprise announcement, that their #TOMALABOLSA will join your #OCCUPYWALLSTREET, may embolden other cities as well. A rumor suggests the financial district of Paris may be next … or will it be Toronto’s Bay Street, Sydney’s Martin Place, or some yet to be chosen site in London?
Then on October 6th another kind of encampment begins in Washington, DC.
With a bit of luck, and the right mix of nonviolence and tenacity, S17 just might cascade into a Tahrir Moment on an international scale – wouldn’t that be something?
We call on jammers across the world to occupy financial districts on September 17:
#TOMALABOLSA in Madrid, Spain (Confirmed)
#OCCUPYFDSF in San Francisco, USA (Confirmed)
#OCCUPYBAYSTREET in Toronto, Canada
#OCCUPYCANARYWHARF in London, UK
#OCCUPYMARTINPLACE in Sydney, Australia
#OCCUPYBANKENVIERTEL in Frankfurt, Germany
#OCCUPYMARUNOUCHI in Tokyo, Japan
But if a group of enraged activists — endorsed by the likes of Stephen Lerner — occupying Wall Street with tent cities were not enough — it actually gets worse. The term “Day of Rage” finds origin in “Days of Rage,“ a violent set of riots waged in Chicago in 1969 by the Weathermen’s Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. The Weather Underground terrorist organized his “Rage” in an attempt to bring troops back home from Vietnam. Similarly, this most recent US Day of Rage is co-organized by a group that calls itself “The War Resistance League.”
Yet despite Ayers’ initial claim that his Day of Rage, too, would be “non-violent,” during the four day rampage that started in Chicago’s historic Lincoln Park, the Weathermen arrived in full-clad battle gear, helmets and weapons in tow, and called on activists to kill the rich and even their own parents.
During an interview with Chicago Mag, Ayers, with no regrets, summed up his riot’s intended purpose, stating, ”kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents—that‘s where it’s really at.”
As if inciting legions of radicals to kill anyone — rich or poor — were not abhorrent enough, Ayers and crew took it that one step further by calling on people to murder their own parents. One wonders if those taking part in the newly reborn Day of Rage, staged by ACORN and SEIU affiliates, harbor the same deep seated blood-lust and penchant for violence in their own hearts.
Ayers went on to explain away his Day of Rage, saying, “the rhetoric was excessive because the times were excessive.”
“The war had escalated, so naturally the language escalated. No one thought I meant that literally.” But as it turns out, Ayers did.
As the Weathermen marched on, smashing windows and vandalizing property through the tear-gassed streets of Chicago, nearly 300 militants were arrested and over 60 people were injured. Some reports estimate the damage climbed to hundreds of thousands of dollars, which, four decades ago, was a steep price indeed.
But, never breaking with character, the remorseless Ayers trivialized the destruction, stating that ”the Days of Rage was an attempt to break from the norms of kind of acceptable theatre of ‘here are the anti-war people: containable, marginal, predictable, and here‘s the little path they’re going to march down, and here’s where they can make their little statement.’ We wanted to say, “No, what we’re going to do is whatever we had to do to stop the violence in Vietnam.’”
Similarly, two of the activists from the new Day of Rage revealed similar intentions when they explained that physically “putting your body in the way” of an injustice is more effective than traditional means of non-violent protests.
But to Ayer’s delight, his Days of Rage ended with his band of radical protesters marauding the streets of Chicago causing complete destruction.
“The streets became sparkling and treacherous with the jagged remains of our rampage,” a nostalgic Ayers wrote about his window-smashing ”crystal chaos.”
Meanwhile, the broader US Day of Rage movement, that also operates under the moniker, “Occupy Wall Street,“ states it is an ”idea not a party” and lists its basic tenets and principles on the official website. Under the heading “We Have Had Enough,” Day of Rage states:
Legitimate government is born of the self-interest and will of the people expressed by its citizens in free and fair elections. It does not spring from a tyranny of special interests, patronage, or a system or ideology that runs counter to the aims of life.
The institutions of government were designed to protect the principles of our democratic republic and to serve the will of citizens.
Corporations, even those owned by foreign shareholders, use money to act as the voices of millions, while individual citizens, the legitimate voters, are silenced and demoralized by the farce.
US Day of Rage’s mission statement also says it is “here to help facilitate state and city level organization, and to organize the federal protest at the U.S. Capitol.”
So now we will have to wait and see what becomes of the latest Days of Rage incarnation. We are, however, given a little insight into the thinking some organizers of the US Day of Rage via several informational videos posted on Rage’s website.
The “how to” videos and“handbook” on civil disobedience provided by the movement’s organizers do include instruction on how to resist arrest and disrupt court hearings. Not a hopeful sign they intend to remain on the “civil” side of disobedience.
In the video, one of the organizers even likens his movement to Gandhi’s. We wonder what Gandhi would say about the use of the word “rage” at all, let alone if the protests turn out the same, violent way the Weathermen’s did. Will these new radicals, lead by SEIU’s Stephen Lerner, rampage through the streets of New York, vandalizing property, injuring people and wreaking havoc until the tear gas is deployed? We shudder to think.
Below are two US Day of Rage informational videos and a copy of their “Handbook for Nonviolent Campaigns” can be found here.
Followed by a video that came under a section titled “Jailhouse Solidarity” that deals with legal issues that can arise from engaging in protests:
WHEN, NOT "IF"
I was torn trying to rename this article between "You are always on my mind" and "Sarah Smile"!
WHEN, NOT IF
© Copyright 2011 by Anthony James
Within the ever shifting landscape of the Republican presidential candidate pool has been a constant that is both the best and the worst kept secret of the 2012 general election cycle. That secret is whether or not Sarah Palin will throw her hat into the ring as a candidate for president this time out. As I have written in my previous pieces, “Revelation: The Arc of the Candidate,” “Sarah Inches Closer,” and “What Really Makes Sarah Special,” I believe her running for president in 2012 is and has for some time been a fait accompli.
Ceteris parabus, fortis fortuit brava
That’s Latin for, “All other things being equal, fortune favors the strong.” Never in the pantheon of American politics has there been quite so unjustly vilified or viciously set-upon a heroine as Sarah Palin. The digs, insults, attacks, and attempts at personal character assassination that this woman and her lovely family have endured since her being named as John McCain’s running mate three years ago transcend, or should I say, sink well below—by an order of magnitude—the vileness heaped upon any other candidate in the rough-and-tumble history of American politics.
Yet there she stands; strong, vibrant even, and smiling, always smiling. Unfazed by the very worst that the immoral, soulless Liberal Left and terrified RINO Right could hurl at her with the all-too-willing aid of a complicit lapdog media. Even absent her amazing record in Alaska as Governor, this remarkable woman is strength personified, a spine of steel with a heart of gold. Sarah Palin is perhaps the most gifted natural-born leader this country has ever known, certainly in the last hundred years.
Which brings us to September 3, 2011 in Indianola Iowa, which will mark the three-year anniversary of her having been chosen by John McCain, and her having spoken at the Republican National Convention that night when America was first riveted by this ever-ascending superstar. Organizers for this September 3rd event have already had to change the venue to the Wells Fargo Arena to try to accommodate the masses who will descend upon the Des Moines area for this once-in-a-lifetime historical event. Good luck. Best estimates so far are that scores, and more likely hundreds of buses of avid Palin supporters from all across America have already made plans to be there, to witness in person the kickoff of next “fundamental transformation” of the United States of America.
Sarah Palin is both brilliant and caring. She is aware of just how passionately her supporters cling to the hope that she will offer herself up in service to set this great nation aright. I don’t believe Sarah has it in her to allow all these people to travel all this distance only to be disappointed. I believe September 3rd is the day that the bright sunshine of hope bursts forth once again across this great land. This, I believe with all my heart, will be the day Sarah Palin announces her candidacy for president in 2012.
When, Not If.
While there doubtless were extremely valid reasons why she might have chosen not to run this time out, I honestly believe that underneath it all she knew that she could no more avoid this fate than can the sun choose to not rise in the east on any given morning. This great secret about whether she will run has actually been a question all along of when, not if, she will officially announce. And of course therein lies an even greater truth.
When Sarah announces, life as we know it in this country, at least as we have known it for the past nearly three years, changes. Her announcement will be the equivalent of a political earthquake measuring twenty on the one-to-ten Richter scale. Many of the existing Republican candidates will drop out automatically, knowing that their continued candidacy is just a pointless waste of their and our time and money. Others who were planning to announce will start looking for work elsewhere. Sarah’s campaign coffers will explode with donations, probably in the tens of millions, as her millions of ardent supporters across America cut loose with a tidal wave of funding put aside for just this moment of moments.
On a recent call-in radio talk show from the heartland I heard a Sarah supporter telling the DJ that he had already booked a hotel room in the Des Moines area, believing in his heart that this would be the day Sarah would announce her candidacy. He made it clear that this was for him a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see earthshaking, headline making history being made. Liberal heads from the upper East side of Manhattan to Union Square in San Francisco will explode in unison. Chris Matthews will forever lose his tingle. Republican and Democrat agitprop agents provocateur will begin a fevered scurrying, trying to come up with some new barb or arrow to fling at this Teflon Terror from Wasilla.
I could be wrong, but I’m not. As I state in “Revelation: The Arc of the Candidate,” the White House lies smack dab in the middle of the political path Sarah Palin has been on for the past two decades. This will only come as a surprise to those who really know nothing about her. It will however, come as an historic moment of shock and awe for every living American as we watch the beginning of the rebirth of the greatest nation in the history of all mankind. As we watch our rising star light up the future of our nation for the generations to come, and as we see America set back on her path of Manifest Destiny, to shine as a beacon of prosperity, hope and freedom to all the nations of the world.
When, not if. After all, this is still America.
WHEN, NOT IF
© Copyright 2011 by Anthony James
Within the ever shifting landscape of the Republican presidential candidate pool has been a constant that is both the best and the worst kept secret of the 2012 general election cycle. That secret is whether or not Sarah Palin will throw her hat into the ring as a candidate for president this time out. As I have written in my previous pieces, “Revelation: The Arc of the Candidate,” “Sarah Inches Closer,” and “What Really Makes Sarah Special,” I believe her running for president in 2012 is and has for some time been a fait accompli.
Ceteris parabus, fortis fortuit brava
That’s Latin for, “All other things being equal, fortune favors the strong.” Never in the pantheon of American politics has there been quite so unjustly vilified or viciously set-upon a heroine as Sarah Palin. The digs, insults, attacks, and attempts at personal character assassination that this woman and her lovely family have endured since her being named as John McCain’s running mate three years ago transcend, or should I say, sink well below—by an order of magnitude—the vileness heaped upon any other candidate in the rough-and-tumble history of American politics.
Yet there she stands; strong, vibrant even, and smiling, always smiling. Unfazed by the very worst that the immoral, soulless Liberal Left and terrified RINO Right could hurl at her with the all-too-willing aid of a complicit lapdog media. Even absent her amazing record in Alaska as Governor, this remarkable woman is strength personified, a spine of steel with a heart of gold. Sarah Palin is perhaps the most gifted natural-born leader this country has ever known, certainly in the last hundred years.
Which brings us to September 3, 2011 in Indianola Iowa, which will mark the three-year anniversary of her having been chosen by John McCain, and her having spoken at the Republican National Convention that night when America was first riveted by this ever-ascending superstar. Organizers for this September 3rd event have already had to change the venue to the Wells Fargo Arena to try to accommodate the masses who will descend upon the Des Moines area for this once-in-a-lifetime historical event. Good luck. Best estimates so far are that scores, and more likely hundreds of buses of avid Palin supporters from all across America have already made plans to be there, to witness in person the kickoff of next “fundamental transformation” of the United States of America.
Sarah Palin is both brilliant and caring. She is aware of just how passionately her supporters cling to the hope that she will offer herself up in service to set this great nation aright. I don’t believe Sarah has it in her to allow all these people to travel all this distance only to be disappointed. I believe September 3rd is the day that the bright sunshine of hope bursts forth once again across this great land. This, I believe with all my heart, will be the day Sarah Palin announces her candidacy for president in 2012.
When, Not If.
While there doubtless were extremely valid reasons why she might have chosen not to run this time out, I honestly believe that underneath it all she knew that she could no more avoid this fate than can the sun choose to not rise in the east on any given morning. This great secret about whether she will run has actually been a question all along of when, not if, she will officially announce. And of course therein lies an even greater truth.
When Sarah announces, life as we know it in this country, at least as we have known it for the past nearly three years, changes. Her announcement will be the equivalent of a political earthquake measuring twenty on the one-to-ten Richter scale. Many of the existing Republican candidates will drop out automatically, knowing that their continued candidacy is just a pointless waste of their and our time and money. Others who were planning to announce will start looking for work elsewhere. Sarah’s campaign coffers will explode with donations, probably in the tens of millions, as her millions of ardent supporters across America cut loose with a tidal wave of funding put aside for just this moment of moments.
On a recent call-in radio talk show from the heartland I heard a Sarah supporter telling the DJ that he had already booked a hotel room in the Des Moines area, believing in his heart that this would be the day Sarah would announce her candidacy. He made it clear that this was for him a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see earthshaking, headline making history being made. Liberal heads from the upper East side of Manhattan to Union Square in San Francisco will explode in unison. Chris Matthews will forever lose his tingle. Republican and Democrat agitprop agents provocateur will begin a fevered scurrying, trying to come up with some new barb or arrow to fling at this Teflon Terror from Wasilla.
I could be wrong, but I’m not. As I state in “Revelation: The Arc of the Candidate,” the White House lies smack dab in the middle of the political path Sarah Palin has been on for the past two decades. This will only come as a surprise to those who really know nothing about her. It will however, come as an historic moment of shock and awe for every living American as we watch the beginning of the rebirth of the greatest nation in the history of all mankind. As we watch our rising star light up the future of our nation for the generations to come, and as we see America set back on her path of Manifest Destiny, to shine as a beacon of prosperity, hope and freedom to all the nations of the world.
When, not if. After all, this is still America.
Obama increases his personal debt ceiling -- his-and-hers jets for vacation
Obama gets into the swing of things on his Martha's Vineyard vacation... after increasing his personal debt ceiling with rare sighting of the First Credit Card
President buys $32 worth of books because daughter has an assignment
Then he hits the golf course for a round of foursomes
First Lady arrives with daughters on separate government jet just a few hours before her husband
Additional cost to taxpayers will be in the thousands
President begins holiday with terrorism briefing before going to book shop
New poll shows only 11 per cent of Americans are happy with conditions
Sarah Palin calls Obama 'tone deaf" for continuing with his vacation at $50,000-per-week farm house
With the economy in turmoil, the national debt rising and millions of American families struggling to make ends meet, Barack Obama today decided to practise his golf swing.
Teeing off his holiday, Mr Obama was driven to Vineyard Golf Club in Edgartown for a round of foursomes golf.
Aides this afternoon said the President played the links course with long-time Chicago friend Eric Whitaker and two White House staffers.
Earlier in the day Mr Obama visited the Bunch of Grapes book shop in Vineyard Haven with daughters Malia, 13, and Sasha, 10 and picked up five or six books.
'They've got to buy some books,' he said, adding that one of his daughters had an assignment.
After going upstairs and looking around the store, Mr Obama was seen with copies of 'Brave New World' and 'The Bayou Trilogy'.
Brave New World is Aldous Huxley's 1932 dystopian novel about a state which controls the behaviour of its people by using technology to keep them superficially happy. Republicans may well read into the purchase.
The Bayou Trilogy is Daniel Woodrell's work centred around a detective fighting crime in a Louisiana swampland.
Ahead of any relaxing though, Mr Obama began his holiday with a national security briefing from John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism.
Before it had even started in earnest, the much-maligned vacation became a PR nightmare, after it emerged this morning that he and his wife took separate government jets to Martha's Vineyard just hours apart.
Michelle Obama was revealed to have arrived at the Massachusetts retreat, only 500 miles from Washington, four hours before her husband yesterday.
She was accompanied by their daughters and landed at around 2pm - four hours earlier than the President.
The extra transport to get the the First Lady to the island for only a few more hours of vacation time will have cost taxpayers thousands in additional expenses.
The costs related to Mrs Obama’s solo trip mainly include the flight on the specially designed military aircraft she took instead of Air Force One, as well as any extra staff and Secret Service that had to be enlisted to go with her.
She would also have had her own motorcade from the airport to her vacation residence.
The President had already drawn scorn for using two helicopters and Air Force One to get to Martha's Vineyard.
He yesterday left the White House aboard Marine One on his way to Andrews Air Force base to hitch a lift aboard Air Force One - along with First Dog Bo.
After landing at Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, he then took a final helicopter to his holiday destination to complete the remarkable 500-mile journey.
The President arrived on this wealthy Massachusetts island retreat as the stock market plunged and a new poll showed just 11 per cent of Americans are happy with the way things are in the country.
He also drew fresh criticism from Sarah Palin for even going on the vacation while the country is in such a poor situation.
The President will be staying with his family at the Blue Heron Farm, a sprawling, $50,000-per-week estate with plenty of room for staff and Secret Service agents accompanying him on the trip.
The family are to spend 10 days in a rented compound.
Sarah Palin yesterday labelled Mr Obama 'tone deaf' for continuing with his holiday while America faces economic problems.
Speaking during 'America Live' on Fox News, Mrs Palin, a potential Republican presidential candidate, said: 'He's very, very tone deaf. I wouldn't (go on vacation) if I were he, especially not to Martha's Vineyard. I do predict that he is not going to be gone the full ten days.
'He is going to get the advice from his advisers that he needs to get back to work to the White House and he needs to start working very closely on a bi-partisan measure with Congress and start plugging in these new solutions.'
Former Alaskan governor Palin's criticism came as a new Gallup poll released this morning shows only 11 per cent of American are happy with the situation in the country.
That is the lowest number recorded in the poll's 30 years - bar the week immediately following the 2008 economic collapse, when only seven per cent said things were going well.
Jeff Jones, senior editor of the Gallup poll, said high levels of pessimism were down to the economy, coupled with growing frustration with the political system.
'There are big problems and people don't trust politicians to be able to solve them,' he said. 'And many of the things they have done, people hated.'
Those poor numbers followed survey results released on Wednesday, which showed a startling loss in the commander-in-chief's favourability.
That Gallup poll showed the President’s handling of the economy at a new low of 26 per cent in the aftermath of a bruising fight with Congress over federal spending.
71 per cent of Americans said they disapproved of Mr Obama's handling of the economy, up 11 percentage points from mid-May, when Gallup last questioned people about the issue.
Approval of his handling of the economy fell by 11 percentage points from 37 percent in mid-May.
The President had similarly low approval ratings on other economic issues.
Only 24 per cent of Americans approved of Mr Obama's handling of the federal budget deficit, while 29 per cent approved of his efforts to create jobs.
On the jobs front, the number of Americans seeking unemployment benefits rose back above 400,000, suggesting that the U.S. economy is creating jobs but not nearly enough to make a dent in the staggering employment rate.
That data, combined with world economic fears, led to a sell-off on Wall Street with the Dow spiralling sharply at opening as it dropped 500 points - or four per cent. It closed 400 points down.
The president's overall job approval rating among voters questioned August 11-14 was 41 per cent, slightly lower than other polls conducted in August.
In a recent interview with CNN, the President claimed progress was being made.
He said: 'When I came into office, I knew I was going to have a big mess to clean up and, frankly, the mess has been bigger than I think a lot of people anticipated at the time.
'We have made steady progress on these fronts, but we're not making progress fast enough.
'Ultimately, the buck stops with me. I'm going to be accountable.
'I think people understand that a lot of these problems were decades in the making.
'People understand that this financial crisis was the worst since the Great Depression.
'But, ultimately, they say, look, he's the president, we think he has good intentions, but we're impatient and we want to see things move faster.
Plunge: The graph shows the movement of the Dow Jones over the past week
The president ignited a firestorm on Wednesday after it was revealed he had a plan to boost jobs and revitalise the economy, but wouldn't reveal it until September.
A White House official said Mr Obama's proposals would be fresh ones, not a rehash of plans he has pitched for weeks and still supports, like his idea of an ‘infrastructure bank’ to fund construction jobs.
However, the American people won't hear details of the proposals, or any other solutions to the nation's economic woes, until Obama returns from his summer sojourn in Martha's Vineyard, the wealthy island enclave off Massachusetts, where his family will vacation for the third straight year.
Mr Obama's version will challenge the new 'supercommittee' of Congress to go beyond its goal of $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction.
Confirming the deficit-reduction part of his plan directly, Obama told a rural town hall crowd in Illinois on Wednesday: 'I don't think it's good enough for us to just do it part way. If we're going to do it, let's go ahead and fix it.'
Mr Obama's major economic speech will come right after the Sept. 5 Labour Day holiday. Republicans were underwhelmed.
Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, said via Twitter that Mr Obama could scrap the speech and just hand over a detailed plan to Congress.
'Seriously, just drop it in the mail. Podium not required,’ Mr Buck's tweet said.
Mr Obama will seek to use his economic proposals as leverage against Republicans in Congress, hoping to show a nation disgusted with gridlock that he is the one trying to get results.
Mr Obama's re-election campaign and the White House are also sure to use any specific ideas from the president as a way to blunt attacks from the Republicans hoping to run against him in next year's presidential election.
Already, Mr Obama has been previewing his line of attack.
Republican White House contender Mitt Romney, campaigning in New Hampshire, needled Mr Obama for showing up with too little and too late on the economy.
'But we appreciate the fact that he's going to devote some time to it,' Mr Romney said. 'Not just going to be on the bus tour, not just going to be vacationing in Martha's Vineyard, but giving some thought to the American people.'
Most lawmakers left town in early August, right after reaching a deal with the White House to raise the debt ceiling and avoid a potentially catastrophic government default.
Congress isn't expected to get back to work until early September.
With the lawmakers away, there's probably not much Obama could get done on the economic front even if he did cancel his trip. And even if Congress stayed in Washington, too, there are no quick fixes for the country's deep economic problems.
Rich Galen, a GOP consultant, said both Mr Obama and Congress 'don't have anything to act upon.'
He added: 'If anyone knew what the answer to this was, they'd do it.'
Then there's the issue of perception. Mr Obama will be vacationing at a rented multi-million dollar estate on an island known as a haven for the rich and famous at a time when millions of Americans are out of work and countless more are financially strapped.
The house rents for about $50,000 a week.
Bill Clinton's aides were so concerned about vacation perceptions that they polled the public before deciding where he should go.
While Mr Clinton preferred trips to Martha's Vineyard, polling sometimes pushed him toward places like the more rugged Jackson Hole, Wyoming.
Former President George W. Bush was criticised for spending nearly 500 days at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, during his two terms in office.
He was there in August 2001 when he received a CIA briefing paper warning him of al Qaeda's intentions to strike the U.S. — just over a month before the September 11 attacks.
And in 2005, he remained on vacation after Hurricane Katrina swamped New Orleans and devastated the Gulf Coast. His presidency suffered from his response to the storm and his decision to not immediately return to Washington.
Some of Mr Obama's prior vacations have come under fire as well. Last summer, he was chided for not taking his family on a Gulf Coast vacation following the BP PLC oil spill.
When he finally did travel to the Florida Panhandle for a weekend, his attempts to soothe public concern about the safety of the region's beaches were tainted when the White House released a photo of the president and daughter Sasha swimming in water that turned out not to be the Gulf.
Perhaps mindful of the president's image, the White House booked Mr Obama on a three-day, economy-focused bus tour through the Midwest right before the start of his vacation.
He also travelled to Michigan last week to speak at a factory that makes batteries for hybrid and electric vehicles.
White House press secretary Jay Carney said he doesn't think the public begrudges the president a break to recharge and spend time with his family.
Besides, Mr Carney said, the President is never really off-duty, since White House advisers go with him and he still receives regular briefings on national security and the economy.
'The presidency travels with you. He will be in constant communication,' said Mr Carney, also noting that Martha's Vineyard is close enough to Washington that Obama could make it home quickly if needed.
Obama has adamantly rejected the notion of calling Congress back from its break.
'The last thing we need is Congress spending more time arguing in D.C.,' he said during a speech in Michigan last week.
'What I figure is, they need to spend more time out here listening to you and hearing how fed up you are.'
President buys $32 worth of books because daughter has an assignment
Then he hits the golf course for a round of foursomes
First Lady arrives with daughters on separate government jet just a few hours before her husband
Additional cost to taxpayers will be in the thousands
President begins holiday with terrorism briefing before going to book shop
New poll shows only 11 per cent of Americans are happy with conditions
Sarah Palin calls Obama 'tone deaf" for continuing with his vacation at $50,000-per-week farm house
With the economy in turmoil, the national debt rising and millions of American families struggling to make ends meet, Barack Obama today decided to practise his golf swing.
Teeing off his holiday, Mr Obama was driven to Vineyard Golf Club in Edgartown for a round of foursomes golf.
Aides this afternoon said the President played the links course with long-time Chicago friend Eric Whitaker and two White House staffers.
Earlier in the day Mr Obama visited the Bunch of Grapes book shop in Vineyard Haven with daughters Malia, 13, and Sasha, 10 and picked up five or six books.
'They've got to buy some books,' he said, adding that one of his daughters had an assignment.
After going upstairs and looking around the store, Mr Obama was seen with copies of 'Brave New World' and 'The Bayou Trilogy'.
Brave New World is Aldous Huxley's 1932 dystopian novel about a state which controls the behaviour of its people by using technology to keep them superficially happy. Republicans may well read into the purchase.
The Bayou Trilogy is Daniel Woodrell's work centred around a detective fighting crime in a Louisiana swampland.
Ahead of any relaxing though, Mr Obama began his holiday with a national security briefing from John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism.
Before it had even started in earnest, the much-maligned vacation became a PR nightmare, after it emerged this morning that he and his wife took separate government jets to Martha's Vineyard just hours apart.
Michelle Obama was revealed to have arrived at the Massachusetts retreat, only 500 miles from Washington, four hours before her husband yesterday.
She was accompanied by their daughters and landed at around 2pm - four hours earlier than the President.
The extra transport to get the the First Lady to the island for only a few more hours of vacation time will have cost taxpayers thousands in additional expenses.
The costs related to Mrs Obama’s solo trip mainly include the flight on the specially designed military aircraft she took instead of Air Force One, as well as any extra staff and Secret Service that had to be enlisted to go with her.
She would also have had her own motorcade from the airport to her vacation residence.
The President had already drawn scorn for using two helicopters and Air Force One to get to Martha's Vineyard.
He yesterday left the White House aboard Marine One on his way to Andrews Air Force base to hitch a lift aboard Air Force One - along with First Dog Bo.
After landing at Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, he then took a final helicopter to his holiday destination to complete the remarkable 500-mile journey.
The President arrived on this wealthy Massachusetts island retreat as the stock market plunged and a new poll showed just 11 per cent of Americans are happy with the way things are in the country.
He also drew fresh criticism from Sarah Palin for even going on the vacation while the country is in such a poor situation.
The President will be staying with his family at the Blue Heron Farm, a sprawling, $50,000-per-week estate with plenty of room for staff and Secret Service agents accompanying him on the trip.
The family are to spend 10 days in a rented compound.
Sarah Palin yesterday labelled Mr Obama 'tone deaf' for continuing with his holiday while America faces economic problems.
Speaking during 'America Live' on Fox News, Mrs Palin, a potential Republican presidential candidate, said: 'He's very, very tone deaf. I wouldn't (go on vacation) if I were he, especially not to Martha's Vineyard. I do predict that he is not going to be gone the full ten days.
'He is going to get the advice from his advisers that he needs to get back to work to the White House and he needs to start working very closely on a bi-partisan measure with Congress and start plugging in these new solutions.'
Former Alaskan governor Palin's criticism came as a new Gallup poll released this morning shows only 11 per cent of American are happy with the situation in the country.
That is the lowest number recorded in the poll's 30 years - bar the week immediately following the 2008 economic collapse, when only seven per cent said things were going well.
Jeff Jones, senior editor of the Gallup poll, said high levels of pessimism were down to the economy, coupled with growing frustration with the political system.
'There are big problems and people don't trust politicians to be able to solve them,' he said. 'And many of the things they have done, people hated.'
Those poor numbers followed survey results released on Wednesday, which showed a startling loss in the commander-in-chief's favourability.
That Gallup poll showed the President’s handling of the economy at a new low of 26 per cent in the aftermath of a bruising fight with Congress over federal spending.
71 per cent of Americans said they disapproved of Mr Obama's handling of the economy, up 11 percentage points from mid-May, when Gallup last questioned people about the issue.
Approval of his handling of the economy fell by 11 percentage points from 37 percent in mid-May.
The President had similarly low approval ratings on other economic issues.
Only 24 per cent of Americans approved of Mr Obama's handling of the federal budget deficit, while 29 per cent approved of his efforts to create jobs.
On the jobs front, the number of Americans seeking unemployment benefits rose back above 400,000, suggesting that the U.S. economy is creating jobs but not nearly enough to make a dent in the staggering employment rate.
That data, combined with world economic fears, led to a sell-off on Wall Street with the Dow spiralling sharply at opening as it dropped 500 points - or four per cent. It closed 400 points down.
The president's overall job approval rating among voters questioned August 11-14 was 41 per cent, slightly lower than other polls conducted in August.
In a recent interview with CNN, the President claimed progress was being made.
He said: 'When I came into office, I knew I was going to have a big mess to clean up and, frankly, the mess has been bigger than I think a lot of people anticipated at the time.
'We have made steady progress on these fronts, but we're not making progress fast enough.
'Ultimately, the buck stops with me. I'm going to be accountable.
'I think people understand that a lot of these problems were decades in the making.
'People understand that this financial crisis was the worst since the Great Depression.
'But, ultimately, they say, look, he's the president, we think he has good intentions, but we're impatient and we want to see things move faster.
The president ignited a firestorm on Wednesday after it was revealed he had a plan to boost jobs and revitalise the economy, but wouldn't reveal it until September.
A White House official said Mr Obama's proposals would be fresh ones, not a rehash of plans he has pitched for weeks and still supports, like his idea of an ‘infrastructure bank’ to fund construction jobs.
However, the American people won't hear details of the proposals, or any other solutions to the nation's economic woes, until Obama returns from his summer sojourn in Martha's Vineyard, the wealthy island enclave off Massachusetts, where his family will vacation for the third straight year.
Mr Obama's version will challenge the new 'supercommittee' of Congress to go beyond its goal of $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction.
Confirming the deficit-reduction part of his plan directly, Obama told a rural town hall crowd in Illinois on Wednesday: 'I don't think it's good enough for us to just do it part way. If we're going to do it, let's go ahead and fix it.'
Mr Obama's major economic speech will come right after the Sept. 5 Labour Day holiday. Republicans were underwhelmed.
Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, said via Twitter that Mr Obama could scrap the speech and just hand over a detailed plan to Congress.
'Seriously, just drop it in the mail. Podium not required,’ Mr Buck's tweet said.
Mr Obama will seek to use his economic proposals as leverage against Republicans in Congress, hoping to show a nation disgusted with gridlock that he is the one trying to get results.
Mr Obama's re-election campaign and the White House are also sure to use any specific ideas from the president as a way to blunt attacks from the Republicans hoping to run against him in next year's presidential election.
Already, Mr Obama has been previewing his line of attack.
Republican White House contender Mitt Romney, campaigning in New Hampshire, needled Mr Obama for showing up with too little and too late on the economy.
'But we appreciate the fact that he's going to devote some time to it,' Mr Romney said. 'Not just going to be on the bus tour, not just going to be vacationing in Martha's Vineyard, but giving some thought to the American people.'
Most lawmakers left town in early August, right after reaching a deal with the White House to raise the debt ceiling and avoid a potentially catastrophic government default.
Congress isn't expected to get back to work until early September.
With the lawmakers away, there's probably not much Obama could get done on the economic front even if he did cancel his trip. And even if Congress stayed in Washington, too, there are no quick fixes for the country's deep economic problems.
Rich Galen, a GOP consultant, said both Mr Obama and Congress 'don't have anything to act upon.'
He added: 'If anyone knew what the answer to this was, they'd do it.'
Then there's the issue of perception. Mr Obama will be vacationing at a rented multi-million dollar estate on an island known as a haven for the rich and famous at a time when millions of Americans are out of work and countless more are financially strapped.
The house rents for about $50,000 a week.
Bill Clinton's aides were so concerned about vacation perceptions that they polled the public before deciding where he should go.
While Mr Clinton preferred trips to Martha's Vineyard, polling sometimes pushed him toward places like the more rugged Jackson Hole, Wyoming.
Former President George W. Bush was criticised for spending nearly 500 days at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, during his two terms in office.
He was there in August 2001 when he received a CIA briefing paper warning him of al Qaeda's intentions to strike the U.S. — just over a month before the September 11 attacks.
And in 2005, he remained on vacation after Hurricane Katrina swamped New Orleans and devastated the Gulf Coast. His presidency suffered from his response to the storm and his decision to not immediately return to Washington.
Some of Mr Obama's prior vacations have come under fire as well. Last summer, he was chided for not taking his family on a Gulf Coast vacation following the BP PLC oil spill.
When he finally did travel to the Florida Panhandle for a weekend, his attempts to soothe public concern about the safety of the region's beaches were tainted when the White House released a photo of the president and daughter Sasha swimming in water that turned out not to be the Gulf.
Perhaps mindful of the president's image, the White House booked Mr Obama on a three-day, economy-focused bus tour through the Midwest right before the start of his vacation.
He also travelled to Michigan last week to speak at a factory that makes batteries for hybrid and electric vehicles.
White House press secretary Jay Carney said he doesn't think the public begrudges the president a break to recharge and spend time with his family.
Besides, Mr Carney said, the President is never really off-duty, since White House advisers go with him and he still receives regular briefings on national security and the economy.
'The presidency travels with you. He will be in constant communication,' said Mr Carney, also noting that Martha's Vineyard is close enough to Washington that Obama could make it home quickly if needed.
Obama has adamantly rejected the notion of calling Congress back from its break.
'The last thing we need is Congress spending more time arguing in D.C.,' he said during a speech in Michigan last week.
'What I figure is, they need to spend more time out here listening to you and hearing how fed up you are.'
Jury cannot be told plaintiff undocumented
NASHVILLE, Aug. 17 (UPI) -- A jury seated to determine civil damages cannot be told a woman who was shackled while she had a baby in Tennessee is an illegal immigrant, a U.S. judge says.
The judge also barred the Davidson County Sheriff's Office from using two expert witnesses, The (Nashville) Tennessean reported. The witnesses were expected to testify they believe any anguish Juana Villegas suffered during the delivery three years ago came from fear of being deported.
Villegas was near her due date when she was stopped for a traffic violation and then held because of her immigration status. U.S. District Judge William J. Haynes Jr. has already ruled her rights were violated by being forced to give birth while chained down and by not being allowed a breast pump while she was imprisoned.
"The issue of deportation and immigration is too volatile," Haynes said in his ruling Tuesday on the defense's expert witnesses.
The jury must decide how much Villegas should get in damages.
The judge also barred the Davidson County Sheriff's Office from using two expert witnesses, The (Nashville) Tennessean reported. The witnesses were expected to testify they believe any anguish Juana Villegas suffered during the delivery three years ago came from fear of being deported.
Villegas was near her due date when she was stopped for a traffic violation and then held because of her immigration status. U.S. District Judge William J. Haynes Jr. has already ruled her rights were violated by being forced to give birth while chained down and by not being allowed a breast pump while she was imprisoned.
"The issue of deportation and immigration is too volatile," Haynes said in his ruling Tuesday on the defense's expert witnesses.
The jury must decide how much Villegas should get in damages.
The Rage on the Left Is Just Beginning
If you are a right-winger who does not like President Obama and calls his policies “socialist,” you’ve got to hear what is going on among America’s left-wingers.
In fact, you can even read it for yourself in The New York Times. Left-wing columnist Maureen Dowd has written several columns dripping with contempt for Obama since he struck a deal with Republicans to cut spending but chose not to increase taxes in order to lower our nation's debt.
And Paul Krugman the Nobel Prize-winning economist has long complained in his New York Times columns that the president displayed weakness by not insisting on a larger stimulus package – even as the right wing has condemned the stimulus as a waste of money and a failure for not lowering the unemployment rate.
And now Professor Drew Westen, in an essay in the New York Times magazines, writes that the Democrat in the White House is failing to respond to right-wing bullying instigated by the rich who have created the “greatest levels of economic inequality and the there greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression…”
The anger coming at President Obama from the left is being fueled by polls that show most Americans, and even the majority of Republicans, think the president should have insisted on having the rich pay more taxes as part of any deal on raising the debt ceiling.
According to a recent CBS News/New York Times poll, half of the American people said the debt-ceiling agreement should have included a tax revenue increase, while 44 percent said it should have relied on only spending cuts.
Sixty-three percent of those polled said that they supported raising taxes on households earning more than $250,000 a year, like President Obama wanted to do. This includes 80 percent of Democrats, 61 percent of independents and 52 percent of Republicans.
Consider that the wealthiest 400 Americans have more money than the bottom 150 million combined and the rich are still paying the lowest tax rates since the 1950s.
The classes in America are becoming ever more stratified. Fewer people are able to move out of poverty in to the middle class while a great and growing number are falling out of the middle class into poverty. A failing public education system, less financial assistance for a college education and the crippling cost of health care are all factors that have made upward mobility for the working class even more difficult.
Last year, corporations like General Electric and ExxonMobil paid no taxes because of the loopholes embedded in the tax code.
And yet the president was defeated by charges of engaging in “class warfare,” and failed to build a narrative in which he pointed out the excesses of Wall Street and corporations who now enjoy record levels of profit but are not providing jobs to Americans.
In his essay Professor Westen wrote that President Obama “diluted [the stimulus] with tax cuts [40 percent of the stimulus] that had already been shown to be inert.” He said the president also lacked spine by extending the Bush tax cuts and allowing the Republicans to force him to cut spending as part of the debt ceiling deal at a time when the economy needs government spending to boost investor and consumer confidence.
Westen’s essay prompted an outpouring of angst in Letters to the Editor. One writer said the president has “just not been tough enough to confront the myriad transgressions of the Congressional Republicans.” Another letter to the paper said Westen’s article “struck a nerve,” and “I’m fed up with (the president’s} inability to stick up for the lofty goals he articulated,” when he was running for office.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a real Socialist, has joined the president’s Democratic critics by calling for a left-wing challenger to mount a challenge to Obama in the upcoming Democratic primaries.
Leading congressional Democrats are so furious with the deal the president struck with Republicans on the debt that they now regularly speak of the once esteemed president as a “disappointment” and “mistake.”
President Obama began this debt ceiling fight by insisting that revenue increases would have to be part of the final package. His proposals -- like eliminating a loophole for corporate jet owners -- were so modest they upset progressives tired of his chronic capitulation.
We have not heard the last of the tax issue. Congressional leaders have selected a special 12-member committee to make recommendations to reduce the deficit.
House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell have ensured that this committee will be a dishonest exercise with little chance of reducing the deficit fairly and effectively. They did this by appointing six members who have signed a Tax Payer Protection Pledge that forbids them from considering raising any taxes.
It wasn’t as though leadership had a deep bench to choose from as all but 13 congressional Republicans have signed the restrictive pledge. In other words, the 6 Republicans on the super-committee have pledged to not do the one thing that is necessary to reduce the deficit and bring some semblance of balance to the budget that is by raising taxes on the wealthy.
The rage on the left is just beginning and it is spreading to the political center. The only question is who represents the left and center these days.
Juan Williams is a writer, author and Fox News political analyst. His most recent book is "Muzzled: The Assault On Honest Debate" (Crown/Random House).
In fact, you can even read it for yourself in The New York Times. Left-wing columnist Maureen Dowd has written several columns dripping with contempt for Obama since he struck a deal with Republicans to cut spending but chose not to increase taxes in order to lower our nation's debt.
And Paul Krugman the Nobel Prize-winning economist has long complained in his New York Times columns that the president displayed weakness by not insisting on a larger stimulus package – even as the right wing has condemned the stimulus as a waste of money and a failure for not lowering the unemployment rate.
And now Professor Drew Westen, in an essay in the New York Times magazines, writes that the Democrat in the White House is failing to respond to right-wing bullying instigated by the rich who have created the “greatest levels of economic inequality and the there greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression…”
The anger coming at President Obama from the left is being fueled by polls that show most Americans, and even the majority of Republicans, think the president should have insisted on having the rich pay more taxes as part of any deal on raising the debt ceiling.
According to a recent CBS News/New York Times poll, half of the American people said the debt-ceiling agreement should have included a tax revenue increase, while 44 percent said it should have relied on only spending cuts.
Sixty-three percent of those polled said that they supported raising taxes on households earning more than $250,000 a year, like President Obama wanted to do. This includes 80 percent of Democrats, 61 percent of independents and 52 percent of Republicans.
Consider that the wealthiest 400 Americans have more money than the bottom 150 million combined and the rich are still paying the lowest tax rates since the 1950s.
The classes in America are becoming ever more stratified. Fewer people are able to move out of poverty in to the middle class while a great and growing number are falling out of the middle class into poverty. A failing public education system, less financial assistance for a college education and the crippling cost of health care are all factors that have made upward mobility for the working class even more difficult.
Last year, corporations like General Electric and ExxonMobil paid no taxes because of the loopholes embedded in the tax code.
And yet the president was defeated by charges of engaging in “class warfare,” and failed to build a narrative in which he pointed out the excesses of Wall Street and corporations who now enjoy record levels of profit but are not providing jobs to Americans.
In his essay Professor Westen wrote that President Obama “diluted [the stimulus] with tax cuts [40 percent of the stimulus] that had already been shown to be inert.” He said the president also lacked spine by extending the Bush tax cuts and allowing the Republicans to force him to cut spending as part of the debt ceiling deal at a time when the economy needs government spending to boost investor and consumer confidence.
Westen’s essay prompted an outpouring of angst in Letters to the Editor. One writer said the president has “just not been tough enough to confront the myriad transgressions of the Congressional Republicans.” Another letter to the paper said Westen’s article “struck a nerve,” and “I’m fed up with (the president’s} inability to stick up for the lofty goals he articulated,” when he was running for office.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a real Socialist, has joined the president’s Democratic critics by calling for a left-wing challenger to mount a challenge to Obama in the upcoming Democratic primaries.
Leading congressional Democrats are so furious with the deal the president struck with Republicans on the debt that they now regularly speak of the once esteemed president as a “disappointment” and “mistake.”
President Obama began this debt ceiling fight by insisting that revenue increases would have to be part of the final package. His proposals -- like eliminating a loophole for corporate jet owners -- were so modest they upset progressives tired of his chronic capitulation.
We have not heard the last of the tax issue. Congressional leaders have selected a special 12-member committee to make recommendations to reduce the deficit.
House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell have ensured that this committee will be a dishonest exercise with little chance of reducing the deficit fairly and effectively. They did this by appointing six members who have signed a Tax Payer Protection Pledge that forbids them from considering raising any taxes.
It wasn’t as though leadership had a deep bench to choose from as all but 13 congressional Republicans have signed the restrictive pledge. In other words, the 6 Republicans on the super-committee have pledged to not do the one thing that is necessary to reduce the deficit and bring some semblance of balance to the budget that is by raising taxes on the wealthy.
The rage on the left is just beginning and it is spreading to the political center. The only question is who represents the left and center these days.
Juan Williams is a writer, author and Fox News political analyst. His most recent book is "Muzzled: The Assault On Honest Debate" (Crown/Random House).
Liberals complain about Obama's choices
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- Liberals argue that he caved on the debt ceiling. Unions are upset over his handling of unemployment and labor issues. Hispanics brought the immigration debate directly to his campaign doorstep.
President Barack Obama's summer of discontent has been marked by rumblings within his Democratic political base over his willingness to fight congressional Republicans and his approach to fixing the economy.
Liberals disappointed with Obama for compromising with the GOP during the debt-ceiling showdown now are calling on him to hold firm against Republicans this fall. They want him to push a bold jobs agenda while drawing a strong line on taxes and protecting Medicare and Social Security.
In recent weeks, the gripes have become so loud that the president himself acknowledged them during his Midwest bus tour this week.
"I've got a whole bunch of responsibilities, which means I have to make choices sometimes that are unattractive and I know will be bad for me politically and I know will get supporters of mine disappointed," Obama said in Iowa. He claimed progress on the economy, health care and two wars. And, offering his backers a bit of tough love, he added: "Sometimes you've got to make choices in order to do what's best for the country at that particular moment, and that's what I've tried to do."
The complaints -- founded or not -- are narrowing the tightrope Obama must walk over the next year to keep his base energized while recapturing the independent voters who helped power his win over John McCain in 2008.
Still, for all the complaining, the ultimate impact on Obama's re-election chances is open to question. The president faces no serious primary opponent, and polls show him faring fairly well within his party. Few liberals are likely to support a Republican for president next year.
But angry liberals could refuse to volunteer to knock on doors or make phone calls, a pivotal grass-roots role for a candidate's base of supporters. Disaffected Democrats could keep their wallets closed, hampering small-dollar fundraising over the Internet. Or they could just stay away from the polls on Election Day.
"They want to love him, but he's given them little evidence and his rhetoric is running out of steam," said Princeton professor Cornel West, who campaigned for Obama in 2008 but has become a fierce critic. "We find ourselves between a rock and a hard place. He's going to need high levels of enthusiasm among his base, and it's going to be hard to do that with speeches and no real serious actions or policies."
The liberal angst has surfaced repeatedly over the past year as Obama has faced the reality of divided government in the aftermath of the 2010 congressional elections in which Republicans won the House.
Liberals howled last December when he struck a deal with the GOP to extend Bush-era tax cuts. That reinforced earlier bad feelings from when he dropped the proposed "public option" for a government plan to compete with private insurance as part of the health care overhaul.
Lately, the left has complained that Obama gave up too much in spending cuts during the debt-ceiling fight and failed to extract higher taxes on the wealthy in return.
WASHINGTON -- Liberals argue that he caved on the debt ceiling. Unions are upset over his handling of unemployment and labor issues. Hispanics brought the immigration debate directly to his campaign doorstep.
President Barack Obama's summer of discontent has been marked by rumblings within his Democratic political base over his willingness to fight congressional Republicans and his approach to fixing the economy.
Liberals disappointed with Obama for compromising with the GOP during the debt-ceiling showdown now are calling on him to hold firm against Republicans this fall. They want him to push a bold jobs agenda while drawing a strong line on taxes and protecting Medicare and Social Security.
In recent weeks, the gripes have become so loud that the president himself acknowledged them during his Midwest bus tour this week.
"I've got a whole bunch of responsibilities, which means I have to make choices sometimes that are unattractive and I know will be bad for me politically and I know will get supporters of mine disappointed," Obama said in Iowa. He claimed progress on the economy, health care and two wars. And, offering his backers a bit of tough love, he added: "Sometimes you've got to make choices in order to do what's best for the country at that particular moment, and that's what I've tried to do."
The complaints -- founded or not -- are narrowing the tightrope Obama must walk over the next year to keep his base energized while recapturing the independent voters who helped power his win over John McCain in 2008.
Still, for all the complaining, the ultimate impact on Obama's re-election chances is open to question. The president faces no serious primary opponent, and polls show him faring fairly well within his party. Few liberals are likely to support a Republican for president next year.
But angry liberals could refuse to volunteer to knock on doors or make phone calls, a pivotal grass-roots role for a candidate's base of supporters. Disaffected Democrats could keep their wallets closed, hampering small-dollar fundraising over the Internet. Or they could just stay away from the polls on Election Day.
"They want to love him, but he's given them little evidence and his rhetoric is running out of steam," said Princeton professor Cornel West, who campaigned for Obama in 2008 but has become a fierce critic. "We find ourselves between a rock and a hard place. He's going to need high levels of enthusiasm among his base, and it's going to be hard to do that with speeches and no real serious actions or policies."
The liberal angst has surfaced repeatedly over the past year as Obama has faced the reality of divided government in the aftermath of the 2010 congressional elections in which Republicans won the House.
Liberals howled last December when he struck a deal with the GOP to extend Bush-era tax cuts. That reinforced earlier bad feelings from when he dropped the proposed "public option" for a government plan to compete with private insurance as part of the health care overhaul.
Lately, the left has complained that Obama gave up too much in spending cuts during the debt-ceiling fight and failed to extract higher taxes on the wealthy in return.
Pillaging the Dictionary
By Marylou Barry
© 2011
Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.
– Vladimir Lenin
Only four, Comrade Lenin? How about eight or 12 or 16 years? How about graduate school?
The enemies of this country and our way of life must have leapt into the air the day they figured this out: that in order to defeat us, they didn't need to beat us militarily. All they needed to do was learn our language, put new meanings to our words, see that their meanings were implemented in textbooks and curricula – and wait 20 or 50 years.
Eventually their definitions would be accepted, because theirs would be the ones the media would use. The media would use them because their members would have learned them in school and carried them from there into the workplace. Meanwhile, the Americans who built the culture and wrote the dictionaries would retire, die off or otherwise become irrelevant.
You could probably take over the world with a scheme like that if you had enough time – and the devil has nothing but time.
Historical redefinition
Speaking of the devil, Hitler launched his career by redefining "Aryan" from the people of India to the people of Scandinavia, although he was neither. His more educated contemporaries must have privately snickered at such profound ignorance, but it's not nice to be caught laughing at the emperor, nor is it very safe. He further redefined "Christian" to mean European neo-pagan while trying to destroy the real Christianity, and he redefined himself as German, although he was not that either.
Next came the Soviets, who redefined practically everything. Their rhetorical overkill, a source of humor in the West for its unintentional but astounding lack of subtlety, has been preserved on The People's Cube, the brilliant satire site of a man who survived real-life communism in the land where it first took root.
Other more discreet attempts to pervert our language soon followed, and almost a century later the hits still have not stopped coming.
Sociopolitical redefinition
Have you noticed that liberals are no longer liberals? They are now – at least according to themselves – "progressives." What does that mean? Why, it means whatever they are, of course; just ask them.
Since the legalization of abortion in 1973, hyper-feminists have pretty much stuck with their original battle cry of "The right to choose!" Although they haven't come up with many new whoppers – well, outside of "emergency contraception," that is – why tinker with something that works so well?
As for the term "gay marriage" – a compound redefinition if ever there was one – I am still puzzled over how 2 percent of us can compel the other 98 percent to refer to them as happy and carefree when their life expectancy and suicide rates clearly don't reflect this. Second, what adults do in private with other consenting adults doesn't concern me, but requiring me to support it with my tax money and vocabulary certainly does.
Alien redefinition
People who shouldn't even be here haven't missed the lesson, either, and if you think "undocumented workers" are Americans who left their ID badges on the breakfast table, you haven't been paying attention.
Hordes of southern illegals have redefined our great Southwest as their "Aztlan," a kingdom in Aztec mythology, and some violence-prone easterners both inside and outside the country have taken an even bigger bite out of our language, with "resistance" now meaning imperialism, "honor" meaning ego and "marriage" meaning the purchase of a slave from her owner. "Modesty" now requires wearing half the yard goods department and implies with a sneer that women – but not men – who dress normally are somehow immodest. "Martyrdom" has become suicide intended to take along unwilling victims. "Innocent" means belonging to their particular religious cult, and "racism" – although they are not a race – is the questioning of any of their actions, religious doctrines or demands. The press in some civilized countries even helps them out by designating them "Asians" no matter what continent they come from. Real Asians ought to sue for defamation of character.
If you were taken in as a refugee to escape persecution, given personal liberty you had never imagined and fed at the public trough for an indefinite period of time, would you have the gall to tell your host nation to redefine its own words according to what you would like them to mean? I didn't think so.
Meanwhile, life goes on, and so does the pillaging of the dictionary by the enemies of free speech. If you can't shut people up, the logic seems to go, the next best thing is not to let what they say signify anything. "Tolerance" has come to mean forced acceptance, "rights" to mean special privileges for those with highly paid lobbyists, and "freedom" to mean the freedom to oppress others. The Constitution upon which our government is based has come to mean just about nothing at all. The founders who signed it would be so proud of what their country has become. That's my new synonym for the word "ashamed."
© 2011
Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.
– Vladimir Lenin
Only four, Comrade Lenin? How about eight or 12 or 16 years? How about graduate school?
The enemies of this country and our way of life must have leapt into the air the day they figured this out: that in order to defeat us, they didn't need to beat us militarily. All they needed to do was learn our language, put new meanings to our words, see that their meanings were implemented in textbooks and curricula – and wait 20 or 50 years.
Eventually their definitions would be accepted, because theirs would be the ones the media would use. The media would use them because their members would have learned them in school and carried them from there into the workplace. Meanwhile, the Americans who built the culture and wrote the dictionaries would retire, die off or otherwise become irrelevant.
You could probably take over the world with a scheme like that if you had enough time – and the devil has nothing but time.
Historical redefinition
Speaking of the devil, Hitler launched his career by redefining "Aryan" from the people of India to the people of Scandinavia, although he was neither. His more educated contemporaries must have privately snickered at such profound ignorance, but it's not nice to be caught laughing at the emperor, nor is it very safe. He further redefined "Christian" to mean European neo-pagan while trying to destroy the real Christianity, and he redefined himself as German, although he was not that either.
Next came the Soviets, who redefined practically everything. Their rhetorical overkill, a source of humor in the West for its unintentional but astounding lack of subtlety, has been preserved on The People's Cube, the brilliant satire site of a man who survived real-life communism in the land where it first took root.
Other more discreet attempts to pervert our language soon followed, and almost a century later the hits still have not stopped coming.
Sociopolitical redefinition
Have you noticed that liberals are no longer liberals? They are now – at least according to themselves – "progressives." What does that mean? Why, it means whatever they are, of course; just ask them.
Since the legalization of abortion in 1973, hyper-feminists have pretty much stuck with their original battle cry of "The right to choose!" Although they haven't come up with many new whoppers – well, outside of "emergency contraception," that is – why tinker with something that works so well?
As for the term "gay marriage" – a compound redefinition if ever there was one – I am still puzzled over how 2 percent of us can compel the other 98 percent to refer to them as happy and carefree when their life expectancy and suicide rates clearly don't reflect this. Second, what adults do in private with other consenting adults doesn't concern me, but requiring me to support it with my tax money and vocabulary certainly does.
Alien redefinition
People who shouldn't even be here haven't missed the lesson, either, and if you think "undocumented workers" are Americans who left their ID badges on the breakfast table, you haven't been paying attention.
Hordes of southern illegals have redefined our great Southwest as their "Aztlan," a kingdom in Aztec mythology, and some violence-prone easterners both inside and outside the country have taken an even bigger bite out of our language, with "resistance" now meaning imperialism, "honor" meaning ego and "marriage" meaning the purchase of a slave from her owner. "Modesty" now requires wearing half the yard goods department and implies with a sneer that women – but not men – who dress normally are somehow immodest. "Martyrdom" has become suicide intended to take along unwilling victims. "Innocent" means belonging to their particular religious cult, and "racism" – although they are not a race – is the questioning of any of their actions, religious doctrines or demands. The press in some civilized countries even helps them out by designating them "Asians" no matter what continent they come from. Real Asians ought to sue for defamation of character.
If you were taken in as a refugee to escape persecution, given personal liberty you had never imagined and fed at the public trough for an indefinite period of time, would you have the gall to tell your host nation to redefine its own words according to what you would like them to mean? I didn't think so.
Meanwhile, life goes on, and so does the pillaging of the dictionary by the enemies of free speech. If you can't shut people up, the logic seems to go, the next best thing is not to let what they say signify anything. "Tolerance" has come to mean forced acceptance, "rights" to mean special privileges for those with highly paid lobbyists, and "freedom" to mean the freedom to oppress others. The Constitution upon which our government is based has come to mean just about nothing at all. The founders who signed it would be so proud of what their country has become. That's my new synonym for the word "ashamed."
Anonymous Message To Monsanto; We fight for farmers!
To the free-thinking citizens of the world:
Anonymous stands with the farmers and food organizations denouncing the practices of Monsanto We applaud the bravery of the organizations and citizens who are standing up to Monsanto, and we stand united with you against this oppressive corporate abuse. Monsanto is contaminating the world with chemicals and genetically modified food crops for profit while claiming to feed the hungry and protect the environment. Anonymous is everyone, Anyone who can not stand for injustice and decides to do something about it, We are all over the Earth and here to stay.
To Monsanto, we demand you STOP the following:
-Contaminating the global food chain with GMO's.
- Intimidating small farmers with bullying and lawsuits.
- Propagating the use of destructive pesticides and herbicides across the globe.
- Using "Terminator Technology", which renders plants sterile.
- Attempting to hijack UN climate change negotiations for your own fiscal benefit.
- Reducing farmland to desert through monoculture and the use of synthetic fertilizers.
-Inspiring suicides of hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers.
-Causing birth defects by continuing to produce the pesticide "Round-up"
-Attempting to bribe foriegn officials
-Infiltrating anti-GMO groups
*there are links at the bottom corresponding with each of the above.
Monsanto, these crimes will not go unpunished. Anonymous will not spare you nor anyone in support of your oppressive illegal business practices.
AGRA, a great example:
In 2006, AGRA, Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, was established with funding from Bill Gates and The Rockefeller Foundation.
Among the other founding members of, AGRA, we find: Monsanto, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, GlaxoSmithKline, Procter and Gamble, Merck, Mosaic, Pfizer, Sumitomo Chemical and Yara. The fact that these corporations are either chemical or pharmaceutical manufacturers is no coincidence.
The people of the world see you, Monsanto. Anonymous sees you.
Seeds of Opportunism,
Climate change offers these businesses a perfect excuse to prey on the poorest countries by swooping in to "rescue" the farmers and people with their GMO crops and chemical pesticides. These corporations eradicate the traditional ways of the country's agriculture for the sake of enormous profits.
The introduction of GMOs drastically affects a local farmers income, as the price of chemicals required for GMOs and seeds from Monsanto cripples the farmer's meager profit margins.
There are even many cases of Monsanto suing small farmers after pollen from their GMO crops accidentally cross with the farmer's crops. Because Monsanto has a patent on theri brand of seed, they claim the farmer is in violation of patent laws.
These disgusting and inhumane practices will not be tolerated.
Anonymous urges all concerned citizens to stand up for these farmers, stand up for the future of your own food. Protest, organize, spread info to your friends!
SAY NO TO POISONOUS CHEMICALS IN YOUR FOOD!
SAY NO TO GMO!
SAY NO TO MONSANTO!
We are Anonymous
We are legion
We do not forgive
We do not forget
Expect us
Links:
- Bullying of farmers: http://www.examiner.com/sunset-district-libertarian-in-san-francisco/corporat...
- Infiltration of anti-GMO groups: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/297701#ixzz1HDZcVpoj
- Bribery: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4153635.stm (Indonesia) http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/news/10009.htm (Canada)
- Destruction of soil, air quality, groundwater contamination, deforestation: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A4664...
Birth defects caused by Monsanto chemicals: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/07/roundup-birth-defects-herbicide-regu...
- Farmer suicides in India: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/indias-hidden-climate...
GM Crops (UK) Farmer to Farmer (Trapped in Monsanto System)
Michael Hart, a conventional livestock family farmer, has been farming in Cornwall for nearly thirty years and has actively campaigned on behalf of family farmers for over fifteen years, travelling extensively in Europe, India, Canada and the USA.
In this short documentary he investigates the reality of farming genetically modified crops in the USA ten years after their introduction. He travels across the US interviewing farmers and other specialists about their experiences of growing GM.
As Seen On:
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED
GM Crops (UK) Farmer to Farmer (Trapped in Monsanto System)
Michael Hart, a conventional livestock family farmer, has been farming in Cornwall for nearly thirty years and has actively campaigned on behalf of family farmers for over fifteen years, travelling extensively in Europe, India, Canada and the USA.
In this short documentary he investigates the reality of farming genetically modified crops in the USA ten years after their introduction. He travels across the US interviewing farmers and other specialists about their experiences of growing GM.
As Seen On:
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED
150 people caught after rioting swept across UK ‘were foreign nationals and will be deported
Hundreds of foreigners arrested for their part in the riots now face deportation.
Immigration Minister Damian Green has promised foreign rioters and looters will be thrown out of Britain at the ‘earliest opportunity’.
Around 150 of the 2,800 people arrested over the looting and arson attacks were born abroad, according to the UK Border Agency.
They include a failed asylum seeker who is accused of looting clothes and cash from a branch of department store BHS in Walthamstow, East London.
Algerian national Abderazak Boussag, 23, was arrested after police found the fingerprint of his teenage co-defendant at the store and raided his home in Leyton.
Yesterday Immigration Minister Damian Green said: ‘We strongly believe that foreign national lawbreakers should be removed from the UK at the earliest opportunity.
‘We also have the power to cancel the visas of foreign nationals found guilty of criminal activity, and this is something we will be looking to do when cases arise.
‘Last week saw unprecedented criminality on our streets and the courts are now dispensing firm justice to ensure those responsible are punished.’
The move has re-ignited the row over tough sentences being handed to children and adults who took part in the disorder.
Yesterday Bradford East MP David Ward accused Mr Green of headline-grabbing.
‘This almost seems to be a competition to see who can come out with the most macho response' Mr Ward said.
He added:‘To have a blanket policy for all is just nonsense.’
Tom Brake, Lib-Dem home affairs spokesman, said the Government would ‘need to exercise caution’ – particularly in cases where foreigners have families established in the UK.
Under immigration rules, criminals from outside Europe are automatically put forward for deportation if they are sentenced to 12-months in prison.
The same applies to Europeans given a 12-month sentence for drugs, violent or sexual crimes, or 24 months for other crimes.
But courts can recommend deportation in other instances, and the UK Border Agency is able to revoke visas for anyone found guilty of criminal activity.
However, offenders can use the Human Rights Act to appeal against deportation on grounds that they are entitled to a family life or to avoid the risk of torture.
New research shows that courts are handing down prison sentences to convicted rioters that are on average 25 per cent longer than normal.
But Lib-Dems have attacked David Cameron's calls for ‘zero tolerance’ to street crime and his backing for long sentences being handed down by the courts.
Plans to strip away benefits have also been described as ‘bonkers’ by Wells MP Tessa Munt, while there has also been opposition to removing council homes from troublemakers.
By Rebecca Camber
Immigration Minister Damian Green has promised foreign rioters and looters will be thrown out of Britain at the ‘earliest opportunity’.
Around 150 of the 2,800 people arrested over the looting and arson attacks were born abroad, according to the UK Border Agency.
They include a failed asylum seeker who is accused of looting clothes and cash from a branch of department store BHS in Walthamstow, East London.
Algerian national Abderazak Boussag, 23, was arrested after police found the fingerprint of his teenage co-defendant at the store and raided his home in Leyton.
Yesterday Immigration Minister Damian Green said: ‘We strongly believe that foreign national lawbreakers should be removed from the UK at the earliest opportunity.
‘We also have the power to cancel the visas of foreign nationals found guilty of criminal activity, and this is something we will be looking to do when cases arise.
‘Last week saw unprecedented criminality on our streets and the courts are now dispensing firm justice to ensure those responsible are punished.’
The move has re-ignited the row over tough sentences being handed to children and adults who took part in the disorder.
Yesterday Bradford East MP David Ward accused Mr Green of headline-grabbing.
‘This almost seems to be a competition to see who can come out with the most macho response' Mr Ward said.
He added:‘To have a blanket policy for all is just nonsense.’
Tom Brake, Lib-Dem home affairs spokesman, said the Government would ‘need to exercise caution’ – particularly in cases where foreigners have families established in the UK.
Under immigration rules, criminals from outside Europe are automatically put forward for deportation if they are sentenced to 12-months in prison.
The same applies to Europeans given a 12-month sentence for drugs, violent or sexual crimes, or 24 months for other crimes.
But courts can recommend deportation in other instances, and the UK Border Agency is able to revoke visas for anyone found guilty of criminal activity.
However, offenders can use the Human Rights Act to appeal against deportation on grounds that they are entitled to a family life or to avoid the risk of torture.
New research shows that courts are handing down prison sentences to convicted rioters that are on average 25 per cent longer than normal.
But Lib-Dems have attacked David Cameron's calls for ‘zero tolerance’ to street crime and his backing for long sentences being handed down by the courts.
Plans to strip away benefits have also been described as ‘bonkers’ by Wells MP Tessa Munt, while there has also been opposition to removing council homes from troublemakers.
By Rebecca Camber
Friday, August 19, 2011
The new anti-Semitism
As explained in The Secret Passion of the New Antisemitism (h/t @yaacovlozowick):
Posted by William A. Jacobson Friday, August 19, 2011 at 11:30am
What distinguishes antisemitic propaganda from legitimate criticism, then, is the stubborn insistence on holding Israel to standards from which other countries are exempt, and the demand that Jews be denied a right to which other peoples are entitled, even obligated, to exercise themselves. Nevertheless, one cannot dismiss the new antisemitism as a modern version of the same old hatred; in some sense, after all, postmodern universalism deeply identifies with what the “Jew” was supposed to stand for. And it is precisely this identification that leads, we will see, to the widespread denunciation of the Jews so common today….
The mantle of righteousness assumed by this unique species of Judeophobia makes it extremely appealing to people of conscience. Good-hearted activists and intellectuals—Israelis among them—are lured into joining the growing public campaign against the Zionist state, all in the belief that they are fulfilling their moral obligation to humanity, and perhaps even to the Jewish people as well. True, their denunciations of Israel are often over-zealous, motivated by a fierce desire to prove themselves worthy in the eyes of their partners in the struggle. But most of them are not really self-hating Jews, as their critics assert. They are instead just terribly misguided, unwitting parties to an insidious campaign.
Posted by William A. Jacobson Friday, August 19, 2011 at 11:30am
What distinguishes antisemitic propaganda from legitimate criticism, then, is the stubborn insistence on holding Israel to standards from which other countries are exempt, and the demand that Jews be denied a right to which other peoples are entitled, even obligated, to exercise themselves. Nevertheless, one cannot dismiss the new antisemitism as a modern version of the same old hatred; in some sense, after all, postmodern universalism deeply identifies with what the “Jew” was supposed to stand for. And it is precisely this identification that leads, we will see, to the widespread denunciation of the Jews so common today….
The mantle of righteousness assumed by this unique species of Judeophobia makes it extremely appealing to people of conscience. Good-hearted activists and intellectuals—Israelis among them—are lured into joining the growing public campaign against the Zionist state, all in the belief that they are fulfilling their moral obligation to humanity, and perhaps even to the Jewish people as well. True, their denunciations of Israel are often over-zealous, motivated by a fierce desire to prove themselves worthy in the eyes of their partners in the struggle. But most of them are not really self-hating Jews, as their critics assert. They are instead just terribly misguided, unwitting parties to an insidious campaign.
Question: Why are the Obamas acting so very much like they don't really believe in the global warming hoax?
Weasel Zippers » Blog Archive » King Barack And Queen Michelle Fly Separate Jets To Martha’s Vineyard Only Hours Apart, Taxpayers Stuck With The Bill…
(WHD) — Michelle Obama and President Obama traveled to Martha’s Vineyard just hours apart, costing taxpayers thousands in additional expenses so she could have just a bit of extra vacation time.
Mrs. Obama and her daughters arrived just before 2 pm Thursday on a U.S. government jet, according to the Martha’s Vineyard Times, which got its information from the local airport. The first lady’s office has been silent on her travel. President Obama arrived in the evening along with the family dog Bo.
The extra costs related to Mrs. Obama’s solo trip mainly include the flight on a specially designed military aircraft she took instead of Air Force One, as well as any extra staff and Secret Service that had to be enlisted to go with her. She would also have had her own motorcade from the airport to her vacation residence.
Mrs. Obama’s separate jet travel sends the wrong message on a host of issues, from global warming to the budget deficit to the economy – in which currently so many people can’t afford to take a vacation at all.
This is not the first time Michelle has gone on vacation ahead of the president on the taxpayers’ tab. Last December, she racked up what was likely more than $100,000 in expenses leaving early for their Hawaii vacation.
(WHD) — Michelle Obama and President Obama traveled to Martha’s Vineyard just hours apart, costing taxpayers thousands in additional expenses so she could have just a bit of extra vacation time.
Mrs. Obama and her daughters arrived just before 2 pm Thursday on a U.S. government jet, according to the Martha’s Vineyard Times, which got its information from the local airport. The first lady’s office has been silent on her travel. President Obama arrived in the evening along with the family dog Bo.
The extra costs related to Mrs. Obama’s solo trip mainly include the flight on a specially designed military aircraft she took instead of Air Force One, as well as any extra staff and Secret Service that had to be enlisted to go with her. She would also have had her own motorcade from the airport to her vacation residence.
Mrs. Obama’s separate jet travel sends the wrong message on a host of issues, from global warming to the budget deficit to the economy – in which currently so many people can’t afford to take a vacation at all.
This is not the first time Michelle has gone on vacation ahead of the president on the taxpayers’ tab. Last December, she racked up what was likely more than $100,000 in expenses leaving early for their Hawaii vacation.
Obama's Support Among Hispanics Drops 36 Points
I guess the Panderer-in-Chief's decision to stop deporting illegal aliens has nothing to do with this, right?
Only 49 percent of Hispanic Americans said last week they approve of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, according to the Gallup poll. That is down 36 points from the high of 85 percent that Obama’s approval hit among Hispanics in the Gallup poll in the spring of 2009, his first year as president.
Obama’s approval among Hispanics hit an all-time low of 45 percent in the last week of July, according to Gallup. It has rebounded modestly since then.
Call me cynical, but this sure looks like backdoor amnesty.
The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas, denounced the new policy.
“The Obama administration has again made clear its plan to grant backdoor amnesty to illegal immigrants,” Mr. Smith said. “The administration should enforce immigration laws, not look for ways to ignore them. Officials should remember the oath of office they took to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land.”
Uphold the Constitution? Why would these thugs do that?
Posted by JammieWearingFool at 12:02 PM
Only 49 percent of Hispanic Americans said last week they approve of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, according to the Gallup poll. That is down 36 points from the high of 85 percent that Obama’s approval hit among Hispanics in the Gallup poll in the spring of 2009, his first year as president.
Obama’s approval among Hispanics hit an all-time low of 45 percent in the last week of July, according to Gallup. It has rebounded modestly since then.
Call me cynical, but this sure looks like backdoor amnesty.
The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas, denounced the new policy.
“The Obama administration has again made clear its plan to grant backdoor amnesty to illegal immigrants,” Mr. Smith said. “The administration should enforce immigration laws, not look for ways to ignore them. Officials should remember the oath of office they took to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land.”
Uphold the Constitution? Why would these thugs do that?
Posted by JammieWearingFool at 12:02 PM
Happy 5th Month On Your Libyan Kinetic Military Operations Adventure, Mr. Obama!
Written By : William Teach
And like any big 5 month old, your attention span is rather short
On March 18, President Obama told congressional leaders that the “kinetic activity” (fighting) we were getting into in Libya would be a matter of “days, not weeks.” He used the same “days and not weeks” phrase in a news conference on March 22.
On March 19th, Obama’s Big War Of Choice, er, kinetic military operations, against Libya started. Something about protecting human rights. Peace through superior firepower. Oh, and keeping the oil flowing to Britain and France.
And like any big 5 month old, your attention span is rather short
On March 18, President Obama told congressional leaders that the “kinetic activity” (fighting) we were getting into in Libya would be a matter of “days, not weeks.” He used the same “days and not weeks” phrase in a news conference on March 22.
On March 19th, Obama’s Big War Of Choice, er, kinetic military operations, against Libya started. Something about protecting human rights. Peace through superior firepower. Oh, and keeping the oil flowing to Britain and France.
OBAMA, Holdr, NAPOLITANO SHRED CONSTITUTION, USE DHS 2 GRANT MASS AMNESTY 2 MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS @ Pat Dollard
RELATED: John Kyl On Tape: Obama Told Me That He Won’t Secure The Border, In Order To Help Democrats – With Video
So, basically, now, if you’re an illegal alien, if you can claim you’re in school, or make the ridiculously loose claim that someone is financially dependent on you, or God knows what other excuse (as they are not all listed here), you now have amnesty and will not be deported.
How many illegals does this add up to? God only knows how many already here can claim to meet the criteria, and God only knows how many future illegals will claim to meet them. But the total number of illegal aliens merrily living in the United States is estimated to be near 15 million.
The Washington Times:
The Homeland Security Department said Thursday it will halt deportation proceedings on a case-by-case basis against illegal immigrants who meet certain criteria such as attending school, having family in the military or are primarily responsible for other family members’ care.
The move, announced in letters to Congress, won immediate praise from Hispanic activists and Democrats who had chided President Obama for months for the pace of deportations and had argued he had authority to exempt broad swaths of illegal immigrants from deportation.
“Today’s announcement shows that this president is willing to put muscle behind his words and to use his power to intervene when the lives of good people are being ruined by bad laws,” said Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois Democrat.
In the letters to Congress, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said her department and the Justice Department will review all ongoing cases and see who meets the new criteria on a case-by-case basis.
“This case-by-case approach will enhance public safety,” she said. “Immigration judges will be able to more swiftly adjudicate high priority cases, such as those involving convicted felons.”
The new rules apply to those who have been apprehended and are in deportation proceedings, but have not been officially ordered out of the country by a judge. Miss Napolitano said a working group will try to come up with “guidance on how to provide for appropriate discretionary consideration” for “compelling cases” in those instances where someone has already been ordered deported.
It was unclear how many people might be affected by the new rules, though in fiscal year 2010 alone, the government deported nearly 200,000 illegal immigrants who it said did not have criminal records.
The Obama administration has argued for months that it did not have authority to grant blanket absolution, and Miss Napolitano stressed that these cases will be treated individually, though the new guidance applies across the board.
In June, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that handles interior immigration law enforcement, issued new guidance expanding authority to decline to prosecute illegal immigrants. The goal, ICE leaders said, was to focus on their priority of catching illegal immigrants who have also committed other crimes or are part of gangs.
Many beneficiaries of the new guidance are likely to be illegal immigrant students who would have been eligible for legal status under the Dream Act, which stalled in Congress last year.
“Today is a victory not just for immigrants but for the American people as a whole because it makes no sense to deport Dream Act students and others who can make great contributions to America and pose no threat,” Mr. Gutierrez said. “It is not in our national interest to send away young people who were raised in the U.S. and have been educated here and want only to contribute to this country’s success. “
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat who earlier this year wrote asking Homeland Security to exempt illegal immigrant students from deportation, said the move will free up immigration courts to handle cases involving serious criminals.
Both men said, though, that they will continue to push for legislation that would grant a path to citizenship to illegal immigrants and expands new pathways for more immigrants to come legally in the future.
But groups pushing for a crackdown on illegal immigration said the administration’s move abused the Constitution by usurping a power Congress should have.
“Supporters of comprehensive and targeted amnesties for illegal aliens have consistently failed to win approval by Congress or gain support from the American public,” said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. “Having failed in the legislative process, the Obama administration has simply decided to usurp Congress’s constitutional authority and implement an amnesty program for millions of illegal aliens.”
So, basically, now, if you’re an illegal alien, if you can claim you’re in school, or make the ridiculously loose claim that someone is financially dependent on you, or God knows what other excuse (as they are not all listed here), you now have amnesty and will not be deported.
How many illegals does this add up to? God only knows how many already here can claim to meet the criteria, and God only knows how many future illegals will claim to meet them. But the total number of illegal aliens merrily living in the United States is estimated to be near 15 million.
The Washington Times:
The Homeland Security Department said Thursday it will halt deportation proceedings on a case-by-case basis against illegal immigrants who meet certain criteria such as attending school, having family in the military or are primarily responsible for other family members’ care.
The move, announced in letters to Congress, won immediate praise from Hispanic activists and Democrats who had chided President Obama for months for the pace of deportations and had argued he had authority to exempt broad swaths of illegal immigrants from deportation.
“Today’s announcement shows that this president is willing to put muscle behind his words and to use his power to intervene when the lives of good people are being ruined by bad laws,” said Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois Democrat.
In the letters to Congress, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said her department and the Justice Department will review all ongoing cases and see who meets the new criteria on a case-by-case basis.
“This case-by-case approach will enhance public safety,” she said. “Immigration judges will be able to more swiftly adjudicate high priority cases, such as those involving convicted felons.”
The new rules apply to those who have been apprehended and are in deportation proceedings, but have not been officially ordered out of the country by a judge. Miss Napolitano said a working group will try to come up with “guidance on how to provide for appropriate discretionary consideration” for “compelling cases” in those instances where someone has already been ordered deported.
It was unclear how many people might be affected by the new rules, though in fiscal year 2010 alone, the government deported nearly 200,000 illegal immigrants who it said did not have criminal records.
The Obama administration has argued for months that it did not have authority to grant blanket absolution, and Miss Napolitano stressed that these cases will be treated individually, though the new guidance applies across the board.
In June, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that handles interior immigration law enforcement, issued new guidance expanding authority to decline to prosecute illegal immigrants. The goal, ICE leaders said, was to focus on their priority of catching illegal immigrants who have also committed other crimes or are part of gangs.
Many beneficiaries of the new guidance are likely to be illegal immigrant students who would have been eligible for legal status under the Dream Act, which stalled in Congress last year.
“Today is a victory not just for immigrants but for the American people as a whole because it makes no sense to deport Dream Act students and others who can make great contributions to America and pose no threat,” Mr. Gutierrez said. “It is not in our national interest to send away young people who were raised in the U.S. and have been educated here and want only to contribute to this country’s success. “
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat who earlier this year wrote asking Homeland Security to exempt illegal immigrant students from deportation, said the move will free up immigration courts to handle cases involving serious criminals.
Both men said, though, that they will continue to push for legislation that would grant a path to citizenship to illegal immigrants and expands new pathways for more immigrants to come legally in the future.
But groups pushing for a crackdown on illegal immigration said the administration’s move abused the Constitution by usurping a power Congress should have.
“Supporters of comprehensive and targeted amnesties for illegal aliens have consistently failed to win approval by Congress or gain support from the American public,” said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. “Having failed in the legislative process, the Obama administration has simply decided to usurp Congress’s constitutional authority and implement an amnesty program for millions of illegal aliens.”
Obama's Basic Problem: They Don't Teach Economics at Harvard Law School
Obama’s Basic Problem: They Don’t Teach Economics at Harvard Law School
Posted on | August 18, 2011 | 11 Comments and 13 Reactions
Ace of Spades points out the obvious:
When Obama was on this supposed non-political listening tour in swing states, he actually wasn’t presenting a plan, of course.
He was promising he would have a plan.
That’s odd, isn’t it?
All Obama knows about economics is what his neo-Keynesian advisers tell him about the glorious benefits of deficit “stimulus” spending. Beyond that, he understands the politics of class warfare and scapegoating Republicans. But as far as understanding why his own policies have been the exact opposite of what was needed to put America back on a path of growth . . .
No, he doesn’t understand that at all. And likely never will.
Posted on | August 18, 2011 | 11 Comments and 13 Reactions
Ace of Spades points out the obvious:
When Obama was on this supposed non-political listening tour in swing states, he actually wasn’t presenting a plan, of course.
He was promising he would have a plan.
That’s odd, isn’t it?
All Obama knows about economics is what his neo-Keynesian advisers tell him about the glorious benefits of deficit “stimulus” spending. Beyond that, he understands the politics of class warfare and scapegoating Republicans. But as far as understanding why his own policies have been the exact opposite of what was needed to put America back on a path of growth . . .
No, he doesn’t understand that at all. And likely never will.
Operation Fast and Furious Weapons Found at Scenes of Violent Crimes in the U.S.
Despite the White House's best attempts to stymie the release of information about this ill-advised program, news about the ATF's Operation Fast and Furious continues to find the light of day. The latest news is the weapons involved in the operation have been linked to at least eleven violent crimes in the United States.
"Project Gunrunner" (A.K.A Fast and Furious) was a project of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fireworks where basically some "geniuses" high up in ATF (and possibly the DOJ) thought it would be a great idea to sell assault weapons to the violent Mexican drug cartels. Yes, that's right, the US government decided--in order to fight the Mexican Drug Cartels, we should arm them and let them keep their weapons once they were used in committing crimes .
Those assault weapons ceded to the drug cartels have been used for crimes in Mexico, used to kill a Border Agent named Brian Terry, turned up at the scenes of violent crimes in Phoenix, and now 11 other violent crimes across the country.
According to the LA Times, the Justice Department has admitted Congress that weapons sold as part of Operation Fast and Furious have been turned up at the scenes of at least eleven violent crimes in Arizona and Texas.
The department did not provide details about the crimes. But The Times has learned that they occurred in several Arizona cities, including Phoenix, where Fast and Furious was managed, as well as in El Paso, where a total of 42 weapons from the operation were seized at two crime scenes.
... a source close to the controversy, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the continuing investigation, said that as early as January 2010, just after the operation began, weapons had turned up at crime scenes in Phoenix, Nogales, Douglas and Glendale in Arizona, and in El Paso. The largest haul was 40 weapons at one crime scene in El Paso.
In all, 57 of the operation's weapons were recovered at those six crime scenes, in addition to the two seized where Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed.
Since no details released, it is not known wheter the Phoenix crimes were the same as those uncovered by a TV Station in the Phoenix market.
The new numbers, which expand the scope of the danger the program posed to U.S. citizens over a 14-month period, are contained in a letter that Justice Department officials turned over to the Senate Judiciary Committee last month.
In the letter, obtained by The Times on Tuesday, Justice Department officials also reported that Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives officials advised them that the agency's acting director, Kenneth E. Melson, "likely became aware" of the operation as early as December 2009, a month after it began.
Melson has said he didn't find out about the program until January 2011. His testimony was given on July 4th over the objections of the Justice Department. Since his testimony there has been great concern the DOJ would try and make Melson the Fast and Furious scapegoat, the Dec. 2009 date above may be the start of the DOJ scapegoating attempt.
Senior Justice Department officials have insisted they did not know about the "operational tactics" of the program, and the Weich letter reemphasized that point. Weich noted that the officials were cooperating with investigations by Congress and the Justice Department inspector general's office, which reflects "our commitment to learning the facts underlying this matter."
Not mentioned by the DOJ is that at least one White House official knew about the operation.
In a related story we have learned that three of the AFT Supervisors responsible for planning and managing this idiotic operation were promoted last week. They are William G. McMahon, who was the ATF's deputy director of operations in the West, where the illegal trafficking program was focused, and William D. Newell and David Voth, both field supervisors who oversaw the program out of the agency's Phoenix office.
This proves that while the Obama administration has no regard for the U.S. Constitution, it does believe in the Dilbert Principle which states, organizations tend to systematically promote their least-competent employees to management in order to limit the amount of damage they are capable of doing .
"Project Gunrunner" (A.K.A Fast and Furious) was a project of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fireworks where basically some "geniuses" high up in ATF (and possibly the DOJ) thought it would be a great idea to sell assault weapons to the violent Mexican drug cartels. Yes, that's right, the US government decided--in order to fight the Mexican Drug Cartels, we should arm them and let them keep their weapons once they were used in committing crimes .
Those assault weapons ceded to the drug cartels have been used for crimes in Mexico, used to kill a Border Agent named Brian Terry, turned up at the scenes of violent crimes in Phoenix, and now 11 other violent crimes across the country.
According to the LA Times, the Justice Department has admitted Congress that weapons sold as part of Operation Fast and Furious have been turned up at the scenes of at least eleven violent crimes in Arizona and Texas.
The department did not provide details about the crimes. But The Times has learned that they occurred in several Arizona cities, including Phoenix, where Fast and Furious was managed, as well as in El Paso, where a total of 42 weapons from the operation were seized at two crime scenes.
... a source close to the controversy, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the continuing investigation, said that as early as January 2010, just after the operation began, weapons had turned up at crime scenes in Phoenix, Nogales, Douglas and Glendale in Arizona, and in El Paso. The largest haul was 40 weapons at one crime scene in El Paso.
In all, 57 of the operation's weapons were recovered at those six crime scenes, in addition to the two seized where Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed.
Since no details released, it is not known wheter the Phoenix crimes were the same as those uncovered by a TV Station in the Phoenix market.
The new numbers, which expand the scope of the danger the program posed to U.S. citizens over a 14-month period, are contained in a letter that Justice Department officials turned over to the Senate Judiciary Committee last month.
In the letter, obtained by The Times on Tuesday, Justice Department officials also reported that Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives officials advised them that the agency's acting director, Kenneth E. Melson, "likely became aware" of the operation as early as December 2009, a month after it began.
Melson has said he didn't find out about the program until January 2011. His testimony was given on July 4th over the objections of the Justice Department. Since his testimony there has been great concern the DOJ would try and make Melson the Fast and Furious scapegoat, the Dec. 2009 date above may be the start of the DOJ scapegoating attempt.
Senior Justice Department officials have insisted they did not know about the "operational tactics" of the program, and the Weich letter reemphasized that point. Weich noted that the officials were cooperating with investigations by Congress and the Justice Department inspector general's office, which reflects "our commitment to learning the facts underlying this matter."
Not mentioned by the DOJ is that at least one White House official knew about the operation.
In a related story we have learned that three of the AFT Supervisors responsible for planning and managing this idiotic operation were promoted last week. They are William G. McMahon, who was the ATF's deputy director of operations in the West, where the illegal trafficking program was focused, and William D. Newell and David Voth, both field supervisors who oversaw the program out of the agency's Phoenix office.
This proves that while the Obama administration has no regard for the U.S. Constitution, it does believe in the Dilbert Principle which states, organizations tend to systematically promote their least-competent employees to management in order to limit the amount of damage they are capable of doing .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)