April 7, 2012
by Howard Portnoy
HotAir.com
I suppose it can said of a Virginia elementary school teacher who allegedly told her students “Republicans are stupid” that she at least spoke her mind. Her actions are more defensible than those of a fellow Old Dominion State colleague who deviously tasked her students with finding flaws in the GOP presidential candidates but not in the lone Democratic candidate.
The Daily Caller reports that “as Republican voters were filing into the halls of [Colin] Powell Elementary School in Fairfax County to vote on Super Tuesday,” teacher Kristin Martin told her sixth-grade class that “Republicans are stupid” and “they don’t care about anyone but wealthy people and businesses.”
One of the students in the class told The DC:
It all started when this disabled kid came in and named all the Republicans candidates for Super Tuesday. She [Martin] said to him, ‘I don’t like them, I think that they are stupid.’
The blog additionally notes that Martin reportedly told the class that she had voted for Obama and that “Democrats do more for the community and schools.”
I reached out to John Torre, a spokesman for the school district, who said that the county’s investigation into the incident was “inconclusive.” The teacher, he told me, denies having made these statements, which means that in the district’s eyes it boils down to a case of “she said, they said.”
But not all the parents of children in Martin’s class are satisfied with that outcome. One mother, a self-identified Republican, is quoted by The DC as saying:
I felt like the teacher was brainwashing naïve, young children to believe people like me, my family and, to a certain extent, my daughter, were stupid.
The reaction is understandable, but I would find it far more instructive to know what a parent who is a Democrat thinks of this type of proselytizing—whether it happened or not.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Boy Scout's 'Border Control' patch depicting fleeing immigrants causes uproar among Latinos
By Nina Golgowski
PUBLISHED: 08:53 EST, 6 April 2012
UPDATED: 12:55 EST, 6 April 2012
UK Daily Mail:
A Boy Scout patch depicting the silhouette of fleeing immigrants has caused a stir among a group of Latinos who are calling it racist.
The badge worn by the dominantly Latino scouts in Milwaukee, Wisconsin mirrors an iconic sign featuring a man, woman and child fleeing which was commonly used along the Mexico-United States border.
The sign served as a warning to drivers of immigrants crossing. Its original image, by Navajo artist John Hood, hangs in the Smithsonian.
Uproar: An unofficial Boy Scouts of America patch depicting fleeing immigrants taken from a road sign has caused a stir among a Latino website that's calling it racist
The badge, first reported by website Latino Rebels, was headlined by the site as: 'Unauthorized (and Racist) "Border Patrol" Boy Scout Patch Chosen by Latino Troop Members.'
They reached out to the Boy Scouts of America late last month for comment.
'Neither the United States Border Patrol or the Boy Scouts of America were involved in the naming of the patrol, or the production or distribution of the patch,' BSA Communications Specialist David Burke responded in a statement to Latino Rebels.
The troop 11 members told the website they first created it about 10 years ago after one of its current leaders saw the iconic black and yellow road sign in Texas around 2002.
Inspiration: The image was inspired by roadsigns commonly found along the Mexican-US border and transferred to a patch for the troop based in Wisconsin who is dominantly Latino themselves
'The patch is used to symbolize that a scout is part of the "border" patrol,' troop 11 assistant scoutmaster Bradley Schultz responded to the website by email.
According to Mr Burke, each BSA troop is composed of 20 to 60 young men but then divided again into patrols of about 5 to 9.
'Each patrol gets to select its own patrol name. Patrol names can be just about anything the boys decide,' Mr Burke wrote.
'We knew we wanted to be named Border, but we wanted an image to go with it,' Mr Schultz wrote while adding that it most likely will be changing.
Border Patrol: The boys of troop 11 independently selected their patrol name as Border then decided on the patch's image which all together was not affiliated with the BSA (file photo)
'...we have been told by our council that if we don't change the NAME of the patrol the troop will be disbanded as a whole. The troop would most likely be willing to consider changing the image if we were allowed to keep the name, Border Patrol.'
Defending the name and image entirely for troop 11's scouts, assistant scoutmaster Ryan Antczak responded to Latino Rebels with his own statement:
'They wanted this because they didn't wanna be associated with those that come to our country illegally. This has been part of our troop for almost 10 years,' he wrote.
'We are located in a very diverse area were [sic] the majority of Latin decent. No one has been offended till this day. We are not embarrassed by a branch of our government that serve this country proudly who put their lives on the line.'
PUBLISHED: 08:53 EST, 6 April 2012
UPDATED: 12:55 EST, 6 April 2012
UK Daily Mail:
A Boy Scout patch depicting the silhouette of fleeing immigrants has caused a stir among a group of Latinos who are calling it racist.
The badge worn by the dominantly Latino scouts in Milwaukee, Wisconsin mirrors an iconic sign featuring a man, woman and child fleeing which was commonly used along the Mexico-United States border.
The sign served as a warning to drivers of immigrants crossing. Its original image, by Navajo artist John Hood, hangs in the Smithsonian.
The badge, first reported by website Latino Rebels, was headlined by the site as: 'Unauthorized (and Racist) "Border Patrol" Boy Scout Patch Chosen by Latino Troop Members.'
They reached out to the Boy Scouts of America late last month for comment.
'Neither the United States Border Patrol or the Boy Scouts of America were involved in the naming of the patrol, or the production or distribution of the patch,' BSA Communications Specialist David Burke responded in a statement to Latino Rebels.
The troop 11 members told the website they first created it about 10 years ago after one of its current leaders saw the iconic black and yellow road sign in Texas around 2002.
'The patch is used to symbolize that a scout is part of the "border" patrol,' troop 11 assistant scoutmaster Bradley Schultz responded to the website by email.
According to Mr Burke, each BSA troop is composed of 20 to 60 young men but then divided again into patrols of about 5 to 9.
'Each patrol gets to select its own patrol name. Patrol names can be just about anything the boys decide,' Mr Burke wrote.
'We knew we wanted to be named Border, but we wanted an image to go with it,' Mr Schultz wrote while adding that it most likely will be changing.
'...we have been told by our council that if we don't change the NAME of the patrol the troop will be disbanded as a whole. The troop would most likely be willing to consider changing the image if we were allowed to keep the name, Border Patrol.'
Defending the name and image entirely for troop 11's scouts, assistant scoutmaster Ryan Antczak responded to Latino Rebels with his own statement:
'They wanted this because they didn't wanna be associated with those that come to our country illegally. This has been part of our troop for almost 10 years,' he wrote.
'We are located in a very diverse area were [sic] the majority of Latin decent. No one has been offended till this day. We are not embarrassed by a branch of our government that serve this country proudly who put their lives on the line.'
AP's Wiseman Botches Math to Falsely Claim Past Four Months' Job Adds Are Best in Two Years
By Tom Blumer
April 06, 2012
NewsBusters.Org:
It would seem that Paul Wiseman at the Associated Press had his copy prepared in advance for today's jobs report.
The consensus was that today's report from Uncle Sam's Bureau of Labor Statistics would show that 200,000 seasonally adjusted jobs were added in March. So it was a virtual lock that today's result would mean that the past four months were the best for net hiring in the past two years. Accordingly, after the report's release, Wiseman, despite the disappointing news that March's number was only 120,000, apparently just plugged in the four-month total and ran with it:
Unfortunately for Wiseman and AP, today's actual result was so low that it made the related four-month total of 858,000 for December through March lower than the four-month total for November through February:
Oops.
Based on the time stamp on the report above, the error remained for at least 3 hours before being corrected; I think it may have lingered for several more hours elsewhere. Update: Actually, you can still find a copy of Wiseman's earlier version containing the erroneous "best four months of hiring in two years" reference here at Yahoo.
A report by Wiseman time-stamped at 5:51 p.m. no longer contains the error. But its headline ("US job market takes a break after hiring binge") gives away the kind of shameless exercise in administration aggrandizement and excuse-making readers will see if they read on.
I'll deal with that tomorrow.
April 06, 2012
NewsBusters.Org:
It would seem that Paul Wiseman at the Associated Press had his copy prepared in advance for today's jobs report.
The consensus was that today's report from Uncle Sam's Bureau of Labor Statistics would show that 200,000 seasonally adjusted jobs were added in March. So it was a virtual lock that today's result would mean that the past four months were the best for net hiring in the past two years. Accordingly, after the report's release, Wiseman, despite the disappointing news that March's number was only 120,000, apparently just plugged in the four-month total and ran with it:
Unfortunately for Wiseman and AP, today's actual result was so low that it made the related four-month total of 858,000 for December through March lower than the four-month total for November through February:
Oops.
Based on the time stamp on the report above, the error remained for at least 3 hours before being corrected; I think it may have lingered for several more hours elsewhere. Update: Actually, you can still find a copy of Wiseman's earlier version containing the erroneous "best four months of hiring in two years" reference here at Yahoo.
A report by Wiseman time-stamped at 5:51 p.m. no longer contains the error. But its headline ("US job market takes a break after hiring binge") gives away the kind of shameless exercise in administration aggrandizement and excuse-making readers will see if they read on.
I'll deal with that tomorrow.
DHS is Preparing for 50-state Mandatory E-Verify Law
Wednesday, April 4, 2012, 1:16 PM EDT
While Republican leaders of the House continue to block a vote on a national mandatory E-Verify bill, the Obama Administration has issued a statement that it is getting E-Verify ready to handle a big expansion. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is planning to launch a 2012 Web User Survey that will be used:
"In anticipation of the enactment of mandatory state and/or national eligibility verification programs for all or a substantial number of employers."
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is planning to launch a 2012 Web User Survey that will seek input from approximately 2,800 employers nationwide to obtain information about the E-Verify program, Government Security News reported.
USCIS published a Federal Register notice yesterday asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for permission to establish the survey initiative.
NumbersUSA Founder Roy Beck thinks DHS and USCIS are moving in the right direction.
"I laud the managers and workers at DHS to rise above the politicians and to do the practical work as necessary," Beck said.
The agency issued an earlier notice in the Federal Register on January 18, but received no comments from members of the public. It has now posted a second notice and invites comments by May 3.
Read the full story in, GSN: Government Security News.
While Republican leaders of the House continue to block a vote on a national mandatory E-Verify bill, the Obama Administration has issued a statement that it is getting E-Verify ready to handle a big expansion. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is planning to launch a 2012 Web User Survey that will be used:
"In anticipation of the enactment of mandatory state and/or national eligibility verification programs for all or a substantial number of employers."
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is planning to launch a 2012 Web User Survey that will seek input from approximately 2,800 employers nationwide to obtain information about the E-Verify program, Government Security News reported.
USCIS published a Federal Register notice yesterday asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for permission to establish the survey initiative.
NumbersUSA Founder Roy Beck thinks DHS and USCIS are moving in the right direction.
"I laud the managers and workers at DHS to rise above the politicians and to do the practical work as necessary," Beck said.
The agency issued an earlier notice in the Federal Register on January 18, but received no comments from members of the public. It has now posted a second notice and invites comments by May 3.
Read the full story in, GSN: Government Security News.
Law school refuses to hire professor who embraces politics the rest of the faculty “despises”
April 6, 2012
by Tina Korbe
Hot Air.Com
Bet you can guess whether she was liberal or conservative. At the same time that schools pursue diversity for diversity’s sake without ever clearly explaining why diversity is important, they often fail to consider a different kind of diversity: What about diversity of thought? (And, yes, I was trying to see how many times I could use the word “diversity” in a sentence!) Sometimes, the details of a discrimination case are murky, but, in this case, they’re pretty clear:
[Teresa] Wagner, who graduated with honors from the law school [the University of Iowa College of Law] in 1993, has taught at the George Mason University School of Law. She has also worked for the National Right to Life Committee, which opposes abortion, and the conservative Family Research Council.
In 2006, Wagner applied for a full-time instructor position with the law school and was denied. She was also rejected for an adjunct or full-time position in four subsequent attempts, according to her attorney, Stephen T. Fieweger.
Fieweger said Wagner’s candidacy was dismissed because of her conservative views, and he cited a 2007 email from Associate Dean Jonathan C. Carlson to Jones in which Carlson wrote: “Frankly, one thing that worries me is that some people may be opposed to Teresa serving in any role, in part at least because they so despise her politics (and especially her activism about it).”
Fieweger said the law school and academic institutions in general have been so “entrenched” in discriminating against conservative-minded faculty over the years that “they don’t recognize they’re doing it.”
Ms. Wagner isn’t taking it lying down, though: She sued the school. A lower court initially dismissed the suit, arguing the dean could hire whomever he wished — but the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reinstated it. A trial is set for Oct. 15.
While I sympathize with Wagner’s plight and respect her decision to sue the school (especially because the school purports to be committed to fair hiring practices), I’m more generally against the forced imposition of diversity than I am in favor of her lawsuit. Freedom of association, anyone?
At the same time, I’m mindful of the way we hole up in our echo chambers. Our unwillingness to experience the friction that occurs when our ideas directly clash with another person’s is counterproductive. I’m talking about real friction and a real clash — the kind that occurs when you look another person in the eye, with no mediating computer screen or TV camera or other medium, and flat-out disagree. It’s uncomfortable — and it’s almost always cause for introspection. That introspection is often fruitful, as it forces us to either reaffirm our views for ourselves or to tweak them as the new information provided by “the other” requires.
A new study shows that Democrats and Republicans are actually unable to feel each other’s pain. As in, if you know someone is thirsting and you also know they have different political views than you do, you’ll feel their thirst less. To me, that’s shabby. We do have humanity in common, at least, and it’s worth it to pause and remember a few common truths and to try to build on those truths in our daily lives: In the grand scheme of things, we’re all small but none of us is unimportant, we all long to love and be loved, we all crave truth but are also often afraid of its implications …
Somewhere along the line, we’ve confused a commitment to “tolerance and diversity” with relativism. But we can simultaneously consciously seek to challenge our own views and, in the end, hold fast to our principles. It is possible. Not all opinions are equally true and two mutually exclusive propositions can never both be true. If we’re really seeking the truth, what does it hurt to give court to others’ perspectives? Maybe we’ll find we’re wrong … but maybe we’ll find we’re right.
by Tina Korbe
Hot Air.Com
Bet you can guess whether she was liberal or conservative. At the same time that schools pursue diversity for diversity’s sake without ever clearly explaining why diversity is important, they often fail to consider a different kind of diversity: What about diversity of thought? (And, yes, I was trying to see how many times I could use the word “diversity” in a sentence!) Sometimes, the details of a discrimination case are murky, but, in this case, they’re pretty clear:
[Teresa] Wagner, who graduated with honors from the law school [the University of Iowa College of Law] in 1993, has taught at the George Mason University School of Law. She has also worked for the National Right to Life Committee, which opposes abortion, and the conservative Family Research Council.
In 2006, Wagner applied for a full-time instructor position with the law school and was denied. She was also rejected for an adjunct or full-time position in four subsequent attempts, according to her attorney, Stephen T. Fieweger.
Fieweger said Wagner’s candidacy was dismissed because of her conservative views, and he cited a 2007 email from Associate Dean Jonathan C. Carlson to Jones in which Carlson wrote: “Frankly, one thing that worries me is that some people may be opposed to Teresa serving in any role, in part at least because they so despise her politics (and especially her activism about it).”
Fieweger said the law school and academic institutions in general have been so “entrenched” in discriminating against conservative-minded faculty over the years that “they don’t recognize they’re doing it.”
Ms. Wagner isn’t taking it lying down, though: She sued the school. A lower court initially dismissed the suit, arguing the dean could hire whomever he wished — but the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reinstated it. A trial is set for Oct. 15.
While I sympathize with Wagner’s plight and respect her decision to sue the school (especially because the school purports to be committed to fair hiring practices), I’m more generally against the forced imposition of diversity than I am in favor of her lawsuit. Freedom of association, anyone?
At the same time, I’m mindful of the way we hole up in our echo chambers. Our unwillingness to experience the friction that occurs when our ideas directly clash with another person’s is counterproductive. I’m talking about real friction and a real clash — the kind that occurs when you look another person in the eye, with no mediating computer screen or TV camera or other medium, and flat-out disagree. It’s uncomfortable — and it’s almost always cause for introspection. That introspection is often fruitful, as it forces us to either reaffirm our views for ourselves or to tweak them as the new information provided by “the other” requires.
A new study shows that Democrats and Republicans are actually unable to feel each other’s pain. As in, if you know someone is thirsting and you also know they have different political views than you do, you’ll feel their thirst less. To me, that’s shabby. We do have humanity in common, at least, and it’s worth it to pause and remember a few common truths and to try to build on those truths in our daily lives: In the grand scheme of things, we’re all small but none of us is unimportant, we all long to love and be loved, we all crave truth but are also often afraid of its implications …
Somewhere along the line, we’ve confused a commitment to “tolerance and diversity” with relativism. But we can simultaneously consciously seek to challenge our own views and, in the end, hold fast to our principles. It is possible. Not all opinions are equally true and two mutually exclusive propositions can never both be true. If we’re really seeking the truth, what does it hurt to give court to others’ perspectives? Maybe we’ll find we’re wrong … but maybe we’ll find we’re right.
Department of Justice delivers requested letter to 5th Circuit Court of Appeals – say power of the courts to review constitutionality should only be exercised in “appropriate cases”
So what does Holder and the Obama regime deem to be “appropriate cases?” Citizens United?
SOURCE: FireAndreaMitchell.Com
Pray for Little Bella Santorum
By Quin Hillyer on 4.6.12 @ 10:29PM
Verona, PA - The Rick Santorum for President campaign has issued the following statement on the health of Isabella Santorum.
Hogan Gidley, National Communications Director, said: "Rick and his wife Karen have taken their daughter Bella to the hospital. The family requests prayers and privacy as Bella works her way to recovery."
SOURCE: American Spectator
Verona, PA - The Rick Santorum for President campaign has issued the following statement on the health of Isabella Santorum.
Hogan Gidley, National Communications Director, said: "Rick and his wife Karen have taken their daughter Bella to the hospital. The family requests prayers and privacy as Bella works her way to recovery."
SOURCE: American Spectator
Revisions Planned for Arizona Ban on “Obscene, Lewd or Profane Language” Used Online “With Intent to … Offend”
Eugene Volokh • April 6, 2012 9:29 pm
As I noted last week, both houses of the Arizona legislature passed a bill that would say,
It is unlawful for any person, with intent to[, among other things,] harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language ….
Many people criticized the bill, as did I, but just a few days ago, a co-sponsor of the bill was having none of it, writing,
As the co-sponsor of HB2549 I can see the conspiracy have their tin-foil hats on tonight.
HB2549 is being chased down by the “black-helicopter” crowd. Their claims of internet restriction are unfounded and way off base!!
You can read the bill and full details @ http://www.vote4vic.com/index.cfm/article_58.htm
Yet the tin foil apparently worked: Another co-sponsor has now announced that the bill will be revised, before being sent to the Governor. According to CNN,
[Arizona Rep. Ted] Vogt said Wednesday that the bill would be amended to say those harassing communications must be directed at a specific person and must be “unwanted or unsolicited.”…
The bill will not apply to online comment sections or semi-public forums such as Facebook walls, Vogt said.
“With Facebook, you’ve got control over who your friends are,” he said. “So if somebody is threatening you and you never de-friend them then you’re not controlling it. You’re inviting people to comment freely on your Facebook page. You can de-friend them and you can end the problem there.”
Comments sections are the same, he said, since websites don’t have to invite people to comment and can take down those sections if they are worried about threats.
I haven’t seen any specific proposed text (none is posted yet on the Legislature’s site), so I can’t speak to how good the amendment will be. But I’m glad the legislators are at least rejecting the old, bad version of the bill.
I’m also glad that Connecticut legislators have killed a similarly bad recent Connecticut proposal.
As I noted last week, both houses of the Arizona legislature passed a bill that would say,
It is unlawful for any person, with intent to[, among other things,] harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language ….
Many people criticized the bill, as did I, but just a few days ago, a co-sponsor of the bill was having none of it, writing,
As the co-sponsor of HB2549 I can see the conspiracy have their tin-foil hats on tonight.
HB2549 is being chased down by the “black-helicopter” crowd. Their claims of internet restriction are unfounded and way off base!!
You can read the bill and full details @ http://www.vote4vic.com/index.cfm/article_58.htm
Yet the tin foil apparently worked: Another co-sponsor has now announced that the bill will be revised, before being sent to the Governor. According to CNN,
[Arizona Rep. Ted] Vogt said Wednesday that the bill would be amended to say those harassing communications must be directed at a specific person and must be “unwanted or unsolicited.”…
The bill will not apply to online comment sections or semi-public forums such as Facebook walls, Vogt said.
“With Facebook, you’ve got control over who your friends are,” he said. “So if somebody is threatening you and you never de-friend them then you’re not controlling it. You’re inviting people to comment freely on your Facebook page. You can de-friend them and you can end the problem there.”
Comments sections are the same, he said, since websites don’t have to invite people to comment and can take down those sections if they are worried about threats.
I haven’t seen any specific proposed text (none is posted yet on the Legislature’s site), so I can’t speak to how good the amendment will be. But I’m glad the legislators are at least rejecting the old, bad version of the bill.
I’m also glad that Connecticut legislators have killed a similarly bad recent Connecticut proposal.
Labor Secretary Puts Up Posters of Herself Marching with MSNBC's Al Sharpton
By Tim Graham
April 07, 2012
NewsBusters.Com
The close relationship between MSNBC host Al Sharpton and the Obama administration knows no bounds of propriety. The Washington Free Beacon reported "signs posted in at least 20 Department Of Labor elevators depict Secretary Hilda Solis carrying a bullhorn and rallying alongside the Rev. Al Sharpton...Next to the pictures is a quote from Solis that reads in part: 'We all march in our own way.'” A few people over in the picture is the Rev. Jesse Jackson.
Now imagine if a Bush cabinet secretary put up posters of himself marching arm in arm with a Fox News personality. Would that have been skipped over by the rest of the national media?
Adam Kredo elaborated on what the poster said:
“Whether we take to the streets or simply do our work with integrity and commitment here at the U.S. Department of Labor… we are all marching toward the same goals: safe workplaces, fair pay, dignity of the job, secure retirement, and opportunities to make a better life,” the poster states.
It concludes with a call to action.
“I believe in the power of collective action. We all play a role. We all march.”
Several employees labeled the ads as offensive, referring to them as shameless political propaganda, said one DOL employee who requested anonymity.
“It is propaganda. This is what being in a Chinese factory during the Cultural Revolution is like,” the source said. “It’s offensive. It’s saying that we’re all on the side of Trayvon Martin, or whatever Sharpton is doing, and the people of Labor should be for it.”
April 07, 2012
NewsBusters.Com
The close relationship between MSNBC host Al Sharpton and the Obama administration knows no bounds of propriety. The Washington Free Beacon reported "signs posted in at least 20 Department Of Labor elevators depict Secretary Hilda Solis carrying a bullhorn and rallying alongside the Rev. Al Sharpton...Next to the pictures is a quote from Solis that reads in part: 'We all march in our own way.'” A few people over in the picture is the Rev. Jesse Jackson.
Now imagine if a Bush cabinet secretary put up posters of himself marching arm in arm with a Fox News personality. Would that have been skipped over by the rest of the national media?
Adam Kredo elaborated on what the poster said:
“Whether we take to the streets or simply do our work with integrity and commitment here at the U.S. Department of Labor… we are all marching toward the same goals: safe workplaces, fair pay, dignity of the job, secure retirement, and opportunities to make a better life,” the poster states.
It concludes with a call to action.
“I believe in the power of collective action. We all play a role. We all march.”
Several employees labeled the ads as offensive, referring to them as shameless political propaganda, said one DOL employee who requested anonymity.
“It is propaganda. This is what being in a Chinese factory during the Cultural Revolution is like,” the source said. “It’s offensive. It’s saying that we’re all on the side of Trayvon Martin, or whatever Sharpton is doing, and the people of Labor should be for it.”
DON’T BELIEVE AGENDA 21 Is BAD for LIBERTY? ASK a CHAGOS ISLANDER – if You Can FIND ONE!
Posted on 06 April 2012.
Va Right:
The pro-sustainability people always try to minimize their efforts as unimportant – they won’t take orders from the UN, they do not intend to harm people’s property rights, they are just a voluntary effort to make the world a better place for future generations. ICLEI is just a harmless little tumbleweed organization that just helps communities do what is right. It’s all a plot by the evil John Birch Society and bloggers/activists in the pay of big oil. (For the record, not one dime, silver or otherwise, has been paid to THIS blogger from any oil company!)
But check out this story about how environmentalism has been used to deprive people of their inalienable right to return home to a chain of islands they were forcibly and arguable illegally evicted from in the 1960s: The Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean. They are part of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT); most of us know a bit about the largest island: Diego Garcia.
The Chagos Islands are about 600 miles from Mauritius (which claims them as part of their nation, see this article here from the Mauritius ambassador to the US) and they were not given to Mauritius (which they were apparently a part of during their colonial days) but rather kept back for defense reasons. But as this writer for the Telegraph (UK) reports, the UK and US decided to use the islands for defense purposes:
In the same year, a secret British-American conference was held in London. In the chilling words of official jargon, the islands “were closed” and, in an exchange of letters never shown to either Parliament or the US Congress, a defence agreement was signed leasing the Chagos Islands to the US for 50 years with the option of an extra 20-year extension. The deal was struck on the understanding that the entire island chain was “fully sanitised” and “cleansed” of life. In exchange, Britain would receive an $11million subsidy on the US’s Polaris submarine nuclear deterrent.
And the UK did indeed remove the islanders and in a scene chillingly similar to one of history’s darkest hours, gassed the pet dogs:
In the summer of 1971, a group of Whitehall officials arrived with an eviction order and informed the inhabitants that they were now illegal squatters. The islanders were duly deported to Mauritius and the Seychelles, families split between islands in the hasty removal. In Mauritius, they were sent to a derelict housing estate where they made shelters for themselves in the stables and pigsties. It was worse still in the Seychelles, where they were housed in the prison.
This was a living nightmare for the Chagossians – but it was only the beginning. Soon they learned they would never be going home again, and that their British citizenship had been revoked. They were offered a mere £325 per person as compensation for losing their homes, their livelihoods, their history.
Before the islands could be handed over to the Americans, the British Army had one final task. They rounded up the 800 pet dogs that had been left and gassed them. “I first made the building secure, then introduced into it pipes attached to the exhaust pipes of US vehicles,” reported Mr Moulinie, the former UK-appointed official ordered to complete the “cleansing”. The islanders had been removed, their dogs gassed: the transformation could begin.
But the islanders appealed to a British court and they won!
There was a glimmer of hope in 2000, when the Chagossians went to the High Court and won the right to go home. The government, advised by the then Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, also ruled that the Chagos people could have their British passports returned. The islanders, now numbering a mere 450, celebrated their victory and flew to the UK, settling in Crawley, the nearest town to Gatwick, where they awaited their return to the islands.
But the United Kingdom refused to all the return and cited of all things, the impending formation of a environmental preserve over the entire island chain:
It seems a simple wish, but one which, in a new twist, has now been thwarted by the powerful environmental lobby. Last year, the islands were declared a marine sanctuary in which no people would be allowed to live, news that was greeted with delight by environmentalists but was condemned by human rights groups. Mauritius was furious with the decision. In 1965, Britain had promised that the Chagos Islands would be given to them when they were no longer needed for defence purposes.
“This has nothing to do with the environment,” says the Mauritian High Commissioner to London. “They want to prevent islanders from going back and keep these islands for ever. But we are not going to let this go.”
Even secrets revealed by Wikileaks put a lie to any claims that this was benevolent environmental stewardship:
Their concerns have been confirmed by Wikileak revelations released in December that have cast doubts on the environmental debate. According to the leaks, the Foreign Office had no regrets over the illegal action to expel them from the islands, and had been planning for some time to destroy their campaign to return home. Colin Roberts, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office director, told the US political councillor that there would be no “Man Fridays” on the uninhabited islands.
In chilling language, the UK government was going to defy the court, permanently deprive the islanders of any rights without worries since the environmental movement has more power than a few islanders:
In a section of the document headed “Je Ne Regrette Rien”, Mr Roberts said: “We do not regret the removal of the population.” And he told the meeting that establishing a marine park would “in effect put paid to resettlement claims of the archipelago’s former residents”. When it was pointed out to him by the US officials that the Chagos people continue to demand a return to their homeland, he replied that the UK’s “environmental lobby is far more powerful than the Chagossians’ advocates”.
There are other sources supporting the position that environmental concerns trumped human rights and the right to property. This report from the Guardian (UK):
The foreign secretary’s announcement (UK sets up marine reserve in controversial area, 2 April) of the establishment of a marine protected area (MPA) around the Chagos archipelago (British Indian Ocean Territory) following the recently completed consultation is welcome news in principle. The area’s conservation value is undisputed. However, as John Vidal’s article (Good news for the warty sea slug is devastating for Chagos islanders, 30 March) indicates, there are important associated controversies regarding the displaced Chagossians’ right of return and Mauritian sovereignty claims. The FCO’s unilateral action over the MPA is exacerbating these tensions and unnecessarily undermining what should have been near universal support.
The Mauritian foreign minister is reportedly furious, having repeatedly requested a bilateral approach to the MPA process. Many Chagossians are similarly angered that the “no-take” commercial fishing zone may damage their future livelihood prospects. Their right of return – at least to the outer islands – could easily also have been granted magnanimously as part of the deal, thereby resolving what even the British government admits to have been a shameful historical injustice.
Here is another article from the Guardian:
The original Chagossians, who were deported between 1967 and 1973 to make way for a giant US nuclear air force base on the largest island, Diego Garcia, say they would in effect be barred from ever returning because the marine protection zone would stop them fishing, their main livelihood. “There would be a natural injustice. The fish would have more rights than us,” said Roch Evenor, secretary of the UK Chagos Support Association, who left the island when he was four.
Nothing new here: Fish have more rights in the USA than people as the farmers in California found out to their sorrow:
IN 2007 Oliver Wanger, a federal judge in California, ordered the huge pumping stations of the Sacramento Delta, the largest estuary on the west coast of the Americas, to reduce by a third the water they delivered to two aqueducts that run south to the farms of the San Joaquin Valley and onward to the vast conurbations of southern California. His reason was the delta smelt, a translucent fish less than eight centimetres (three inches) long that lives only in the delta and is considered endangered under federal law. The pumping plants were sucking in the fish and grinding them up. The next year, a “biological opinion” by the federal Fish and Wildlife Service reinforced Judge Wanger’s order.
Here’s an MSM video from this March! More of the same. Do the environmentalists care? Nope! Check out this position paper from the Pew Environment Group about the Chagos Islanders right of return:
We believe the Chagos Islands and their surrounding waters should be protected for the resources and values they have today “without prejudice” to the outcome of the legal process. This archipelago is biologically critical to the fish and other marine life of the Indian Ocean, upon which millions of people rely. The protections afforded by the Chagos Marine Reserve will help to ensure that the waters of the region and the resources they contain remain healthy no matter what the future holds.
Not a word about the islanders’ rights. (In fairness, the Guardian article cited Pew as saying they would support limited rights for the islanders to return.) Try this from Greenpeace:
In a letter on its website, Greenpeace said: “[We] acknowledge and support the Chagossians in their struggle, and hope that they are successful. But at the moment, the Chagos Islands are being administered by the UK government, and whatever way you look at it, taking steps to protect the marine life there is a good idea. If and when the Chagossians are repatriated, then the protection of the seas around the archipelago will need to be readdressed, and yes, that may well involve allowing fishing by the islanders.”
I am afraid that this is not an academic issue for the United Kingdom. it involves us, too. We are implicated in the displacement of the islanders.
Colin Roberts, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office director, told the US political councillor that there would be no “Man Fridays” on the uninhabited islands.
I am not sure what is the right thing to do. We were fighting a cold war against communism at the time. Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to fix an omelet. We should look into this matter and do the right. Mauritius has an agenda, too: increasing it’s influence. But my point is: If you are concerned that the adherents of Agenda 21 would take your property rights away from you without any conscience, you’re right! Ask an Chagos islander – if you can find one!
PS: Here’s a website from islanders in UK and another pro-Chagos site for your review! I cannot speak for their accuracy or necessarily condone their politics.
Va Right:
The pro-sustainability people always try to minimize their efforts as unimportant – they won’t take orders from the UN, they do not intend to harm people’s property rights, they are just a voluntary effort to make the world a better place for future generations. ICLEI is just a harmless little tumbleweed organization that just helps communities do what is right. It’s all a plot by the evil John Birch Society and bloggers/activists in the pay of big oil. (For the record, not one dime, silver or otherwise, has been paid to THIS blogger from any oil company!)
But check out this story about how environmentalism has been used to deprive people of their inalienable right to return home to a chain of islands they were forcibly and arguable illegally evicted from in the 1960s: The Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean. They are part of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT); most of us know a bit about the largest island: Diego Garcia.
The Chagos Islands are about 600 miles from Mauritius (which claims them as part of their nation, see this article here from the Mauritius ambassador to the US) and they were not given to Mauritius (which they were apparently a part of during their colonial days) but rather kept back for defense reasons. But as this writer for the Telegraph (UK) reports, the UK and US decided to use the islands for defense purposes:
In the same year, a secret British-American conference was held in London. In the chilling words of official jargon, the islands “were closed” and, in an exchange of letters never shown to either Parliament or the US Congress, a defence agreement was signed leasing the Chagos Islands to the US for 50 years with the option of an extra 20-year extension. The deal was struck on the understanding that the entire island chain was “fully sanitised” and “cleansed” of life. In exchange, Britain would receive an $11million subsidy on the US’s Polaris submarine nuclear deterrent.
And the UK did indeed remove the islanders and in a scene chillingly similar to one of history’s darkest hours, gassed the pet dogs:
In the summer of 1971, a group of Whitehall officials arrived with an eviction order and informed the inhabitants that they were now illegal squatters. The islanders were duly deported to Mauritius and the Seychelles, families split between islands in the hasty removal. In Mauritius, they were sent to a derelict housing estate where they made shelters for themselves in the stables and pigsties. It was worse still in the Seychelles, where they were housed in the prison.
This was a living nightmare for the Chagossians – but it was only the beginning. Soon they learned they would never be going home again, and that their British citizenship had been revoked. They were offered a mere £325 per person as compensation for losing their homes, their livelihoods, their history.
Before the islands could be handed over to the Americans, the British Army had one final task. They rounded up the 800 pet dogs that had been left and gassed them. “I first made the building secure, then introduced into it pipes attached to the exhaust pipes of US vehicles,” reported Mr Moulinie, the former UK-appointed official ordered to complete the “cleansing”. The islanders had been removed, their dogs gassed: the transformation could begin.
But the islanders appealed to a British court and they won!
There was a glimmer of hope in 2000, when the Chagossians went to the High Court and won the right to go home. The government, advised by the then Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, also ruled that the Chagos people could have their British passports returned. The islanders, now numbering a mere 450, celebrated their victory and flew to the UK, settling in Crawley, the nearest town to Gatwick, where they awaited their return to the islands.
But the United Kingdom refused to all the return and cited of all things, the impending formation of a environmental preserve over the entire island chain:
It seems a simple wish, but one which, in a new twist, has now been thwarted by the powerful environmental lobby. Last year, the islands were declared a marine sanctuary in which no people would be allowed to live, news that was greeted with delight by environmentalists but was condemned by human rights groups. Mauritius was furious with the decision. In 1965, Britain had promised that the Chagos Islands would be given to them when they were no longer needed for defence purposes.
“This has nothing to do with the environment,” says the Mauritian High Commissioner to London. “They want to prevent islanders from going back and keep these islands for ever. But we are not going to let this go.”
Even secrets revealed by Wikileaks put a lie to any claims that this was benevolent environmental stewardship:
Their concerns have been confirmed by Wikileak revelations released in December that have cast doubts on the environmental debate. According to the leaks, the Foreign Office had no regrets over the illegal action to expel them from the islands, and had been planning for some time to destroy their campaign to return home. Colin Roberts, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office director, told the US political councillor that there would be no “Man Fridays” on the uninhabited islands.
In chilling language, the UK government was going to defy the court, permanently deprive the islanders of any rights without worries since the environmental movement has more power than a few islanders:
In a section of the document headed “Je Ne Regrette Rien”, Mr Roberts said: “We do not regret the removal of the population.” And he told the meeting that establishing a marine park would “in effect put paid to resettlement claims of the archipelago’s former residents”. When it was pointed out to him by the US officials that the Chagos people continue to demand a return to their homeland, he replied that the UK’s “environmental lobby is far more powerful than the Chagossians’ advocates”.
There are other sources supporting the position that environmental concerns trumped human rights and the right to property. This report from the Guardian (UK):
The foreign secretary’s announcement (UK sets up marine reserve in controversial area, 2 April) of the establishment of a marine protected area (MPA) around the Chagos archipelago (British Indian Ocean Territory) following the recently completed consultation is welcome news in principle. The area’s conservation value is undisputed. However, as John Vidal’s article (Good news for the warty sea slug is devastating for Chagos islanders, 30 March) indicates, there are important associated controversies regarding the displaced Chagossians’ right of return and Mauritian sovereignty claims. The FCO’s unilateral action over the MPA is exacerbating these tensions and unnecessarily undermining what should have been near universal support.
The Mauritian foreign minister is reportedly furious, having repeatedly requested a bilateral approach to the MPA process. Many Chagossians are similarly angered that the “no-take” commercial fishing zone may damage their future livelihood prospects. Their right of return – at least to the outer islands – could easily also have been granted magnanimously as part of the deal, thereby resolving what even the British government admits to have been a shameful historical injustice.
Here is another article from the Guardian:
The original Chagossians, who were deported between 1967 and 1973 to make way for a giant US nuclear air force base on the largest island, Diego Garcia, say they would in effect be barred from ever returning because the marine protection zone would stop them fishing, their main livelihood. “There would be a natural injustice. The fish would have more rights than us,” said Roch Evenor, secretary of the UK Chagos Support Association, who left the island when he was four.
Nothing new here: Fish have more rights in the USA than people as the farmers in California found out to their sorrow:
IN 2007 Oliver Wanger, a federal judge in California, ordered the huge pumping stations of the Sacramento Delta, the largest estuary on the west coast of the Americas, to reduce by a third the water they delivered to two aqueducts that run south to the farms of the San Joaquin Valley and onward to the vast conurbations of southern California. His reason was the delta smelt, a translucent fish less than eight centimetres (three inches) long that lives only in the delta and is considered endangered under federal law. The pumping plants were sucking in the fish and grinding them up. The next year, a “biological opinion” by the federal Fish and Wildlife Service reinforced Judge Wanger’s order.
Here’s an MSM video from this March! More of the same. Do the environmentalists care? Nope! Check out this position paper from the Pew Environment Group about the Chagos Islanders right of return:
We believe the Chagos Islands and their surrounding waters should be protected for the resources and values they have today “without prejudice” to the outcome of the legal process. This archipelago is biologically critical to the fish and other marine life of the Indian Ocean, upon which millions of people rely. The protections afforded by the Chagos Marine Reserve will help to ensure that the waters of the region and the resources they contain remain healthy no matter what the future holds.
Not a word about the islanders’ rights. (In fairness, the Guardian article cited Pew as saying they would support limited rights for the islanders to return.) Try this from Greenpeace:
In a letter on its website, Greenpeace said: “[We] acknowledge and support the Chagossians in their struggle, and hope that they are successful. But at the moment, the Chagos Islands are being administered by the UK government, and whatever way you look at it, taking steps to protect the marine life there is a good idea. If and when the Chagossians are repatriated, then the protection of the seas around the archipelago will need to be readdressed, and yes, that may well involve allowing fishing by the islanders.”
I am afraid that this is not an academic issue for the United Kingdom. it involves us, too. We are implicated in the displacement of the islanders.
Colin Roberts, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office director, told the US political councillor that there would be no “Man Fridays” on the uninhabited islands.
I am not sure what is the right thing to do. We were fighting a cold war against communism at the time. Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to fix an omelet. We should look into this matter and do the right. Mauritius has an agenda, too: increasing it’s influence. But my point is: If you are concerned that the adherents of Agenda 21 would take your property rights away from you without any conscience, you’re right! Ask an Chagos islander – if you can find one!
PS: Here’s a website from islanders in UK and another pro-Chagos site for your review! I cannot speak for their accuracy or necessarily condone their politics.
Developing “Major” Scandal: Obama Website Allows Illegal Campaign Contributions
Apr 6, 2012
Toro520
Pat Dollard.Com
Powerline:
The Obama re-election campaign fundraising scandal deserves to be, and I think inevitably will be, a major news story. Earlier this morning I decided to find out how far an illegal donor could push the envelope and still have his contribution welcomed by the Obama campaign. So, like a number of our readers, I went to the Donate to Obama page and identified myself as Illegal Contributor. I entered my address as Cell Block 13, State Penitentiary, Stillwater MN. I identified my employer as Minnesota Penal System and my occupation as Inmate…
Keep Reading…
Secret Obama Message Gives Khamenei Permission to Pursue Nuclear Program
Barack Obama sent a secret message to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei recently. Obama told the regime leader that he would give them permission to pursue a nuclear energy program.
YNet News reported:
US President Barack Obama has signaled Tehran that the Washington would accept an civilian nuclear program in Iran if Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei can back up his recent claim that his nation “will never pursue nuclear weapons,” the Washington Post reported Friday.
According to the report, the verbal message was sent through Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who met with Khamenei last week. A few days prior to leaving for the trip, Erdogan held a two-hour meeting with Obama on the sidelines of the nuclear security summit in Seoul, in which they discussed what the Turkish leader would tell Khamenei about the nuclear issue.
Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote that Obama advised Tehran, via Edrogan, that time is running out for a peaceful agreement. Obama didn’t specify whether Iran would be allowed to enrich uranium domestically. The issue evidently is to be discussed during the talks between the Islamic Republic and the West, which are slated start on April 13 at a venue yet to be decided.
Unbelievable.
Posted by Jim Hoft - Gateway Pundit on Friday, April 6, 2012
Mr. Obama's Own War on Women
April 7, 2012
Mr. Obama's Own War on Women
By Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison
Anti-war presidential candidate Gene McCarthy once described reporters as being like blackbirds on the telephone lines: one lands, they all land; one flies off, they all fly off.
We're seeing those media blackbirds again. They're going on and on about conservatives and their so-called war on women. It seems that if you don't think religious institutions -- hospitals, soup kitchens, universities -- should be forced to provide coverage for drugs that can cause abortions, then you are making "war" on women.
There's a real war on women, however. And it's been going on for decades. Our friend Steven Mosher first discovered this war on women in China three decades ago. Steven was a Stanford University Ph.D. student doing graduate research in rural China. He was then not a Christian believer, and he was even mildly pro-choice. What he discovered was that Chinese women got no choice. If they had a second child -- an "illegal" child -- these women could be rounded up, thrown in the back of a two-ton truck, and carted off to the local infirmary. There, they could even be held down, their children forcibly aborted. Many of these unfortunate women were in their last trimester of pregnancy.
If the abortion produced a live child, it was often the practice for population workers -- Communist Party "cadres" -- to drown the newborn baby.
With such brutal policies in effect limiting Chinese couples to only one child, the rural Chinese felt further pressure to make sure that that child was a boy. That's because sons are the only social "safety net" for hundreds of millions of Chinese.
Steven Mosher's courage and truth-telling got him kicked of China. That's not surprising. But it also got him kicked out of Stanford University. The administration at Stanford had been told that they would never send another graduate student to China if they didn't get rid of Mosher. So, being good liberals, they knuckled under to the Communist rulers of Beijing.
Steven Mosher has become one of the world's leading authorities on massive human rights abuses in China and in other nations, too. Today, he is a strong Christian witness and a devoted pro-life champion.
President Obama would have us believe that there is some kind of war on women, just in time for his re-election effort. But he is the one who made sure that China's monstrous population effort would be fully supported by the U.N. Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA). Two days after assuming power, President Obama revoked the Reagan-era Mexico City Policy of the previous administration. He forces us to fund international Planned Barrenhood.
That means that the worldwide war on baby girls will go forward, with U.S. taxpayers footing part of the bill. President Obama says that attempts to cut off taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood are part of a campaign against women.
Hundreds of millions of baby girls have been killed. Demographer Nick Eberstadt has carefully documented this "gendercide." This world-wide "war against baby girls" is a major result of Planned Parenthood's population control ideology and its aggressive marketing of abortion-on-demand.
While Dr. Eberstadt demonstrates that this war on baby girls is having disastrous consequences now, it can have even more terrible implications in the future. We are looking at the collapse of whole nations.
Nor is this war on women limited to China, India, and third-world countries. Britain's respected daily Telegraph has reported on abortionists working for the United Kingdom's national health service. The Telegraph captured on tape evidence of these abortionists agreeing to kill unborn children because they tested female.
So next time you hear a liberal or a reporter going on about a "war on women," make sure to ask if this commentator favors legal protection of unborn baby girls. If he or she does, then we can take the rest of his or her comments seriously. If such people say that that's a matter of "choice," remind them that millions of unborn baby girls never got to choose life.
Dividing the country by race, religion, and sex may be good campaign politics, but it's terrible social policy. If we really want to be a kinder, gentler country, one where civility is respected, then let's start by protecting women in the womb.
Mr. Obama's Own War on Women
By Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison
Anti-war presidential candidate Gene McCarthy once described reporters as being like blackbirds on the telephone lines: one lands, they all land; one flies off, they all fly off.
We're seeing those media blackbirds again. They're going on and on about conservatives and their so-called war on women. It seems that if you don't think religious institutions -- hospitals, soup kitchens, universities -- should be forced to provide coverage for drugs that can cause abortions, then you are making "war" on women.
There's a real war on women, however. And it's been going on for decades. Our friend Steven Mosher first discovered this war on women in China three decades ago. Steven was a Stanford University Ph.D. student doing graduate research in rural China. He was then not a Christian believer, and he was even mildly pro-choice. What he discovered was that Chinese women got no choice. If they had a second child -- an "illegal" child -- these women could be rounded up, thrown in the back of a two-ton truck, and carted off to the local infirmary. There, they could even be held down, their children forcibly aborted. Many of these unfortunate women were in their last trimester of pregnancy.
If the abortion produced a live child, it was often the practice for population workers -- Communist Party "cadres" -- to drown the newborn baby.
With such brutal policies in effect limiting Chinese couples to only one child, the rural Chinese felt further pressure to make sure that that child was a boy. That's because sons are the only social "safety net" for hundreds of millions of Chinese.
Steven Mosher's courage and truth-telling got him kicked of China. That's not surprising. But it also got him kicked out of Stanford University. The administration at Stanford had been told that they would never send another graduate student to China if they didn't get rid of Mosher. So, being good liberals, they knuckled under to the Communist rulers of Beijing.
Steven Mosher has become one of the world's leading authorities on massive human rights abuses in China and in other nations, too. Today, he is a strong Christian witness and a devoted pro-life champion.
President Obama would have us believe that there is some kind of war on women, just in time for his re-election effort. But he is the one who made sure that China's monstrous population effort would be fully supported by the U.N. Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA). Two days after assuming power, President Obama revoked the Reagan-era Mexico City Policy of the previous administration. He forces us to fund international Planned Barrenhood.
That means that the worldwide war on baby girls will go forward, with U.S. taxpayers footing part of the bill. President Obama says that attempts to cut off taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood are part of a campaign against women.
Hundreds of millions of baby girls have been killed. Demographer Nick Eberstadt has carefully documented this "gendercide." This world-wide "war against baby girls" is a major result of Planned Parenthood's population control ideology and its aggressive marketing of abortion-on-demand.
While Dr. Eberstadt demonstrates that this war on baby girls is having disastrous consequences now, it can have even more terrible implications in the future. We are looking at the collapse of whole nations.
Nor is this war on women limited to China, India, and third-world countries. Britain's respected daily Telegraph has reported on abortionists working for the United Kingdom's national health service. The Telegraph captured on tape evidence of these abortionists agreeing to kill unborn children because they tested female.
So next time you hear a liberal or a reporter going on about a "war on women," make sure to ask if this commentator favors legal protection of unborn baby girls. If he or she does, then we can take the rest of his or her comments seriously. If such people say that that's a matter of "choice," remind them that millions of unborn baby girls never got to choose life.
Dividing the country by race, religion, and sex may be good campaign politics, but it's terrible social policy. If we really want to be a kinder, gentler country, one where civility is respected, then let's start by protecting women in the womb.
Are Jews finally figuring out that Obama isn’t Moses, he’s Pharaoh?
Bookworm on Apr 06 2012
The handwriting was on the wall in 2008 but Jews, despite having eyes, could not see it: Obama is not now and never was a friend to Israel. His social and political allegiances meant that any protestations of friendship were lies. And certainly his acts during more than three years in the White House have been aggressively hostile to the Jewish state, whether he’s been showing personal antipathy to Netanyahu, political antipathy to the Jewish state itself, or bizarre outpourings of love for the Jewish state’s genocidal enemies.
Perhaps too late, or perhaps just in time, some Jews seem to be catching on that Obama isn’t Moses, he’s Pharaoh:
If senior journalist David Goldman is right, the correct word for describing the way a growing number of US Jews feel about President Barack Obama is not ‘anger’ but ‘rage’ – white-hot rage, at that, and a conviction that they have been swindled.
Goldman, Senior Editor of First Things magazine and ‘Spengler’ columnist for Asia Times Online, spoke last week at a convention on intellectuals and terror at Ariel University in Samaria. In his lecture, he quoted a top Jewish campaign donor who used the word ‘sociopath’ to describe Obama. In an interview with Israel National News, he predicted a possibly dramatic ‘train wreck’ for the Democrats in the November mid-term elections, with Jewish fundraising for Democrats drying up and a possibly high turnout of anti-Obama evangelical Christians.
Read the interview with David Goldman here.
The handwriting was on the wall in 2008 but Jews, despite having eyes, could not see it: Obama is not now and never was a friend to Israel. His social and political allegiances meant that any protestations of friendship were lies. And certainly his acts during more than three years in the White House have been aggressively hostile to the Jewish state, whether he’s been showing personal antipathy to Netanyahu, political antipathy to the Jewish state itself, or bizarre outpourings of love for the Jewish state’s genocidal enemies.
Perhaps too late, or perhaps just in time, some Jews seem to be catching on that Obama isn’t Moses, he’s Pharaoh:
If senior journalist David Goldman is right, the correct word for describing the way a growing number of US Jews feel about President Barack Obama is not ‘anger’ but ‘rage’ – white-hot rage, at that, and a conviction that they have been swindled.
Goldman, Senior Editor of First Things magazine and ‘Spengler’ columnist for Asia Times Online, spoke last week at a convention on intellectuals and terror at Ariel University in Samaria. In his lecture, he quoted a top Jewish campaign donor who used the word ‘sociopath’ to describe Obama. In an interview with Israel National News, he predicted a possibly dramatic ‘train wreck’ for the Democrats in the November mid-term elections, with Jewish fundraising for Democrats drying up and a possibly high turnout of anti-Obama evangelical Christians.
Read the interview with David Goldman here.
White House Blocks Access to ‘Fast and Furious’ Witness – Ball’s Back In Issa’s Court
April, 7, 2012 — nicedeb
Arrest Eric Holder Tee Shirt
Friday afternoon, Utah Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz appeared on Fox News’ Megyn Kelly Show to discuss the latest news in the multi-department, criminal Operation Fast and Furious gun-walking program. is willing to testify about what he knows, the Obama administration won’t let him appear before Congress. Chaffetz told Kelly that although key White House witness, Kevin O’Reilly is willing to testify about what he knows, the Obama administration won’t let him appear before Congress.
The Daily Caller reported:
White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler sent a letter Thursday to Republican lawmakers Rep. Darrell Issa and Sen. Chuck Grassley, refusing their request to speak with Kevin O’Reilly, a former National Security staff member whose emails place him in the middle of the unfolding scandal. Issa and Grassley had written to Ruemmler on March 28, asking the White House to step aside and let O’Reilly talk to investigators.
Grassley is the GOP ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Issa chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, whose members include Chaffetz.
“[O’Reilly’s] personal attorney indicated that he’s more than willing to talk to the committee, on the record, under oath”” Chaffetz told Kelly during her Friday afternoon broadcast. “It is only the White House and the White House Counsel that is saying they will not make him available.” (RELATED: Full coverage of Operation Fast and Furious)
During his time at the White House, records show, O’Reilly carried on an email conversation with Frank Newell, then the head of the Phoenix field office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Their emails suggest that Newell was directly briefing O’Reilly on Fast and Furious.
In one email, Newell wrote to O’Reilly, “You didn’t get this from me,” indicating that he may have been subverting the established chain of command within the Department of Justice, which oversees ATF.
In another, Newell said, “Just don’t want ATF HQ to find out, especially since this is what they should be doing (briefing you!).”
Read the rest, and watch the video, here.
Newell, suffering from acute amnesia, was unable answer any questions about the email exchange when he appeared before the committee on July 26, 2011:
“To date, the White House has not complied with multiple congressional requests to interview O’Reilly,” Issa and Grassley wrote in their letter to Ruemmler. “Our staffers have had extensive discussions with lawyers in your office, who have represented that the White House does not perceive any need for us to interview O’Reilly and consequently will not make arrangements for him to speak to us.”
Speaking with Fox News Channel host Greta Van Susteren last week, Grassley said that while Newell and O’Reilly are friends, “it’s very, very unusual to have someone at a field office communicating directly with someone at the National Security Council.”
Grassley hinted that Newell’s poor memory about his emails with O’Reilly looked suspicious. “It’s very convenient that he’d have an absence of mind when he’s under oath in front of a congressional committee,” he said.
The ball is now in Issa’s court.
He dropped a hint of what might happen next in a recent NRA News interview:
The constitution should get in the way of this White House, but so far, they’ve played pretty fast and loose with the Constitution; the First and the Second Amendment, and ultimately, what we are in a position to do is go past the White House and deliver a lawful subpoena, and deliver it by U.S. Marshal.
Friday afternoon, Utah Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz appeared on Fox News’ Megyn Kelly Show to discuss the latest news in the multi-department, criminal Operation Fast and Furious gun-walking program. is willing to testify about what he knows, the Obama administration won’t let him appear before Congress. Chaffetz told Kelly that although key White House witness, Kevin O’Reilly is willing to testify about what he knows, the Obama administration won’t let him appear before Congress.
The Daily Caller reported:
White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler sent a letter Thursday to Republican lawmakers Rep. Darrell Issa and Sen. Chuck Grassley, refusing their request to speak with Kevin O’Reilly, a former National Security staff member whose emails place him in the middle of the unfolding scandal. Issa and Grassley had written to Ruemmler on March 28, asking the White House to step aside and let O’Reilly talk to investigators.
Grassley is the GOP ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Issa chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, whose members include Chaffetz.
“[O’Reilly’s] personal attorney indicated that he’s more than willing to talk to the committee, on the record, under oath”” Chaffetz told Kelly during her Friday afternoon broadcast. “It is only the White House and the White House Counsel that is saying they will not make him available.” (RELATED: Full coverage of Operation Fast and Furious)
During his time at the White House, records show, O’Reilly carried on an email conversation with Frank Newell, then the head of the Phoenix field office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Their emails suggest that Newell was directly briefing O’Reilly on Fast and Furious.
In one email, Newell wrote to O’Reilly, “You didn’t get this from me,” indicating that he may have been subverting the established chain of command within the Department of Justice, which oversees ATF.
In another, Newell said, “Just don’t want ATF HQ to find out, especially since this is what they should be doing (briefing you!).”
Read the rest, and watch the video, here.
Newell, suffering from acute amnesia, was unable answer any questions about the email exchange when he appeared before the committee on July 26, 2011:
“To date, the White House has not complied with multiple congressional requests to interview O’Reilly,” Issa and Grassley wrote in their letter to Ruemmler. “Our staffers have had extensive discussions with lawyers in your office, who have represented that the White House does not perceive any need for us to interview O’Reilly and consequently will not make arrangements for him to speak to us.”
Speaking with Fox News Channel host Greta Van Susteren last week, Grassley said that while Newell and O’Reilly are friends, “it’s very, very unusual to have someone at a field office communicating directly with someone at the National Security Council.”
Grassley hinted that Newell’s poor memory about his emails with O’Reilly looked suspicious. “It’s very convenient that he’d have an absence of mind when he’s under oath in front of a congressional committee,” he said.
The ball is now in Issa’s court.
He dropped a hint of what might happen next in a recent NRA News interview:
The constitution should get in the way of this White House, but so far, they’ve played pretty fast and loose with the Constitution; the First and the Second Amendment, and ultimately, what we are in a position to do is go past the White House and deliver a lawful subpoena, and deliver it by U.S. Marshal.
Time for a Military Approach to the Border
April 7, 2012
Time for a Military Approach to the Border
By Elise Cooper
There are many types of fences on the border. In Douglas, Arizona Border Patrol has recently finished building a new 18-foot-high fence. It covers six miles of border, is made of much tougher steel which is harder to cut, and sinks about six feet into the ground to make it harder to tunnel. The ranchers are skeptical if this fence will do the job and cite Janet Napolitano's 2005 statement (when governor) that "[y]ou show me a 50-foot wall and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder." Warner and Kelly, whose ranch is close to the border, discouragingly stated, "After this fence was built, the illegal immigrants were coming up and over. It seems that the cartels will find ways around anything built." There is also the fear that a tougher fence could push the smugglers into the rural areas where many of the ranchers reside.
They told American Thinker that the drug cartels use car haulers, ramps that slide cars over, catapults that throw drugs over the fence, and large cranes that have a huge magnet for lifting objects. In the rural areas there are two types of fences: a Normandy- style(insert Normandy fence. and a "post and rail" fence that is approximately five feet high. The ranchers are skeptical about any barriers that will work, including a double-fence. A photo shows how easily Colonel McSally was able to get over the barrier.(insert Post and Rail.(tn-4)jpg and McSally at fence.
Rancher Bill noted that those crossing the border are not so much the migrant workers, but instead the criminal element involved in drugs and human smuggling. Bill and the others would like to see the establishment of a migrant guest worker program. They feel this would cut down on the traffic of people, and it would ensure that those entering the U.S. illegally are the "true bad guys." A former high-ranking Border Patrol (BP) official with knowledge of the Arizona border agrees: "For whatever reason, there is a reduction of those who have come to America to find jobs. As a result, BP has had more time to focus on the smugglers."
What is ridiculous is that there are hilltops in Arizona, on U.S. territory, where the drug cartels have spotters. The ranchers asked McSally, given her vast military tactical training, her approach for securing the border. She feels that the policy has to be changed from a law enforcement point of view to a military strategy. BP should be at the direct borderline, not twenty or a hundred miles away, so it would be exponentially easier to defend. "We feel that way about Afghanistan, investing blood and treasure, so why not Mexico, our closest partner to the south? We don't want a failed state run by transnational criminal organizations with ties to terrorist groups. Mexico is a lot like Afghanistan in that there is corruption, ungoverned spaces, and security forces that are suspect. We need the preponderance of assets at the border and on the hilltops. We should own that area."
However, there are a few problems that need to be addressed. The first problem is the Mexican military. The former BP official noted that the Mexican military is cooperative, yet, he says, "both the military and law enforcement of Mexico are suspect. Since there is no other option, we constantly must trust and verify. However, in Douglas, there was a fantastic relationship with the military." Congressman Paul Gosar (R-AZ) agrees and wants Congress and the Obama administration to hold Mexico accountable. According to Gosar, the cooperation needs to be a lot better; the U.S. should carry a big stick and utilize it. "This administration has to enforce the rule of law. The cartels have become extremely smart in how they use our system. They know that the 9th circuit court (Arizona and California) will turn them loose as opposed to the 8th circuit court (New Mexico and Texas). We also need to honor Mexico's laws, unlike the Fast and Furious fiasco."
The workplace regulations are sometimes counterproductive. After establishing relationships with the ranchers and learning the terrain, many times, that all goes to waste when the BP agents are transferred. There is also the problem of the agents' work schedule: a five-day work week, not to mention the inhibiting overtime cap. There is a federal mandate that an agent cannot receive more than $35,000 a year in overtime and Sunday pay. The former BP official commented that having an agent on a hilltop for three consecutive days would basically eat up the overtime; thus, the rest of the year, they will have to work only eight-hour days. Furthermore, he noted that the time it takes to travel to the remote areas and back is half of the shift. This allows for the cartels to predict shift changes. Since the military does not work on eight-hour shifts, the official wants Congress to change the rules to make BP less of a law enforcement mentality and more of a military one.
The ranchers also want a Border Patrol human barricade at the border, which would require a huge amount of manpower. Sheriff Larry Dever of Cochise County also wants to see BP right on the border. He explained it in terms of a football model: "You need the strongest and heaviest force on the front line, but there is also a need for the safeties for back-up in case someone gets past the line. This can work if we establish a mission. The military can help with manpower, detaining until those with the powers of arrest arrive. They can work hand in hand with BP and law enforcement." Congressman Gosar agrees and says all that is needed is for Congress to increase the funding for border security or "to imply and dictate" the military mission, and if not Congress, then the president should do it by executive order.
Sheriff Dever and the former BP official also want Americans to understand the dangers involved. It is a war zone: BP agents and law enforcement on one side and the drug-runners/smugglers as the enemy. Softball-size rocks are used against the agents/sheriff deputies, as well as lethal weapons. Many of the Border Patrol SUVs have been reconstructed with wrought iron fencing around the windows and windshield to protect the officers. Sheriff Dever noted, "Day in and day out those defending the border are assaulted by these people. We are doing battle every day. That is appalling and insulting." Kelly also is appalled and angry that her daughter must indirectly deal with the drug-runners by attending school with some illegal immigrants who have drug belts attached to their body.
What is needed according to all of the experts is a stop to the incursion with a timely response, a simple concept with a complicated application. A one-size-fits-all approach does not work on a border that goes from California to Arizona to New Mexico to Texas. What is needed is a combination of manpower, technology, and aerial surveillance. But most important is the need to stop politicizing this issue and look at the problem from a military point of view.
Time for a Military Approach to the Border
By Elise Cooper
There are many types of fences on the border. In Douglas, Arizona Border Patrol has recently finished building a new 18-foot-high fence. It covers six miles of border, is made of much tougher steel which is harder to cut, and sinks about six feet into the ground to make it harder to tunnel. The ranchers are skeptical if this fence will do the job and cite Janet Napolitano's 2005 statement (when governor) that "[y]ou show me a 50-foot wall and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder." Warner and Kelly, whose ranch is close to the border, discouragingly stated, "After this fence was built, the illegal immigrants were coming up and over. It seems that the cartels will find ways around anything built." There is also the fear that a tougher fence could push the smugglers into the rural areas where many of the ranchers reside.
They told American Thinker that the drug cartels use car haulers, ramps that slide cars over, catapults that throw drugs over the fence, and large cranes that have a huge magnet for lifting objects. In the rural areas there are two types of fences: a Normandy- style(insert Normandy fence. and a "post and rail" fence that is approximately five feet high. The ranchers are skeptical about any barriers that will work, including a double-fence. A photo shows how easily Colonel McSally was able to get over the barrier.(insert Post and Rail.(tn-4)jpg and McSally at fence.
Rancher Bill noted that those crossing the border are not so much the migrant workers, but instead the criminal element involved in drugs and human smuggling. Bill and the others would like to see the establishment of a migrant guest worker program. They feel this would cut down on the traffic of people, and it would ensure that those entering the U.S. illegally are the "true bad guys." A former high-ranking Border Patrol (BP) official with knowledge of the Arizona border agrees: "For whatever reason, there is a reduction of those who have come to America to find jobs. As a result, BP has had more time to focus on the smugglers."
What is ridiculous is that there are hilltops in Arizona, on U.S. territory, where the drug cartels have spotters. The ranchers asked McSally, given her vast military tactical training, her approach for securing the border. She feels that the policy has to be changed from a law enforcement point of view to a military strategy. BP should be at the direct borderline, not twenty or a hundred miles away, so it would be exponentially easier to defend. "We feel that way about Afghanistan, investing blood and treasure, so why not Mexico, our closest partner to the south? We don't want a failed state run by transnational criminal organizations with ties to terrorist groups. Mexico is a lot like Afghanistan in that there is corruption, ungoverned spaces, and security forces that are suspect. We need the preponderance of assets at the border and on the hilltops. We should own that area."
However, there are a few problems that need to be addressed. The first problem is the Mexican military. The former BP official noted that the Mexican military is cooperative, yet, he says, "both the military and law enforcement of Mexico are suspect. Since there is no other option, we constantly must trust and verify. However, in Douglas, there was a fantastic relationship with the military." Congressman Paul Gosar (R-AZ) agrees and wants Congress and the Obama administration to hold Mexico accountable. According to Gosar, the cooperation needs to be a lot better; the U.S. should carry a big stick and utilize it. "This administration has to enforce the rule of law. The cartels have become extremely smart in how they use our system. They know that the 9th circuit court (Arizona and California) will turn them loose as opposed to the 8th circuit court (New Mexico and Texas). We also need to honor Mexico's laws, unlike the Fast and Furious fiasco."
The workplace regulations are sometimes counterproductive. After establishing relationships with the ranchers and learning the terrain, many times, that all goes to waste when the BP agents are transferred. There is also the problem of the agents' work schedule: a five-day work week, not to mention the inhibiting overtime cap. There is a federal mandate that an agent cannot receive more than $35,000 a year in overtime and Sunday pay. The former BP official commented that having an agent on a hilltop for three consecutive days would basically eat up the overtime; thus, the rest of the year, they will have to work only eight-hour days. Furthermore, he noted that the time it takes to travel to the remote areas and back is half of the shift. This allows for the cartels to predict shift changes. Since the military does not work on eight-hour shifts, the official wants Congress to change the rules to make BP less of a law enforcement mentality and more of a military one.
The ranchers also want a Border Patrol human barricade at the border, which would require a huge amount of manpower. Sheriff Larry Dever of Cochise County also wants to see BP right on the border. He explained it in terms of a football model: "You need the strongest and heaviest force on the front line, but there is also a need for the safeties for back-up in case someone gets past the line. This can work if we establish a mission. The military can help with manpower, detaining until those with the powers of arrest arrive. They can work hand in hand with BP and law enforcement." Congressman Gosar agrees and says all that is needed is for Congress to increase the funding for border security or "to imply and dictate" the military mission, and if not Congress, then the president should do it by executive order.
Sheriff Dever and the former BP official also want Americans to understand the dangers involved. It is a war zone: BP agents and law enforcement on one side and the drug-runners/smugglers as the enemy. Softball-size rocks are used against the agents/sheriff deputies, as well as lethal weapons. Many of the Border Patrol SUVs have been reconstructed with wrought iron fencing around the windows and windshield to protect the officers. Sheriff Dever noted, "Day in and day out those defending the border are assaulted by these people. We are doing battle every day. That is appalling and insulting." Kelly also is appalled and angry that her daughter must indirectly deal with the drug-runners by attending school with some illegal immigrants who have drug belts attached to their body.
What is needed according to all of the experts is a stop to the incursion with a timely response, a simple concept with a complicated application. A one-size-fits-all approach does not work on a border that goes from California to Arizona to New Mexico to Texas. What is needed is a combination of manpower, technology, and aerial surveillance. But most important is the need to stop politicizing this issue and look at the problem from a military point of view.
Armed Neo-Nazis Patrolling Town Where Trayvon Martin Was Shot In Case Of Race Riot
by Josh Feldman
April 6th, 2012
www.mediaite.com
Time for another installment of Radical Fringe Group Weighs In On Serious Issue! We’ve heard from the Black Panthers on this whole Trayvon Martin case, but what do the Neo-Nazis have to say? Well, apparently they are very concerned that violence could break out, and they are ready to fight back. Yes, the Miami New Times is reporting that a legion (well, technically more of a carpool group) of Neo-Nazis patrolling Sanford, Florida, saying they’re not necessarily advocating violence, but they just want to be ready when it breaks out.
A group of roughly 10 to 20 people, including a few volunteers from Miami, are marching around Sanford with firearms, which is “totally within the law.” Commander Jeff Schoep explained that they are “not the type of white people who are going to be walked all over.” They’re patrolling the area because of concerns over the local white population in Sanford that a race riot could break out at any time. Schoep insists they are only there for protection, and compared their actions to that of another in reacting to this case, while distinguishing itself from the Black Panthers.
“Whenever there is one of these racially charged events, Al Sharpton goes wherever blacks need him,” Schoep said. “We do similar things. We are a white civil rights organization.”
He went to great lengths to contrast his organization with the New Black Panther Party, who he blamed for scaring local whites and spurring the need for NSM patrols. Schoep admits that the NSM and the Black Panthers are actually alike in that they are both racial separatists. But he sees a double-standard in the government’s treatment of the two groups.
“The Black Panthers have been offering bounties and all that,” he says. “But if we called for a bounty on someone’s head, I guarantee we’d be locked up as quick as I could walk out of my house.”
And just so we’re clear, the Neo-Nazis have no official position on the Martin case, because remember, George Zimmerman isn’t even white. But the Neo-Nazi commander is trying to assure everyone that they are trying to protect everyone, because “if something were to touch off a race riot, we’d already be in the area.”
Well said! Because whenever there’s a race riot, my first question is always, “Where are the armed racists when you need them? They’ll put a stop to all this violence!”
h/t Miami New Times
April 6th, 2012
www.mediaite.com
A group of roughly 10 to 20 people, including a few volunteers from Miami, are marching around Sanford with firearms, which is “totally within the law.” Commander Jeff Schoep explained that they are “not the type of white people who are going to be walked all over.” They’re patrolling the area because of concerns over the local white population in Sanford that a race riot could break out at any time. Schoep insists they are only there for protection, and compared their actions to that of another in reacting to this case, while distinguishing itself from the Black Panthers.
“Whenever there is one of these racially charged events, Al Sharpton goes wherever blacks need him,” Schoep said. “We do similar things. We are a white civil rights organization.”
He went to great lengths to contrast his organization with the New Black Panther Party, who he blamed for scaring local whites and spurring the need for NSM patrols. Schoep admits that the NSM and the Black Panthers are actually alike in that they are both racial separatists. But he sees a double-standard in the government’s treatment of the two groups.
“The Black Panthers have been offering bounties and all that,” he says. “But if we called for a bounty on someone’s head, I guarantee we’d be locked up as quick as I could walk out of my house.”
And just so we’re clear, the Neo-Nazis have no official position on the Martin case, because remember, George Zimmerman isn’t even white. But the Neo-Nazi commander is trying to assure everyone that they are trying to protect everyone, because “if something were to touch off a race riot, we’d already be in the area.”
Well said! Because whenever there’s a race riot, my first question is always, “Where are the armed racists when you need them? They’ll put a stop to all this violence!”
h/t Miami New Times
The Obama Administration loves tax cuts….in China
April 6, 2012
by John Hawkins
Hot Air. Com
If what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, then why doesn’t the Obama Administration think what’s good for the Chinese Dragon is also good for the American Eagle?
While making positive comments about the most recent five-year-plan developed by the Communist government of the People’s Republic of China, Undersecretary of State Robert Hormats specifically applauded China’s decision to lower taxes because it would spur economic growth.
….“China lowered taxes very recently, which will help increase demand, but it’s also good to boost consumption in China,” said Hormats. “So I think what’s interesting is that—sure, there are issues with China that I’ve mentioned–but I think a lot of the reform procedures that are going on in China are consistent with the kind of things that we think will be good for China and for the global system.”
Meanwhile, in a speech in Vermont on Friday, President Barack Obama argued that it was “basic math” that taxes needed to be increased on wealthy Americans so the government could provide more to the poor.
“But if you’re making more than $1 million a year, you can do a little more,” Obama said. “This is not class envy. This is not class warfare. This is basic math–that’s what this is.
“Look, if somebody like me gets a tax break that they don’t need and that the country can’t afford, then one of two things are going to happen–either it adds to our deficit, or we’re taking something away from somebody else,” said Obama.
“Look, there’s no way of getting around that,” said Obama. “Either folks like me are doing more, or somebody who can’t afford it is getting less. And that’s not right.”
Wait, so according to the Obama Administration, cutting taxes in China “will help increase demand, but it’s also good to boost consumption,” while cutting taxes in America “either…adds to our deficit, or we’re taking something away from somebody else.” It’s almost as if Hormats is pointing out the obvious economic benefits of a tax cut while Obama is completely ignoring those same benefits.
But, to what end? Why would the President do such a thing? Has he had any recent head trauma? Could he be a double just PRETENDING to be the President? Wait, you don’t suppose that Barack Obama could be stoking class warfare and touting policies that are bad for America because he thinks it will help him politically, do you? Wait, what am I saying? This is a man who campaigned on hope, unity, and a new tone in Washington. Certainly he wouldn’t stoop to demonizing American citizens and pushing bad economic policy for the sake of mere politics. Sigh…I guess the explanation will just have to remain as one of those great mysteries, like whatever happened to Jimmy Hoffa.
by John Hawkins
Hot Air. Com
If what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, then why doesn’t the Obama Administration think what’s good for the Chinese Dragon is also good for the American Eagle?
While making positive comments about the most recent five-year-plan developed by the Communist government of the People’s Republic of China, Undersecretary of State Robert Hormats specifically applauded China’s decision to lower taxes because it would spur economic growth.
….“China lowered taxes very recently, which will help increase demand, but it’s also good to boost consumption in China,” said Hormats. “So I think what’s interesting is that—sure, there are issues with China that I’ve mentioned–but I think a lot of the reform procedures that are going on in China are consistent with the kind of things that we think will be good for China and for the global system.”
Meanwhile, in a speech in Vermont on Friday, President Barack Obama argued that it was “basic math” that taxes needed to be increased on wealthy Americans so the government could provide more to the poor.
“But if you’re making more than $1 million a year, you can do a little more,” Obama said. “This is not class envy. This is not class warfare. This is basic math–that’s what this is.
“Look, if somebody like me gets a tax break that they don’t need and that the country can’t afford, then one of two things are going to happen–either it adds to our deficit, or we’re taking something away from somebody else,” said Obama.
“Look, there’s no way of getting around that,” said Obama. “Either folks like me are doing more, or somebody who can’t afford it is getting less. And that’s not right.”
Wait, so according to the Obama Administration, cutting taxes in China “will help increase demand, but it’s also good to boost consumption,” while cutting taxes in America “either…adds to our deficit, or we’re taking something away from somebody else.” It’s almost as if Hormats is pointing out the obvious economic benefits of a tax cut while Obama is completely ignoring those same benefits.
But, to what end? Why would the President do such a thing? Has he had any recent head trauma? Could he be a double just PRETENDING to be the President? Wait, you don’t suppose that Barack Obama could be stoking class warfare and touting policies that are bad for America because he thinks it will help him politically, do you? Wait, what am I saying? This is a man who campaigned on hope, unity, and a new tone in Washington. Certainly he wouldn’t stoop to demonizing American citizens and pushing bad economic policy for the sake of mere politics. Sigh…I guess the explanation will just have to remain as one of those great mysteries, like whatever happened to Jimmy Hoffa.
Obama’s secret offer to Iran: Prove you won’t build a bomb and you can have nuclear energy
April 6, 2012
by Allahpundit
Hot Air. Com
Krazy kwestion: Hasn’t this always been the U.S.’s not-so-secret offer to Iran? Ignatius is getting lots of media buzz for his column today but I’m not sure why. Could be we’ve reached the point in this endless decade-long diplomatic labyrinth where no one can remember anymore what has and hasn’t been placed on/removed from the bargaining table, but I’m reasonably sure this has always been on it.
President Obama has signaled Iran that the United States would accept an Iranian civilian nuclear program if Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei can back up his recent public claim that his nation “will never pursue nuclear weapons.”
This verbal message was sent through Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who visited Khamenei last week. A few days before traveling to Iran, Erdogan had held a two-hour meeting with Obama in Seoul, in which they discussed what Erdogan would tell the ayatollah about the nuclear issue and Syria.
Obama advised Erdogan that the Iranians should realize that time is running out for a peaceful settlement and that Tehran should take advantage of the current window for negotiations. Obama didn’t specify whether Iran would be allowed to enrich uranium domestically as part of the civilian program the United States would endorse. That delicate issue evidently would be left for the negotiations that are supposed to start April 13, at a venue yet to be decided…
But the diplomatic path still seems blocked, judging by recent haggling over the meeting place for negotiations. Istanbul was expected to be the venue, but the Iranians last weekend balked and suggested instead that negotiators meet in Iraq or China. U.S. officials see this foot-dragging as a sign that the Iranian leadership is still struggling to frame its negotiating position.
I went googling for comments Bush made about Iran’s civilian nuclear energy program and found a Reuters piece memorialized at Free Republic alllllll the way back in September 2005. The lede: “President George W. Bush on Tuesday said Iran had a right to a civilian nuclear program if it did not gain expertise or materials to build an atomic weapon.” A month earlier, the U.S. had backed an EU proposal offering Iran cooperation on nuclear energy if it agreed to suspend enrichment. Per Article IV, signatories to the Nonproliferation Treaty have an “inalienable right” to nuclear power for peaceful uses, a point Iran’s been making since the beginning of this clusterfark. The big worry has never been that they might start building nuclear power plants; the worry is that the plants are just a pretext for them to amass uranium, which they can then spin beyond energy-grade to weapons-grade purity in their centrifuges. If they agreed to give up the centrifuges, then in theory the west could supply them with all the energy-grade uranium they need to keep their power plants going. That would basically eliminate their ability to build a bomb. (The plutonium byproduct generated at the power plants could also be used for bombmaking but the west would insist on being allowed to confiscate that.)
The problem is, even if the sanctions on Iran have started to bite so hard that they’re now willing to back off on nukes, they can’t do it without a tremendous loss of prestige. It would be a total capitulation; they’d have gone from being able to power their own reactors to depending upon their enemies to do it for them, with nothing to show for it except a return to the pre-sanctions status quo. Only if the regime fears that sanctions could so weaken their economy that the population will revolt will they feel they have no choice but to bow in the name of self-preservation. But in that case, why not turn the risk of destabilization to their advantage by pressing on? The closer Iran gets to having nukes, the more the calculus for the west changes from “destabilization is good” to “destabilization is bad” because toppling the regime could put live nukes in play amid the chaos of a revolution. Increasingly I think the only concession that might placate Iran enough to get them to back down is official recognition of the mullahs by the U.S. That would let them save face in a major way; the outrage here at home at Obama (or Romney?) for bowing to nuclear blackmail would let Tehran claim victory in the staring contest, even if it means giving up its centrifuges. The sanctions would lift, the regime would now be officially “legitimate,” and all would be well for everyone except, er, the Iranian people.
If you’re trying to read the tea leaves about a deal, here’s the best I can do: Not only did someone high up apparently leak the offer to Ignatius to test the waters of public opinion, but Iranian “pragmatist” Ayatollah Rafsanjani was just reappointed by Khamenei to lead the country’s Expediency Council. That’s surprising because Rafsanjani was kinda sorta associated with the Green Revolution three years ago; he took no active part but he’s a longstanding enemy of Ahmadinejad, whom Khamenei backed at the time. Now that Ahmadinejad’s fallen out of favor, this guy is back in the supreme leader’s good graces — and lately he’s been talking about how he told Khomeini decades ago that Iran should try to build a relationship with the U.S. Hmmmmm.
by Allahpundit
Hot Air. Com
Krazy kwestion: Hasn’t this always been the U.S.’s not-so-secret offer to Iran? Ignatius is getting lots of media buzz for his column today but I’m not sure why. Could be we’ve reached the point in this endless decade-long diplomatic labyrinth where no one can remember anymore what has and hasn’t been placed on/removed from the bargaining table, but I’m reasonably sure this has always been on it.
President Obama has signaled Iran that the United States would accept an Iranian civilian nuclear program if Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei can back up his recent public claim that his nation “will never pursue nuclear weapons.”
This verbal message was sent through Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who visited Khamenei last week. A few days before traveling to Iran, Erdogan had held a two-hour meeting with Obama in Seoul, in which they discussed what Erdogan would tell the ayatollah about the nuclear issue and Syria.
Obama advised Erdogan that the Iranians should realize that time is running out for a peaceful settlement and that Tehran should take advantage of the current window for negotiations. Obama didn’t specify whether Iran would be allowed to enrich uranium domestically as part of the civilian program the United States would endorse. That delicate issue evidently would be left for the negotiations that are supposed to start April 13, at a venue yet to be decided…
But the diplomatic path still seems blocked, judging by recent haggling over the meeting place for negotiations. Istanbul was expected to be the venue, but the Iranians last weekend balked and suggested instead that negotiators meet in Iraq or China. U.S. officials see this foot-dragging as a sign that the Iranian leadership is still struggling to frame its negotiating position.
I went googling for comments Bush made about Iran’s civilian nuclear energy program and found a Reuters piece memorialized at Free Republic alllllll the way back in September 2005. The lede: “President George W. Bush on Tuesday said Iran had a right to a civilian nuclear program if it did not gain expertise or materials to build an atomic weapon.” A month earlier, the U.S. had backed an EU proposal offering Iran cooperation on nuclear energy if it agreed to suspend enrichment. Per Article IV, signatories to the Nonproliferation Treaty have an “inalienable right” to nuclear power for peaceful uses, a point Iran’s been making since the beginning of this clusterfark. The big worry has never been that they might start building nuclear power plants; the worry is that the plants are just a pretext for them to amass uranium, which they can then spin beyond energy-grade to weapons-grade purity in their centrifuges. If they agreed to give up the centrifuges, then in theory the west could supply them with all the energy-grade uranium they need to keep their power plants going. That would basically eliminate their ability to build a bomb. (The plutonium byproduct generated at the power plants could also be used for bombmaking but the west would insist on being allowed to confiscate that.)
The problem is, even if the sanctions on Iran have started to bite so hard that they’re now willing to back off on nukes, they can’t do it without a tremendous loss of prestige. It would be a total capitulation; they’d have gone from being able to power their own reactors to depending upon their enemies to do it for them, with nothing to show for it except a return to the pre-sanctions status quo. Only if the regime fears that sanctions could so weaken their economy that the population will revolt will they feel they have no choice but to bow in the name of self-preservation. But in that case, why not turn the risk of destabilization to their advantage by pressing on? The closer Iran gets to having nukes, the more the calculus for the west changes from “destabilization is good” to “destabilization is bad” because toppling the regime could put live nukes in play amid the chaos of a revolution. Increasingly I think the only concession that might placate Iran enough to get them to back down is official recognition of the mullahs by the U.S. That would let them save face in a major way; the outrage here at home at Obama (or Romney?) for bowing to nuclear blackmail would let Tehran claim victory in the staring contest, even if it means giving up its centrifuges. The sanctions would lift, the regime would now be officially “legitimate,” and all would be well for everyone except, er, the Iranian people.
If you’re trying to read the tea leaves about a deal, here’s the best I can do: Not only did someone high up apparently leak the offer to Ignatius to test the waters of public opinion, but Iranian “pragmatist” Ayatollah Rafsanjani was just reappointed by Khamenei to lead the country’s Expediency Council. That’s surprising because Rafsanjani was kinda sorta associated with the Green Revolution three years ago; he took no active part but he’s a longstanding enemy of Ahmadinejad, whom Khamenei backed at the time. Now that Ahmadinejad’s fallen out of favor, this guy is back in the supreme leader’s good graces — and lately he’s been talking about how he told Khomeini decades ago that Iran should try to build a relationship with the U.S. Hmmmmm.
Why is Obama Giving China a Monopoly on Rare Earth Minerals?
April 7, 2012
By Lonely Conservative
President Obama wants you to believe he’s doing everything he possibly can to grow the US economy. Well, if that’s the case, why is he giving China a monopoly on rare earth minerals?
The administration’s harsh regulatory environment is harming yet more sectors of the American economy, rare earth minerals mining and electronics manufacturing. We use these minerals every day in cell phones, high tech industries and leading edge medical tech, even jet engines. DoD uses them in some of our most sophisticated information systems and weapons. American businesses want to purchase these minerals from domestic sources, and the US is among the world’s leading sources of rare earth minerals. A huge new source for one rare earth element, niobium, was announced in Nebraska just this week.
But:
It currently takes up to five times longer to get approval to mine for minerals here than it does in other countries, driving investment, production and jobs away from America. From the time a project request is submitted to the time a final ruling is made, a decade can slip by and paperwork as much as 6 feet high filed and reviewed – repeatedly. Not surprisingly, when investors are ready to move on a project, they turn to countries that are ready to do business, rather than tackle the Byzantine regulatory review process here in the United States.
One of those countries is China, which also possesses large quantities of these minerals. American businesses are finding it easier to do business with the ChiComs than with the American government to get these minerals. Democrat Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania writes that China is leveraging its position (and the Obama administration’s regulatory hostility to mining) to hold a monopoly. (Read More)
For more on the left’s war on rare earth minerals see here, here and here. And they call themselves progressive? How on earth do you have progress when you allow one of the world’s most oppressive regimes to control our resources?
By Lonely Conservative
President Obama wants you to believe he’s doing everything he possibly can to grow the US economy. Well, if that’s the case, why is he giving China a monopoly on rare earth minerals?
The administration’s harsh regulatory environment is harming yet more sectors of the American economy, rare earth minerals mining and electronics manufacturing. We use these minerals every day in cell phones, high tech industries and leading edge medical tech, even jet engines. DoD uses them in some of our most sophisticated information systems and weapons. American businesses want to purchase these minerals from domestic sources, and the US is among the world’s leading sources of rare earth minerals. A huge new source for one rare earth element, niobium, was announced in Nebraska just this week.
But:
It currently takes up to five times longer to get approval to mine for minerals here than it does in other countries, driving investment, production and jobs away from America. From the time a project request is submitted to the time a final ruling is made, a decade can slip by and paperwork as much as 6 feet high filed and reviewed – repeatedly. Not surprisingly, when investors are ready to move on a project, they turn to countries that are ready to do business, rather than tackle the Byzantine regulatory review process here in the United States.
One of those countries is China, which also possesses large quantities of these minerals. American businesses are finding it easier to do business with the ChiComs than with the American government to get these minerals. Democrat Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania writes that China is leveraging its position (and the Obama administration’s regulatory hostility to mining) to hold a monopoly. (Read More)
For more on the left’s war on rare earth minerals see here, here and here. And they call themselves progressive? How on earth do you have progress when you allow one of the world’s most oppressive regimes to control our resources?
From Hope to Hopelessness: Obama’s Economy Has 88 Million “Not In Labor Force”
April 6th 2012
Labor Union Report
It was less than a year ago that Barack Obama’s senior adviser, David Plouffe said:
After 2½ years in office, President Obama now “owns” the economy as an issue, according to top adviser David Plouffe, who added he was confident that voters understand that recovering from a devastating recession Mr. Obama inherited takes time.
“Of course he does,” Mr. Plouffe told NBC’s “Today” show host Matt Lauer when asked point-blank if Mr. Obama owns the economy.
“But the American people understand that we — it took us a long time to get to this mess,” Mr. Plouffe said. “It’s going to take us some time to come out. We are making progress.”
Well, after Friday’s jobs numbers came out (the economy added 120,000 jobs) Labor Secretary Hilda Solis promptly proclaimed: “That’s a noteworthy achievement.”
In fact, for the man who campaigned on the message of “hope” in 2008, the 120,000 jobs added is much fewer (about half) than expected and the edging down of the unemployment to 8.2% is not from job creation but from hopelessness.
There are now 88 million Americans who are “Not In Labor Force,” according to Department of Labor statistics, which the St. Louis Federal Reserve put into this pretty chart:
Obviously, others are seeing past Obama’s cheerleaders.
The Wall Street Journal stated:
But mostly, the picture was disappointing at a time when all eyes are on the U.S. to help keep global growth humming. The jobless rate, which is obtained from a separate survey of households, edged down to 8.2% from 8.3%, its lowest point in three years. However, that decline was due less to new hiring than people abandoning their job searches.
“I’m nervous,” said Jared Bernstein, former chief economist for Vice President Joe Biden.
Although Bernstein is not really an economist, he is right to be nervous.
And, so should the Obama Administration. The hard truth for Barack Obama is:
People have given up.
They have gone from ‘Hope’ to Hopelessness.
_________________
“Truth isn’t mean. It’s truth.”
Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)
Labor Union Report
It was less than a year ago that Barack Obama’s senior adviser, David Plouffe said:
After 2½ years in office, President Obama now “owns” the economy as an issue, according to top adviser David Plouffe, who added he was confident that voters understand that recovering from a devastating recession Mr. Obama inherited takes time.
“Of course he does,” Mr. Plouffe told NBC’s “Today” show host Matt Lauer when asked point-blank if Mr. Obama owns the economy.
“But the American people understand that we — it took us a long time to get to this mess,” Mr. Plouffe said. “It’s going to take us some time to come out. We are making progress.”
Well, after Friday’s jobs numbers came out (the economy added 120,000 jobs) Labor Secretary Hilda Solis promptly proclaimed: “That’s a noteworthy achievement.”
In fact, for the man who campaigned on the message of “hope” in 2008, the 120,000 jobs added is much fewer (about half) than expected and the edging down of the unemployment to 8.2% is not from job creation but from hopelessness.
There are now 88 million Americans who are “Not In Labor Force,” according to Department of Labor statistics, which the St. Louis Federal Reserve put into this pretty chart:
Obviously, others are seeing past Obama’s cheerleaders.
The Wall Street Journal stated:
But mostly, the picture was disappointing at a time when all eyes are on the U.S. to help keep global growth humming. The jobless rate, which is obtained from a separate survey of households, edged down to 8.2% from 8.3%, its lowest point in three years. However, that decline was due less to new hiring than people abandoning their job searches.
“I’m nervous,” said Jared Bernstein, former chief economist for Vice President Joe Biden.
Although Bernstein is not really an economist, he is right to be nervous.
And, so should the Obama Administration. The hard truth for Barack Obama is:
People have given up.
They have gone from ‘Hope’ to Hopelessness.
_________________
“Truth isn’t mean. It’s truth.”
Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)
NBC News Fires Editgate Producer
by John Sexton - Breitbart.com:
The NBC producer responsible for the misleading edit of the George Zimmerman's 911 call has been fired. The producer was reportedly fired Thursday, but the firing did not hit the press until this Friday evening, just before a holiday weekend. NBC News had no comment on the firing.
There was speculation earlier today that Today show producer Jim Bell might have been the person responsible for the edit, which portrayed Zimmerman as a racist, or having a racial motive in shooting Trayvon Martin. Bell did not respond to a question directed at his Twitter account earlier today.
Brian Stelter of The New York Times credits NewsBusters.org for being the first to catch NBC's edit. He provides a link to this NewsBusters post dated March 30. However, the NewsBusters story is actually based on, and links back to, a story published here at Breitbart.com two days earlier. In that story, author Dan Riehl highlighted the edit to the Zimmerman 911 tape as it appeared in print at MSNBC. The MSNBC story was originally published March 21st, six days before the same edit was used in the Today show broadcast.
Yesterday, a Reuters story credited both Breitbart.com and NewsBusters for bringing the problem to the attention of NBC executives.
It is likely that, if not for conservative new media, the misleading edit, which inflamed racial tensions in the Martin case, and which was repeated by Stetler's own New York Times, would have gone unnoticed and uncorrected. As it is, the producer responsible for the edit at Today has been fired, but the individual who made the same edit to the earlier MSNBC story (since corrected) has not been identified or disciplined. Nor has anyone at any other outlet or network -- many of which made similar selective editing choices -- been punished.
The questions are only just beginning on Editgate. The release of the news of the firing just before the holiday weekend smacks of a cover-up; more than that, we know that the edit itself was not restricted to the Today show. Brian Williams and the brass at NBC News must provide answers. They are responsible for editorial output, not an unnamed producer. And they must be held responsible for an irresponsible and dangerous edit apparently deliberately designed to twist the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman story along racial lines.
ON BREITBART TV: NBC Deceptively Edits Zimmerman 911 Call; Implies Racist Motive
Zimmerman Passed Lie Detector Test Immediately After Shooting
Apr 6, 2012
Doc Holiday - Pat Dollard.Com
Excerpted from The Los Angeles Times: George Zimmerman reportedly has an experienced criminal defense attorney in his corner now.
The Neighborhood Watch volunteer who says he shot an unarmed teenager, Trayvon Martin, in self-defense Feb. 26 had been represented by a solo practitioner, Craig Sonner, who had never defended anyone accused of homicide.
But late Tuesday, veteran criminal defense attorney Craig Uhrig told Orlando television station WOFL that he was joining the case. Uhrig often works with Sonner, the Orlando Sentinel reported.
Zimmerman told police he had lost track of Martin, who reappeared and confronted him. He says Martin punched him in the nose and slammed his head into the pavement.
Uhrig told WOFL he is sure Zimmerman is telling the truth, in part because Zimmerman passed a voice-stress test administered by Sanford police.
(Reuters) — George Zimmerman’s defense team is growing, suggesting that he’s planning for a grand jury indictment and a subsequent criminal trial. Interestingly, his new attorney has begun releasing some previously unknown facts.
Did you know that, on the night of Trayvon Martin’s death, Sanford police gave George Zimmerman a voice stress test?
They did, and the results probably contributed to his release.
A voice stress test is like a polygraph, but instead of measuring heart rate and blood pressure, it looks for changes in an individual’s voice patterns that are thought to suggest psychological stress. With the help of software, investigators record a suspect answering baseline questions and then compare them to answers about the case.
This technology is not unique to Sanford. The National Institute for Truth Verification, a manufacturer of the technology, claims that over 1,800 local, state and federal law enforcement agencies use their product. They also claim to have trained U.S. Military personnel.
George Zimmerman’s voice stress test came out clean, according to attorney Hal Uhrig. If the Sanford Police Department is willing to spend more than $10,000 on the product, then it probably trusts its results. And those results probably corroborated what officers initially saw at the scene.
Fox News Hires Supporter of Jeremiah Wright and Derrick Bell
By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media
Fox News is once again moving to the left, hoping to avoid left-wing attacks on its news operations and commentators. But the move risks alienating conservative viewers. The current controversy involves new Fox News contributor Santita Jackson, who lists the notorious Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., as being among her personal “activities and interests” on her Facebook page.
Wright, who was Obama’s pastor for 20 years and baptized Obama’s children, became a major controversial figure during the 2008 presidential campaign when it became known that he blamed the 9/11 terrorist attacks on American foreign policy and claimed the U.S. manufactured the AIDS virus to kill black people.
The link on the Santita Jackson page, which promotes matters of personal interest to Ms. Jackson and other things she likes to do, directs people to Wright’s official home page.
But her taste for racial and divisive politics has taken on added significance in view of a blog post from 2010, in which Jackson praised New York University law professor Derrick Bell, who has recently become known as “Obama’s Beloved Law Professor” at Breitbart.com because of videos showing the President embracing him. J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department lawyer, wrote, “Both Obama and Bell demanded that Harvard hire professors on the basis of race. Obama and other students rallied to Bell’s side after Bell quit teaching in an attempt to force Harvard to implement race-based hiring policies.”
He added, “The Obama-Bell connection is the latest in a pattern of Barack Obama’s associations with individuals who promoted a racially divisive America.”
Santita Jackson praised Bell’s decision to leave Harvard in the context of criticizing Obama’s decision to appoint white feminist Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. Kagan’s hires “while serving as law dean at the Harvard Law School have served to give me pause,” she said, noting the reported failure to hire one single African-American, Latino or Native American. “NYU Law Professor Derrick Bell left the Harvard Law school in 1992 over this very issue,” Jackson noted.
Equally significant, Jackson’s bio describes her as a founding contributor to The Grio, a website dedicated to black news and opinion owned by MSNBC and which is produced in cooperation with NBC News. She lists The Grio as being among her other activities and links to a description of the site.
Hence, Fox News is sharing personnel with a rival network, another indication of the channel’s move to the left.
It is apparent that the left-wing attacks on Fox News, many of them directed through the Soros-funded Media Matters group, have taken their toll.
Conservative reactions to the Fox News hiring of Jackson have been blistering. At The Blaze, a website published by Glenn Beck, who was fired from the channel after representatives of George Soros objected to his scrutiny of the billionaire, one person commented, “Seriously Fox what are you thinking? You are going to push away the base of viewers that have kept you at number 1…Why mess with something that was working? Good luck though to jj daughter. I am not attacking her I am attacking the leadership at Fox for alienating the viewership over and over again with their PC garbage…”
“JJ” is a reference to her father Jesse Jackson, who has run for the Democratic Party presidential nomination and is a prominent supporter of President Obama. On the rival MSNBC network, Jackson recently suggested that criticism of Obama’s performance in office has been racist. Obama is “under some venomous attack,” he said. “I mean, the captain of the ship is an African-American who has taken us out of an economic crisis on an upward swing, but there are those who are willing to sink the ship just to destroy the captain.”
Another reader comment on The Blaze said of the Fox News decision to hire Jackson’s daughter: “Ever since the News Corps scandal, Fox has begun a rapid slide to the left. They are BECOMING the corrupt lame-stream-media they used to rail against!”
It is not known if Fox News understood that Santita Jackson, in addition to being the daughter of left-wing activist and Democratic Party politician Jesse Jackson, has been promoting Jeremiah Wright or Derrick Bell. Fox News host Sean Hannity frequently talks about how he used his program during the 2008 campaign to expose Wright and his influence over Obama.
It was later revealed that Wright, at a September 17, 2009, anniversary celebration of Monthly Review, a Marxist publication, had praised Marxism and discussed his ties to communists in El Salvador and Nicaragua and the Libyan government. He called America “land of the greed and home of the slave.”
Santita Jackson’s “interest” in Wright, a form of expressing support for the controversial minister, can only add to concerns that Fox News is moving to the left so fast it is not checking out its left-wing contributors. Her praise for Bell is equally dismaying.
More than two years ago, Fox News hired—and then fired—Marc Lamont Hill as a paid commentator, after AIM revealed that he had an easily documentable record in support of cop-killers.
Santita Jackson comes from Chicago, which is Obama’s home base, and hosted a radio show on Chicago’s WVON, which just happens to carry a show by the notorious Al Sharpton. Next to Sharpton, who hosts a TV program on MSNBC, her father may be the most vocal race baiter and agitator in the nation. Sharpton promoted the Tawana Brawley hoax, in which a black woman falsely claimed being raped by white men.
Sharpton and Jackson have both been quick to jump on the Trayvon Martin shooting, in order to promote the idea that America is a racist nation in which blacks are profiled, shot and killed for no reason. However, facts emerging in this controversial case demonstrate that the shooter, George Zimmerman, a Hispanic, may have shot and killed Martin in self-defense, after a violent confrontation, and that Martin, a black teenager, had been in trouble at his school and suspended. Investigations into the case continue, although the use of lethal force in self-defense is permitted under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law.
Although she is going to work for Fox News Channel as a paid contributor, Santita Jackson has never said anything on the public record that is complimentary to the cable channel. Hence, the hiring looks like a sop to the critics of the cable channel.
Even more embarrassing for Fox News, her Facebook page identifies liberals Anderson Cooper and Roland Martin of CNN as being her favorite media personalities. She and Martin are long-time friends.
One other reader comment at The Blaze was that if Fox News keeps moving left, it will start resembling CNN.
In an AIM blog post, “Fox Veers Left, Hires Jesse Jackson’s Daughter,” Don Irvine noted that “Jackson will join a growing legion of left-wingers at Fox that includes Jehmu Greene and Sally Kohn. Greene is the former president of the Women’s Media Center, which was founded by Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem, and Kohn is a former senior strategist for the Soros-funded Center for Community Change.”
Irvine added, “Fox’s moves to beef up its liberal lineup continue to confound conservatives who see no need for the top-rated cable news network to give liberals even more of a voice than they currently have. They already have MSNBC and CNN, along with the rest of the mainstream media. If this hiring trend continues, Fox runs the risk of alienating its conservative audience to the point that they will look elsewhere for their news, and eventually end Fox’s long run as the top cable news network.”
Although her left-wing political views are nothing new, and only add to what Greene and Kohn already provide on various Fox News programs, there is no doubt that Santita Jackson has a fascinating personal story. She lost more than 200 pounds after gastric bypass weight-loss surgery. She is also said to be a dynamic singer. She sang at President Clinton’s second presidential inauguration and attended Obama’s inauguration.
But her political views, of course, are what are getting attention since her hiring by Fox News.
In addition to being a fan of the anti-American Rev. Wright, her Facebook page lists the radical demagogic Catholic Priest Father Michael Pfleger as one of her favorite interests. Pfleger, who has known Barack Obama since his days as a community organizer in Chicago, called on Christian churches on March 25 to put a hoodie on their altar as “a sign of solidarity” with Trayvon Martin, the black teenager who wore a sweatshirt with a hood before his confrontation with Zimmerman.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Pfleger was hailed as “a friend” of Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ and declared in remarks from the pulpit that Hillary Clinton thought she was “entitled” to the Democratic presidential nomination because she was white.
Interestingly, Santita Jackson lists the law firm of Tamara N. Holder as being among other “activities and interests” on her Facebook page. Holder, who is also a paid Fox News contributor, says in her biography that she “works closely with Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. in crafting and executing public policy initiatives, together with programs to increase opportunities for minorities and the economically disadvantaged.”
“Tamara single-handedly founded a pro bono legal clinic at Rev. Jesse L. Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition,” one of her other websites declares. A criminal attorney in Chicago, her law firm “has successfully defended the most serious of felony cases, from murder to possession of drugs and guns.”
Tamara Holder identifies herself on her Twitter page as a lobbyist and “government consultant” but does not disclose who she is lobbying or consulting for.
Not surprisingly, one article discloses that she has been a frequent guest on the radio, including on such programs as “The Al Sharpton Show” and “The Santita Jackson Show.”
The Santita Jackson show has now moved from radio to TV, courtesy of the Fox News Channel. Is her father next in line for a show on the “conservative” channel?
Accuracy in Media
Wright, who was Obama’s pastor for 20 years and baptized Obama’s children, became a major controversial figure during the 2008 presidential campaign when it became known that he blamed the 9/11 terrorist attacks on American foreign policy and claimed the U.S. manufactured the AIDS virus to kill black people.
The link on the Santita Jackson page, which promotes matters of personal interest to Ms. Jackson and other things she likes to do, directs people to Wright’s official home page.
But her taste for racial and divisive politics has taken on added significance in view of a blog post from 2010, in which Jackson praised New York University law professor Derrick Bell, who has recently become known as “Obama’s Beloved Law Professor” at Breitbart.com because of videos showing the President embracing him. J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department lawyer, wrote, “Both Obama and Bell demanded that Harvard hire professors on the basis of race. Obama and other students rallied to Bell’s side after Bell quit teaching in an attempt to force Harvard to implement race-based hiring policies.”
He added, “The Obama-Bell connection is the latest in a pattern of Barack Obama’s associations with individuals who promoted a racially divisive America.”
Santita Jackson praised Bell’s decision to leave Harvard in the context of criticizing Obama’s decision to appoint white feminist Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. Kagan’s hires “while serving as law dean at the Harvard Law School have served to give me pause,” she said, noting the reported failure to hire one single African-American, Latino or Native American. “NYU Law Professor Derrick Bell left the Harvard Law school in 1992 over this very issue,” Jackson noted.
Equally significant, Jackson’s bio describes her as a founding contributor to The Grio, a website dedicated to black news and opinion owned by MSNBC and which is produced in cooperation with NBC News. She lists The Grio as being among her other activities and links to a description of the site.
Hence, Fox News is sharing personnel with a rival network, another indication of the channel’s move to the left.
It is apparent that the left-wing attacks on Fox News, many of them directed through the Soros-funded Media Matters group, have taken their toll.
Conservative reactions to the Fox News hiring of Jackson have been blistering. At The Blaze, a website published by Glenn Beck, who was fired from the channel after representatives of George Soros objected to his scrutiny of the billionaire, one person commented, “Seriously Fox what are you thinking? You are going to push away the base of viewers that have kept you at number 1…Why mess with something that was working? Good luck though to jj daughter. I am not attacking her I am attacking the leadership at Fox for alienating the viewership over and over again with their PC garbage…”
“JJ” is a reference to her father Jesse Jackson, who has run for the Democratic Party presidential nomination and is a prominent supporter of President Obama. On the rival MSNBC network, Jackson recently suggested that criticism of Obama’s performance in office has been racist. Obama is “under some venomous attack,” he said. “I mean, the captain of the ship is an African-American who has taken us out of an economic crisis on an upward swing, but there are those who are willing to sink the ship just to destroy the captain.”
Another reader comment on The Blaze said of the Fox News decision to hire Jackson’s daughter: “Ever since the News Corps scandal, Fox has begun a rapid slide to the left. They are BECOMING the corrupt lame-stream-media they used to rail against!”
It is not known if Fox News understood that Santita Jackson, in addition to being the daughter of left-wing activist and Democratic Party politician Jesse Jackson, has been promoting Jeremiah Wright or Derrick Bell. Fox News host Sean Hannity frequently talks about how he used his program during the 2008 campaign to expose Wright and his influence over Obama.
It was later revealed that Wright, at a September 17, 2009, anniversary celebration of Monthly Review, a Marxist publication, had praised Marxism and discussed his ties to communists in El Salvador and Nicaragua and the Libyan government. He called America “land of the greed and home of the slave.”
Santita Jackson’s “interest” in Wright, a form of expressing support for the controversial minister, can only add to concerns that Fox News is moving to the left so fast it is not checking out its left-wing contributors. Her praise for Bell is equally dismaying.
More than two years ago, Fox News hired—and then fired—Marc Lamont Hill as a paid commentator, after AIM revealed that he had an easily documentable record in support of cop-killers.
Santita Jackson comes from Chicago, which is Obama’s home base, and hosted a radio show on Chicago’s WVON, which just happens to carry a show by the notorious Al Sharpton. Next to Sharpton, who hosts a TV program on MSNBC, her father may be the most vocal race baiter and agitator in the nation. Sharpton promoted the Tawana Brawley hoax, in which a black woman falsely claimed being raped by white men.
Sharpton and Jackson have both been quick to jump on the Trayvon Martin shooting, in order to promote the idea that America is a racist nation in which blacks are profiled, shot and killed for no reason. However, facts emerging in this controversial case demonstrate that the shooter, George Zimmerman, a Hispanic, may have shot and killed Martin in self-defense, after a violent confrontation, and that Martin, a black teenager, had been in trouble at his school and suspended. Investigations into the case continue, although the use of lethal force in self-defense is permitted under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law.
Although she is going to work for Fox News Channel as a paid contributor, Santita Jackson has never said anything on the public record that is complimentary to the cable channel. Hence, the hiring looks like a sop to the critics of the cable channel.
Even more embarrassing for Fox News, her Facebook page identifies liberals Anderson Cooper and Roland Martin of CNN as being her favorite media personalities. She and Martin are long-time friends.
One other reader comment at The Blaze was that if Fox News keeps moving left, it will start resembling CNN.
In an AIM blog post, “Fox Veers Left, Hires Jesse Jackson’s Daughter,” Don Irvine noted that “Jackson will join a growing legion of left-wingers at Fox that includes Jehmu Greene and Sally Kohn. Greene is the former president of the Women’s Media Center, which was founded by Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem, and Kohn is a former senior strategist for the Soros-funded Center for Community Change.”
Irvine added, “Fox’s moves to beef up its liberal lineup continue to confound conservatives who see no need for the top-rated cable news network to give liberals even more of a voice than they currently have. They already have MSNBC and CNN, along with the rest of the mainstream media. If this hiring trend continues, Fox runs the risk of alienating its conservative audience to the point that they will look elsewhere for their news, and eventually end Fox’s long run as the top cable news network.”
Although her left-wing political views are nothing new, and only add to what Greene and Kohn already provide on various Fox News programs, there is no doubt that Santita Jackson has a fascinating personal story. She lost more than 200 pounds after gastric bypass weight-loss surgery. She is also said to be a dynamic singer. She sang at President Clinton’s second presidential inauguration and attended Obama’s inauguration.
But her political views, of course, are what are getting attention since her hiring by Fox News.
In addition to being a fan of the anti-American Rev. Wright, her Facebook page lists the radical demagogic Catholic Priest Father Michael Pfleger as one of her favorite interests. Pfleger, who has known Barack Obama since his days as a community organizer in Chicago, called on Christian churches on March 25 to put a hoodie on their altar as “a sign of solidarity” with Trayvon Martin, the black teenager who wore a sweatshirt with a hood before his confrontation with Zimmerman.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Pfleger was hailed as “a friend” of Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ and declared in remarks from the pulpit that Hillary Clinton thought she was “entitled” to the Democratic presidential nomination because she was white.
Interestingly, Santita Jackson lists the law firm of Tamara N. Holder as being among other “activities and interests” on her Facebook page. Holder, who is also a paid Fox News contributor, says in her biography that she “works closely with Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. in crafting and executing public policy initiatives, together with programs to increase opportunities for minorities and the economically disadvantaged.”
“Tamara single-handedly founded a pro bono legal clinic at Rev. Jesse L. Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition,” one of her other websites declares. A criminal attorney in Chicago, her law firm “has successfully defended the most serious of felony cases, from murder to possession of drugs and guns.”
Tamara Holder identifies herself on her Twitter page as a lobbyist and “government consultant” but does not disclose who she is lobbying or consulting for.
Not surprisingly, one article discloses that she has been a frequent guest on the radio, including on such programs as “The Al Sharpton Show” and “The Santita Jackson Show.”
The Santita Jackson show has now moved from radio to TV, courtesy of the Fox News Channel. Is her father next in line for a show on the “conservative” channel?
Friday, April 6, 2012
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Calls for “Immediate Investigation” Into Trayvon Martin Case
Posted by Jammie on Apr 05, 2012 at 9:10 pm
Apparently this dimwit has no idea there already is an investigation under way.
UN rights chief Navi Pillay on Thursday called for an “immediate investigation” into the circumstances surrounding the February death of an unarmed black US teen, shot by a neighborhood watchman.
Pillay made the comments about the controversial Trayvon Martin case at a press conference in Barbados, as she wrapped up a three-day visit to the Caribbean island nation.
“As High Commissioner for Human Rights, I call for an immediate investigation,” Pillay told reporters.
“Justice must be done for the victim. It’s not just this individual case. It calls into question the delivery of justice in all situations like this.”
Neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman, a white Hispanic, fatally shot 17-year-old Martin inside a gated community in the Florida town of Sanford on February 26.
Even after a couple of weeks of ridicule, these media morons perpetuate this absurd “white hispanic” bit.
Pillay expressed shock that Zimmerman was not arrested right away, and expressed concern about Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which allows the use of deadly force in situations where there is a belief of a threat.
Pillay apparently expressed no shock over the fact Zimmerman and his family are in fear for their lives. She’s already adjudicated.
“The law should operate equally in respect of all violations. I will be awaiting an investigation and prosecution and trial and of course reparations for the victims concerned,” Pillay said.
Reparations deemed fair by her, of course.
SOURCE: JWF
Apparently this dimwit has no idea there already is an investigation under way.
Pillay made the comments about the controversial Trayvon Martin case at a press conference in Barbados, as she wrapped up a three-day visit to the Caribbean island nation.
“As High Commissioner for Human Rights, I call for an immediate investigation,” Pillay told reporters.
“Justice must be done for the victim. It’s not just this individual case. It calls into question the delivery of justice in all situations like this.”
Neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman, a white Hispanic, fatally shot 17-year-old Martin inside a gated community in the Florida town of Sanford on February 26.
Even after a couple of weeks of ridicule, these media morons perpetuate this absurd “white hispanic” bit.
Pillay expressed shock that Zimmerman was not arrested right away, and expressed concern about Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which allows the use of deadly force in situations where there is a belief of a threat.
Pillay apparently expressed no shock over the fact Zimmerman and his family are in fear for their lives. She’s already adjudicated.
“The law should operate equally in respect of all violations. I will be awaiting an investigation and prosecution and trial and of course reparations for the victims concerned,” Pillay said.
Reparations deemed fair by her, of course.
SOURCE: JWF