Linux is 20 years old today

Analysis It's come a long way
By Egan Orion
Thu Aug 25 2011, 00:09

ONE MIDSUMMER'S NIGHT, a student at the University of Helsinki posted a query to the newsgroup comp.os.minix asking, "What would you like to see most in minix?" The student's name was Linus Torvalds, and that Usenet post was the beginning of the Linux operating system (OS). The date was 25 August 1991, exactly 20 years ago today.

In 1991 Unix had existed for about 20 years since the early 1970s, Apple had come out with its Mac OS in 1984, and Microsoft had been flogging Windows since 1985. Torvalds' ambitions for his "new (free) operating system" were modest. It was to be "just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu" for IBM PC "386(486) AT clones". He wanted to call his OS kernel "Freax", but a friend who ran the FTP server that hosted the software named Torvalds' source code download directory "linux" and the name stuck.

Though at first developed under Minix, Linux soon came to be built using the free GNU software development toolchain, compiler, bash command shell and userspace commands and utilities that Richard Stallman began developing in 1984. For that reason Stallman and the Free Software Foundation prefer to call it GNU/Linux, and they have a point, but most people just call it Linux. It is licensed as free software under the GNU General Public Licence, version 2 (GPLv2) and Linus Torvalds holds the trademark on Linux.

As a free, Unix-like OS that mostly adheres to the POSIX, SUS, ISO and ANSI standards and is built using free and open source software that is based on copyleft principles, Linux quickly gained software developer interest and developed rapidly into a fully fledged OS supporting a robust software development ecosystem and thousands of software applications.

By now, 20 years later, Linux includes source code contributed over the years by thousands of software developers from all around the world. Torvalds' adoption of copyleft principles has been crucial to Linux success.

Based upon authors' legal rights under international copyright law, copyleft works a lot like the old parable of Stone Soup - everyone contributes a little bit, all share in the results, and everyone benefits.

Suit-wearing business people are more comfortable using the phrase 'Open Source' than 'Free Software', and prefer to talk about the 'Open Source Method' rather than 'Copyleft', but fundamentally these are just the same things under different names. Whatever you call this, copyleft development or the open source method, it is the factor that has driven the extemely rapid development and astonishingly pervasive adoption of Linux over the past 20 years.

Linux was the first prominent software success of the open source method, though many other software development projects have since adopted it, most notably the other major components of the LAMP stack that now runs most of the world wide web.

Open source is recognised as perhaps the most powerful, although at times chaotic, way to harness the creative energies of a critical mass of software developers, and its use has been extended to crowd-sourcing projects in science, knowledge acquisition, businesses, legal research and analysis, and others. Demonstrating the power of open source methods might be the most important contribution that Linux development has made to the world.

In the 1990s, Linux was usually dismissed by scornful proprietary OS partisans as merely a 'hobbyist operating system', though as years went by there came to be more than a hint of desperate 'whistling past the graveyard' in their derision.

There were relatively few Linux distributions available at first, the chief ones being Slackware, Debian, Red Hat and Suse, and a few derivatives of those.

Especially in the early 1990s, installing Linux could be a bit difficult and time-consuming for casual Windows PC users who weren't familiar with Unix systems. There was a joke during that era that if Linux were an airplane, the passengers would be handed a pile of parts and expected to build the aircraft before they could fly in it. That was rather funny at the time because it was somewhat apt.

However, as Linux distributions matured so also did their installation scripts, software repositories and update processes. Graphical desktop shells such as KDE and Gnome were built, and GUI-based system configuration and control toolsets and software applications were developed. Stable email clients and web browsers along with serviceable office applications were developed.

Towards the end of the 1990s, installing Linux on a desktop PC alongside or in place of Microsoft Windows became not only feasible but relatively painless for many PC users who were interested to make the effort.

Today, you can download any of several major Linux distributions and install it from CD, DVD or hard disk in as little as a half hour or so. Many leadng Linux distributions offer a live CD that you can try out without having to install it.

Now there are now more than 300 flavours of Linux for every conceivable niche and taste, although only the top dozen or so have achieved what might be considered widespread take-up. Most of the smaller Linux distributions are derivatives of a few major ones, and some have fallen into disuse while others have sprung up, with greater or lesser degrees of success.

One of the more successful ones that stands out is the Debian Linux derivative called Ubuntu, and with its emphasis on ease of installation and use Ubuntu has quickly gained popularity.

Red Hat's Fedora, Opensuse and Mandriva, to name just a few, are also well integrated and more satisfying for experienced Linux users, and server users tend to run Debian or the Red Hat clone Centos, but those are simply matters of taste and everyone has their own particular needs and opinions.

Since about 1999 or so, Linux use has simply exploded. One factor was that IBM invested $1bn in Linux, starting in 1999. In 2001, the annual growth rate of Linux server installations hit 15 per cent. That pace has continued, such that now most servers are running Linux. It's not called a 'hobbyist operating system' anymore.

So, 20 years on, what runs Linux? An easier question to answer might be, what doesn't?

Linux runs on almost everything from wristwatches through music players, smartphones, tablets, TV set-top boxes and DVRs, PC netbooks, notebooks, desktops and servers, huge datacentres at Google, Amazon, Rackspace and almost all smaller hosting providers, on IBM mainframes under VM, all the way up to more than 80 per cent of the world's Top 500 supercomputers, each comprising thousands of processors.

Large financial houses run Linux systems, although they didn't talk about it much 10 years ago because they regarded it as a competitive advantage. But now Wall Street, the City of London and other major financial centres depend on tens of thousands of Linux systems for everything from broker workstations through high-frequency trading systems and back-end analytical number crunching.

The centre for European nuclear research CERN and its massive international network of university reseachers develop and run Scientific Linux.

The US military runs Linux, having worked out that it costs about one-tenth the price of proprietary Unix systems.

Russia, China, India and several other countries and regional governments develop their own Linux distributions.

The only computers today that notably don't run Linux are IBM mainframes running Z OS, Unix servers, mass market Windows desktop and laptop PCs, a rapidly diminishing number of low-end smartphones that run the Symbian OS, and devices made for Apple to run its locked-down proprietary operating systems.

Arguably, Microsoft has only maintained its Windows dominance on consumer PCs by using its market power to pressure the major PC makers, large corporations and even some governments to continue buying Windows and Microsoft Office every few years. But even without regulatory antitrust action, that cannot continue forever.

The Linux derivative Android mobile OS ships on nearly half of all smartphones and is set to take first place in smartphones by 2015, according to industry analysts.

Linux has come a long way in 20 years, and its next 20 years should be just as interesting and successful. Linus Torvald's tongue-in-cheek goal of Linux world domination might not be realised yet, but it has made a lot of progress. µ

Tradition, Antitradition and Countertradition

Most people who are familiar with the giants of the Traditionalist school such as Julius Evola or Rene Guénon understand what is meant by Tradition according to these authors. In this context, “tradition” has a meaning which is far removed from mere custom or folklore. Instead, “Tradition” takes on the facets of something which is divine and eternal. In a word, it calls man back to what Schuon called the ”transcendent unity”. Tradition contrasts with modernity, whose sight is limited in scope, and concerned with quantity, not quality. Evola describes the Tradition as embodying that which is “solar,” or “heroic” in nature, while anti-tradition is the direct antithesis of that.

Since Modernity is opposed to Tradition, there are two concepts that can be invoked in the description of modern life: antitradition and countertradition. These may be perceived as the causes and effects of modernity. In The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times, René Guénon characterizes the antitradition as a mere negation of Tradition. In other words, the characteristic symptoms of modernity, such as materialism, democracy, and secular humanism are a denial of Tradition, merely in the sense of failing to recognize it; they are a deviation without actually becoming openly hostile. Countertradition, however is a step further along the path of degeneration. It is the satanic inversion of true spirituality, leading to the regime of Antichrist.

The two may be thought of as cause and effect, and is consistent with the principle of degeneration. The antitradition weakens and dissolves traditional spiritualities, after which the countertradition sets up a counterfeit in their place. Since Guénon’s time, as is well known, anti-traditional forces have greatly advanced worldwide. The genesis of the anti-tradition, is within humanism, for as Guénon states, humanism “implies a pretension to bring everything down to purely human elements” (p 193). Guénon further goes on to posit that Protestantism and rationalism are further examples of the early antitradition. Evola though, is more pessimistic and finds traces of the anti-tradition, which he equates with the presence of an ancient “Telluric,” or “southern,” civilization, in even ancient civilizations. As an example, he cites the disentegration of the Aryan worldview as the concept of atman and brahman degenerating from a “formless, magical force” into a pantheistic concept which denied the existence of spiritual personality.

The Beginning of the End: For Western Europe, antitradition began with the decline of the Catholic Church

The manifestation of antitradition can be seen in all aspects of the Western world today. Societies are crumbling, having lost direction and having rejected the aspects of a traditional society. In political terms the system is democracy and secularism. This system denies the existence of any divine cause, and regresses the castes in such a way that subjects him to be without a characteristic form. The materialist outlook, whether it is capitalistic or communistic, is a system which is solely concerned with that of quantity. Art, music, and culture are now the abstract expressions of soul-less individualism. None of this is concerned with the spiritual betterment of human beings or any real human problems. In America, the so-called ‘Land of the Free’, through every medium, man is told he has reached a degree of happiness hitherto undreamed of. He forgets who he is, where he came from, and basks in the present.

While antitradition is fully in force in the West, and has begun to spread to other parts of the world, we can already see countertraditional movements rising to the highest echelons of global political, economic, and religious power. The existence of these movements would never be possible without the denial of tradition (i.e. antitradition). The formations of such associations are allowing for a near-theological perspective on the tenets of the countertraditional society. We can see such religious fervor in the way some in the West conduct themselves and view society. As an example, there are certain groups which are now protected under the laws of the West, and certain histories, events, and concepts which the average person regards as canon. In contrast to the anti-traditional attitude, which does not recognize Tradition, these new precepts are often diametrically opposed to the religious principles which, even 100 years ago, were at least paid nominal lip service to.

A clever disguise: In the absense of tradition, the countertradition can quickly take on many forms

At this point, antitradition manifests itself as a number of disconnected social movements. Feminism, homosexuality, democracy, and liberalism are part of the transitional phase from antitradition to countertradition. However, the countertradition will ultimately masquarade as a fully-fledged religion. Both Guenon and Evola assert that the forces of “counter-initiation” are primarily occupied with cutting human beings off from the knowledge of anything transcendent, and then when this has been effectively completed, offering up a “parody” or “counterfeit” of the authentic initiatory experience “vitalized” by energies from the sub-human realm. In the 20th and 21st century, many new religious movements have arisen: some of them are quite obviously draw their energies from chthonic sources, such as the various branches of Satanism or Luciferianism. Some movements, such as modern Talmudism (which both rejects Christ and which is an inversion of the original principles of the ancient Israelite faith), are less subtle in their origins. Still others are able to hide their nature as counterfeit spirituality, and are even being used by globalist powers to sow the seeds of conflict, such as Falun Gong or Baha’ism.

It is in the realm of countertradition, from which the prophesied Antichrist or Dajjal is to arise, because the Antichrist will superficially resemble Christ the Messiah, while doing the work of the Devil. Thus, Tradition is not merely denied, but it is inverted, as per Guenon’s thesis. This antichrist will seemingly provide for the needs of the people but deny them ultimate salvation.

For those worried about the coming counter-traditional world, Guenon gives us some words of hope, however:

between the fleeting reign of the ‘counter-traditiod and the final moment of the present cycle there can only be the ‘rectification’, which will suddenly put back all things into their normal place at the very moment when subversion seems complete, thus at one stroke preparing for the ‘golden age’ of the future cycle.

Palin For President - Odds On US Presidential Race At William Hill

Excitement is already building for the US Presidential race, and the Republicans are currently the focus in the build up to the vote on their party's representative for the 2012 US Presidency.

Recently, we've seen some interesting movement at the Gibraltar based British bookmaker, William Hill. Until now, Sarah Palin was an outsider in the race, falling behind in the shadows of Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. Her odds were around 20/1 that she would win the Republican nomination.

However, surprisingly, Palin's odds dropped to 10/1 and she may not be an outsider after all in the weeks leading up to the nomination.

The current favourite to win the Republican nomination is Rick Perry with odds of 11/8, followed by Romney at 2/1. Sarah Palin has not officially entered the race yet, but there is strong speculation that she will, leading to a flurry of bets.

Other odds:

Michele Bachmann - 4/1
Ron Paul - 7/1
Jon Huntsman - 14/1
Rudy Guiliani - 28/1
Who will win the US Presidential Race

Elections for the US Presidency will be held in November next year, and the current favourite to win is Barack Obama at 4/5. This is despite the fact that Obama's approval rate has fallen below 40% and he has the potential of becoming a president that is voted out after only four years in office.

However, analysts don't see a better alternative in the Republican camp. The Republicans view Barack, according to Barry Reid, political commentator, as the "Prince of Darkness, a cerebral elitist who is selling America down the drain." But they don't seem to be able to offer a better choice.

Michelle Bachman may be a colourful novelty, but her views have the potential to frighten away the leftist bloc and she will not last long.

While Mitt Romney is considered a front runner in the Republican race, "there's no evidence of fire in his belly," according to Reid. He is considered dull, despite his success as the governor of Massachusetts and his all-American picture-perfect looks.

Rick Perry, governor of Texas for over a decade, has more "fire" but has the tendency to put his foot in his mouth too often for his party's liking.

So can Sarah Palin offer a good alternative for the Republicans? Watch the odds at William Hill and other bookmakers.

by Renee Israel

Paul: No such thing as an independent Israel

The following is an exclusive Press TV interview with US congressman Ron Paul, a unique conservative politician who wants an end to US military presence on foreign soil, advocates US withdrawal from the UN, NATO and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and opposes the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Ron Paul, House representative of the 14th district of Texas, believes that US foreign policy must be reformed to avoid conflicts around the world.

The interview was conducted outside the Foreign Relations Committee.

Press TV: What is your opinion on the idea of the US blocking Iran's oil exports and preventing its gasoline imports from reaching the country (based on H. Con. Res. 362 previously sought by US congressmen)?

Paul: I think it is an outrage I think it is a blockade. It is the use of force to stop the inflow of petroleum products and people and goods, banking, trains, cars, trucks, cargos. It's all prohibited. How can we stop that without the use of the navy and without the use of force? This idea is not a blockade it is just pure silliness on their part [US senators and congressmen].

If we bomb them, that's the start of hostilities. They (US policy makers) are never willing to take anything off the table, which includes a nuclear-first strike. So, if they do that do you think the Iranians are going to sit still? They are going to react!

The opposition said that, well, we don't want them to block the Strait of Hormuz [the Persian Gulf waterway which allows the passages of a third of the world's daily oil supply]. They ought to change their policy because they are more likely to get the Strait of Hormuz blocked if we persist on this. If we do any bombing or we put on a blockade, it's going to lead to big trouble.

Press TV: There has been a lot of speculation that Israel may act on its own and conduct an independent air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Do you think that's possible?

Paul: I don't think there is such a thing as an independent Israel doing anything, because I think no matter what they do its our money, its our weapons, and their not going to do it without us approving it and if they get into trouble we're going to bail them out, so there is no separation between the two.

Press TV: During your line of questioning at the Foreign Relations Committee you mentioned the Seymour Hersh article, which was among the articles that revealed that the Congress had awarded the Bush administration hundreds of millions of dollars for a covert operation to overthrow the Iranian government. Why did you mention those stories?

Paul: Well it's something that I have known about and heard about and it does go on. It goes on all around the world. To me it was a surprise that it was news, because we have been doing that and people do talk about it. I think it's an outrage. How would we react if somebody did it to us? We would be infuriated, willing to go to war. The fact that somebody came and tried to undermine our government.

MJ/AA

Paul holds US liable for Gazans death

Republican congressman Ron Paul says the US is aiding and abetting Israel in Gaza through its financial and military support for Tel Aviv.

"The weapons being used to kill so many Palestinians are American weapons, and American funds, essentially, are being used for this," said the congressman Friday.

Israel launched an all-out war against the Gaza Strip and its democratically-elected ruler, the Hamas movement, to put an end to rocket attacks against southern Israel.

At least 821 Palestinians have been killed during the operation and some 3,330 others are reported wounded. At least 10 Israeli troops have been killed during the offensive so far.

Hamas demands a cessation to an 18-month Israeli blockade on Gaza before its fighters stop rocket attacks against Israel.

Congressman Paul criticized Washington for its indirect intervention in the affairs of other countries.

"There's a political liability, which I think is something that we fail to look at, because too often there's so much blowback from our intervention in areas that we shouldn't be involved in," he said.

Paul also expressed his opposition to a House resolution that strongly supported Israel in its Gaza invasion. "I rise in opposition to this resolution, not because I am taking sides and picking who the bad guys are and who the good guys are."

"I'm looking at this more from the angle of being a United States citizen, an American, and I think resolutions like this really do us great harm," he added.

Earlier on Friday, House of Representative speaker Nancy Pelosi backed the Israel's military operations on Gaza, saying that "Israel, like any nation, has a right to self-defense when under attack".

"There's a lot of reasons why we should oppose this resolution. It is not in the interests of the United States. It's not in the interests of Israel, either," Paul concluded.

The fighting in Gaza has entered its third week despite a UN Security Council resolution which calls for an immediate end to the hostility in the densely-populated Gaza Strip.

AGB/MD

Crime and the Great Recession

Jobs have fled, lawbreaking hasn’t risen—and criminologists are scratching their heads.

National Archives Washington DC/The Art Archive
During the Great Depression, when unemployment reached 25 percent, crime went down in many cities.



During the seventies and eighties, scarcely any newspaper story about rising crime failed to mention that it was strongly linked to unemployment and poverty. The argument was straightforward: if less legitimate work was available, more illegal work would take place. Certain scholars agreed. Economist Gary Becker of the University of Chicago, a Nobel laureate, developed a powerful theory that crime was rational—that a person will commit crime if the expected utility exceeds that of using his time and other resources in pursuit of alternative activities, such as leisure or legitimate work. Observation may appear to bear this theory out; after all, neighborhoods with elevated crime rates tend to be those where poverty and unemployment are high as well.

But the notion that unemployment causes crime runs into some obvious difficulties. For one thing, the 1960s, a period of rising crime, had essentially the same unemployment rate as the late 1990s and early 2000s, a period when crime fell. Further, during the Great Depression, when unemployment hit 25 percent, the crime rate in many cities went down. (True, national crime statistics weren’t very useful back in the 1930s, but studies of local police records and individual citizens by scholars such as Glen Elder have generally found reduced crime, too.) Among the explanations offered for this puzzle is that unemployment and poverty were so common during the Great Depression that families became closer, devoted themselves to mutual support, and kept young people, who might be more inclined to criminal behavior, under constant adult supervision. These days, because many families are weaker and children are more independent, we would not see the same effect, so certain criminologists continue to suggest that a 1 percent increase in the unemployment rate should produce as much as a 2 percent increase in property-crime rates.

Yet when the recent recession struck, that didn’t happen. As the national unemployment rate doubled from around 5 percent to nearly 10 percent, the property-crime rate, far from spiking, fell significantly. For 2009, the FBI reported an 8 percent drop in the nationwide robbery rate and a 17 percent reduction in the auto-theft rate from the previous year. Big-city reports show the same thing. Between 2008 and 2010, New York City experienced a 4 percent decline in the robbery rate and a 10 percent fall in the burglary rate. Boston, Chicago, and Los Angeles witnessed similar declines. The FBI’s latest numbers, for 2010, show that the national crime rate fell again.

Some scholars argue that the unemployment rate is too crude a measure of economic frustration to prove the connection between unemployment and crime, since it estimates only the percentage of the labor force that is looking for work and hasn’t found it. But other economic indicators tell much the same story. The labor-force participation rate lets us determine the percentage of the labor force that is neither working nor looking for work—individuals who are, in effect, detached from the labor force. These people should be especially vulnerable to criminal inclinations, if the bad-economy-leads-to-crime theory holds. In 2008, though, even as crime was falling, only about half of men aged 16 to 24 (who are disproportionately likely to commit crimes) were in the labor force, down from over two-thirds in 1988, and a comparable decline took place among African-American men (who are also disproportionately likely to commit crimes).

The University of Michigan’s Consumer Sentiment Index offers another way to assess the link between the economy and crime. This measure rests on thousands of interviews asking people how their financial situations have changed over the last year, how they think the economy will do during the next year, and about their plans for buying durable goods. The index measures the way people feel, rather than the objective conditions they face. It has proved a very good predictor of stock-market behavior and, for a while, of the crime rate, which tended to climb when people lost confidence. When the index collapsed in 2009 and 2010, the stock market predictably went down with it—but this time, the crime rate went down, too.

So we have little reason to ascribe the recent crime decline to jobs, the labor market, or consumer sentiment. The question remains: Why is crime falling?

One obvious answer is that many more people are in prison than in the past. Experts differ on the size of the effect, but I think that William Spelman and Steven Levitt have it right in believing that greater incarceration can explain one-quarter or more of the crime decline. Yes, many thoughtful observers think that we put too many offenders in prison for too long. For some criminals, such as low-level drug dealers and former inmates returned to prison for parole violations, that may be so. But it’s true nevertheless that when prisoners are kept off the street, they can attack only one another, not you or your family.

Imprisonment’s crime-reduction effect helps explain why the burglary, car-theft, and robbery rates are lower in the United States than in England. The difference results not from willingness to send convicted offenders to prison, which is about the same in both countries, but in how long America keeps them behind bars. For the same offense, you will spend more time in prison here than in England. Still, prison can’t be the sole reason for the recent crime drop in this country: Canada has seen roughly the same decline in crime, but its imprisonment rate has been relatively flat for at least two decades.

Another possible reason for reduced crime is that potential victims may have become better at protecting themselves by equipping their homes with burglar alarms, installing extra locks on their cars, and moving into safer buildings or even safer neighborhoods. We have only the faintest idea, however, about how common these trends are or what effects on crime they may have.

Policing, as City Journal readers know, has become more disciplined over the last two decades; these days, it tends to be driven by the desire to reduce crime, rather than simply to maximize arrests, and that shift has reduced crime rates. One of the most important innovations is what has been called hot-spot policing. The great majority of crimes tend to occur in the same places. Put active police resources in those areas instead of telling officers to drive around waiting for 911 calls, and you can bring down crime. The hot-spot idea helped make the New York Police Department’s Compstat program—its planning and accountability system, which, using computerized maps, pinpoints where crime is taking place and enables police chiefs to hold precinct captains responsible for targeting those areas—so effective.

Researchers continue to test and refine hot-spot policing. For instance, criminologists Lawrence Sherman and David Weisburd, after analyzing data from more than 7,000 police arrivals at various locations in Minneapolis, showed that for every minute that an officer spent at a spot, the length of time without a crime there after the officer departed went up—until the officer had been gone for over 15 minutes. After that gap, the crime rate went up. The police can make the best use of their time by staying at a hot spot for a while, moving on, and returning after 15 minutes have elapsed.

Some cities now use a computer-based system for mapping traffic accidents and crime rates. They have noticed that the two measures tend to coincide: where there are more accidents, there is more crime. In Shawnee, Kansas, the police spent a lot more time in about 4 percent of the city’s area, where one-third of the crime occurred: burglaries then fell in that area by 60 percent (even though in the city as a whole, they fell by only 8 percent), and traffic accidents went down by 17 percent.

There may also be a medical reason for the crime decline. For decades, doctors have known that children with lots of lead in their blood are much more likely to be aggressive, violent, and delinquent. In 1974, the Environmental Protection Agency required oil companies to stop putting lead in gasoline. At the same time, lead in paint was banned for any new home (though old buildings still have lead paint, which children can absorb). Tests have shown that the amount of lead in Americans’ blood fell by four-fifths between 1975 and 1991. A 2000 study by economist Rick Nevin suggested that the reduction in gasoline lead produced more than half of the decline in violent crime during the nineties. A later study by Nevin claimed that this also happened in other nations. Another economist, Jessica Wolpaw Reyes, has made the same argument. (One oddity about this fascinating claim has yet to be explained: why the reduction related to lead-free blood included only violent crime, not property offenses.)

Yet one more shift that has probably helped bring down crime is the decrease in heavy cocaine use in many states. Measuring cocaine use is no easy matter; one has to infer it from interviews or from hospital-admission rates. Between 1992 and 2009, the number of admissions for cocaine or crack use fell by nearly two-thirds. In 1999, 9.8 percent of 12th-grade students said that they had tried cocaine; by 2010, that figure had fallen to 5.5 percent.

What we really need to know, though, is not how many people tried coke but how many are heavy users. Casual users who regard coke as a party drug are probably less likely to commit serious crimes than heavier users who may resort to theft and violence to feed their craving. But a study by Jonathan Caulkins at Carnegie Mellon University found that the total demand for cocaine dropped between 1988 and 2010, with a sharp decline among both light and heavy users. This fall in demand may help explain why cocaine has become cheaper, despite intense law enforcement efforts aimed at disrupting its distribution. Illegal markets, like legal ones, cut prices when demand falls.

Blacks still constitute the core of America’s crime problem (see “Is the Criminal-Justice System Racist?,” Spring 2008). But the African-American crime rate, too, has been falling, probably because of the same noneconomic factors behind falling crime in general: imprisonment, policing, environmental changes, and less cocaine abuse.

Knowing the exact crime rate of any ethnic or racial group isn’t easy, since most crimes don’t result in arrest or conviction, and those that do may be an unrepresentative fraction of all crimes. Nevertheless, we do know the racial characteristics of those who have been arrested for crimes, and they show that the number of blacks arrested has been falling. Barry Latzer of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice has demonstrated that between 1980 and 2005, arrests of blacks for homicide and other violent crimes fell by about half nationwide.

It’s also suggestive that in the five New York City precincts where the population is at least 80 percent black, the murder rate fell by 78 percent between 1990 and 2000. In the black neighborhoods of Chicago, which remains a higher-crime city than New York, burglary fell by 52 percent, robbery by 62 percent, and homicide by 33 percent between 1991 and 2003. A skeptic might retort that all these seeming gains were merely the result of police officers’ giving up and no longer recording crimes in black neighborhoods. But the skeptic would have a hard time explaining why opinion surveys in Chicago show that, among blacks, fear of crime was cut in half during the same period.

One can cite further evidence of a turnaround in black crime. Researchers at the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention found that in 1980, arrests of young blacks outnumbered arrests of whites by more than six to one. By 2002, the gap had been closed to just under four to one.

Drug use among blacks has changed even more dramatically than it has among the population as a whole. As Latzer points out—and his argument is confirmed by a study by Bruce D. Johnson, Andrew Golub, and Eloise Dunlap—among 13,000 people arrested in Manhattan between 1987 and 1997, a disproportionate number of whom were black, those born between 1948 and 1969 were heavily involved with crack cocaine, but those born after 1969 used little crack and instead smoked marijuana. The reason was simple: the younger African-Americans had known many people who used crack and other hard drugs and wound up in prisons, hospitals, and morgues. The risks of using marijuana were far less serious. This shift in drug use, if the New York City experience is borne out in other locations, can help explain the fall in black inner-city crime rates after the early 1990s.

John Donohue and Steven Levitt have advanced an additional explanation for the reduction in black crime: the legalization of abortion, which resulted in black children’s never being born into circumstances that would have made them likelier to become criminals. I have ignored that explanation because it remains a strongly contested finding, challenged by two economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and by various academics.

At the deepest level, many of these shifts, taken together, suggest that crime in the United States is falling—even through the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression—because of a big improvement in the culture. The cultural argument may strike some as vague, but writers have relied on it in the past to explain both the Great Depression’s fall in crime and the sixties’ crime explosion. In the first period, on this view, people took self-control seriously; in the second, self-expression—at society’s cost—became more prevalent. It is a plausible case.

Culture creates a problem for social scientists like me, however. We do not know how to study it in a way that produces hard numbers and tested theories. Culture is the realm of novelists and biographers, not of data-driven social scientists. But we can take some comfort, perhaps, in reflecting that identifying the likely causes of the crime decline is even more important than precisely measuring it.

James Q. Wilson, formerly a professor at Harvard and at UCLA, lectures at Pepperdine. In 2003, he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Is flashing your headlights illegal or a free speech issue?

Alexis Cason with her car, in front of her Oviedo home. Cason was ticketed for flashing her headlights at oncoming motorists to warn them that a cop was around the bend. (Ricardo Ramirez Buxeda, Orlando Sentinel)

By Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel

9:57 p.m. EDT, August 26, 2011
SANFORD — Alexis Cason was on her way to school one morning when she spotted two Oviedo police officers on the side of the road. She flashed her headlights to warn other drivers about the speed trap ahead. Moments later, another cop pulled her over and wrote her a ticket, saying she'd just broken the law by flashing her lights.

Law, she asked, what law?

Cason, 22, challenged the ticket and won. A lawsuit filed this week claims that 2,900 motorists were ticketed — illegally — in Florida for the same thing from 2005 to 2010.

An Oviedo law firm — the same one that persuaded a Seminole County judge to toss Cason's ticket — is asking a judge in Tallahassee to bar Florida cops from writing tickets when motorists flash their headlights.

There is no Florida law that prohibits light-flashing, said Oviedo attorney J. Marcus Jones. He claims officers are simply twisting a law that was designed to prohibit drivers from adding after-market emergency lights to their vehicles.

When officers write those tickets, he said, they violate a driver's constitutional right to free speech. If motorists want to flash their lights to warn about a speed trap ahead, they are free to do so, according to his suit.

The suit, filed Wednesday, asks Circuit Judge James O. Shelfer in Tallahassee to certify the case as a class action on behalf of every motorist in Florida who was ticketed for that offense from 2005 to 2010.

It also asks Shelfer to issue an injunction, banning all Florida cops from writing those tickets, to reimburse drivers for the fines they've paid and to rule that officers are misapplying a law about add-on emergency lights.

The state has not yet responded to the suit.

"We don't comment on any pending lawsuit that we're involved in," said Capt. Mark Welch of the Florida Highway Patrol.

The lead plaintiff is Erich Campbell, 38, a Tampa-area man who was ticketed two years ago by a state trooper.

"At $100, nobody challenges these nonmoving violations," he said. "It's a principle thing to me."

He did some research and discovered that Cason had successfully fought back, so he hired the same law firm and, he, too, got a judge to toss the ticket.

According to the suit, "There was no legitimate basis for pulling over Campbell's vehicle and detaining him and his passengers when they had committed no cognizable offense."

Cops who write those tickets, according to the suit, engage in behavior that is "illegal, wrongful and unconstitutional." They subject motorists to unwarranted seizures — the money they must pay in traffic fines — the suit alleges.

They also are guilty of racketeering, the suit alleges, "an ongoing enterprise … (of) theft, misuse of office and extortion," according to the suit.

Authorities should have taken note six years ago when Seminole County Judge Donald Marblestone threw out Cason's ticket, declaring the statute has nothing to do with a driver using his headlights to warn about police activity, the suit alleges.

The FHP and the state Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles could not say how many tickets Florida cops write each year for that offense.

Jones' law firm has challenged five headlight-flashing tickets in five Florida counties in the past six years and prevailed each time, according to the suit. Those include Seminole, Osceola, Hillsborough, Escambia and St. Lucie counties.

Jones hopes to win again soon in Seminole.

Two weeks ago his firm filed a similar suit — but smaller in scope — in state Circuit Court in Sanford. It alleges that the Seminole County Sheriff's Office violated the free speech rights of Ryan Kintner, a 25-year-old Lake Mary man, when a deputy discovered him using his headlights to tip off neighbors about a speed trap near his home.

"I felt an injustice was being done," Kintner said. "I have nothing against officers … keeping speeding down, but when you cross a line and get into free speech, I feel it's gone too far."

His suit asks Circuit Judge Alan Dickey to order the Seminole County Sheriff's Office to stop writing those tickets.

Seminole deputies will keep on writing them as long as the statute is in effect, according to Sheriff's Office spokeswoman Kim Cannaday.

rstutzman@tribune.com or 407-650-6394.

Copyright © 2011, Orlando Sentinel

DOJ Keeping Islamic Bank Settlement Secret

The Justice Department has agreed to end its investigation into an international financial network with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and a Saudi prince in a settlement in excess of $30 million, sources tell the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

But DOJ officials refuse to release a copy of the settlement or make any comment on it.

"Unfortunately, we're unable to provide anything in connection with this matter," DOJ spokesman Charles Miller wrote in response to a query Aug. 16. He did not contest the existence of the settlement with the Islamic Investment Company of the Gulf (IICG). Repeated attempts to obtain the settlement, or at least a clear explanation of why it cannot be released when most government settlements are a part of the public record, have been unsuccessful.

"We will have no further comment," Miller said Wednesday.

Reports of a grand jury investigation into an IICG domestic affiliate called Overland Capital surfaced early in 2007. Though the grand jury was convened in Boston in September 2006, a terror-financing prosecutor from DOJ was leading the tax evasion probe into the bank, the Wall Street Journal reported. Overland Capital allegedly was controlled by the Dar al-Maal al-Islami Trust (DMI), an Islamic financial institution founded by Saudi Prince Mohamed al-Faisal and which had at least two influential Muslim Brotherhood figures on its board, the Journal reported.

It described DMI as "the hub of a network of banks and investment funds across Europe and the Middle East that cater to Muslims interested in strictly following Quranic principles, such as a ban on collecting interest." It cited records showing DMI held "an indirect 60 percent" share in Overland Capital.

The IICG, meanwhile, is a "wholly owned subsidiary" of DMI Trust, according to the Faysal Asset Management Limited website. IICG has operations on four continents and managed $1.6 billion in funds in December 2007. Saudi Prince Mohamed al-Faisal founded DMI Trust nearly 30 years ago, the Journal reported. He remains on its board, along with serving on the boards of Faisal Islamic banks in Sudan and Egypt.

The Faisal Private Bank reportedly was investigated during the 1990s for possible terror financing links. The Journal story notes that it was mentioned in a Hamas financing case involving transfers to the group and its current deputy political director, Mousa Abu Marzook.

DMI has had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, with at least two of the movement's contemporary figures serving on its board. Sudanese Brotherhood figure Hassan al-Turabi spent 10 years as a DMI director during the 1980s and early 90s, the New York Times reported in August 2007. During the same time he was a director, Turabi urged Osama bin Laden to move al-Qaida to Sudan, the 9/11 Commission Report said.

Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi also served as an early DMI Trust advisor, the Times reported. Though labeled a moderate by some, Qaradawi has a long record of anti-Semitism, support for Palestinian suicide bombings and attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, and recently expressed his desire to kill a Jew before he dies.

Records from civil litigation in Fort Worth indicate that the criminal investigation remained active as recently as February. In October, a judge granted a stay of discovery in a breach of contract lawsuit between Vinewood Capital, LLC and DMI Trust. The stay was based on a government request that is sealed. But in his order granting the stay, U.S. District Judge Terry R. Means wrote that the government asked for the delay to protect information from a key witness in the criminal investigation who is subject to discovery in the civil case.

"[D]isclosure of the contents of his testimony would substantially prejudice the pending criminal investigation," Judge Means wrote.

The criminal investigation involved statutes covering tax evasion and conspiracy to defraud the United States by IICG.

"Additionally," the judge wrote citing the sealed government motion, "while IICGB has not been indicted, the 'investigation has been ongoing for nearly four years[,] has continued to progress[,] and is nearing a conclusion.'"

In January, after DMI sought another discovery freeze in the civil suit, DOJ prosecutor Corey Smith wrote that, while the government requested the earlier stay, it did not need additional time. "The Motion also accurately represents my comment that I believe a settlement of the Criminal Case with [IICG] criminal counsel is likely in the very near future."

That appears to have happened. But the Department of Justice is keeping all the details secret.

Suit says Florida Highway Patrol illegally tickets motorists who warn others about speed traps

Tampa, Florida -- When the Florida Highway Patrol pulls someone over on the highway, it's usually because they were speeding.

But Eric Campbell was pulled over and ticketed while he was driving the speed limit.

Campbell says, "I was coming up the Veterans Expressway and I notice two Florida Highway Patrol Cars sitting on the side of the road in the median, with lights off."

Campbell says he did what he always does: flashed his lights on and off to warn drivers coming from the other direction that there was speed trap ahead.

According to Campbell, 60 seconds after passing the trooper, "They were on my tail and they pulled me over."

Campbell says the FHP trooper wrote him a ticket for improper flashing of high beams. Campbell says the trooper told him what he had done was illegal.

But later Campbell learned that is not the case. He filed a class action suit which says "Florida Statue 316.2397" -- under which Campbell was cited -- "does not prohibit the flashing of headlights as a means of communications, nor does it in any way reference flashing headlights or the use of high beams."

However, the FHP trooper who wrote the ticket either didn't know or didn't care. "You could tell in his voice he was upset," Campbell says. "He was professional, he wasn't rude... but you could tell he was irritated."

However, the lawsuit says the FHP is well aware they are wrongfully applying the state law and they are doing it as a means of generating revenue. In 2005, a court order was even issued saying the state law doesn't prohibit the flashing of vehicle headlights.

Campbell isn't the only one. Since 2005, FHP records show more than 10,429 drivers have been cited under the statute.

In addition to seeking the refund of the $100 ticket, the lawsuit seeks damages in excess of $15,000.

What's that costing you?

If each person illegally cited was awarded $15,000 that would be $156,435,000 in damages if the suit is successful. Then you would throw in at least another $1,042,900 in ticket refunds, all because it appears troopers don't like motorists warning others about speed traps.

Campbell says he felt as if the trooper thought it was a personal affront. According to Campbell, the trooper did not like the fact somebody was ratting him out.

The Florida Highway Patrol says it can't comment because of the pending lawsuit.

Campbell says FHP had no right to ticket him or anyone under the current law and he adds the agency is not being honest when it says it doesn't write tickets to increase revenue or punish people, but rather to get the motorist to slow down on the highway. If that were true, Campbell says the FHP should be delighted with him, because drivers did slow down before troopers could give them a ticket.

The suit evolved out the fact that Campbell says "I don't like what the government is dong especially now when most people have a hard time affording gas and now they have to defend themselves against a made up charge that doesn't exist."

The state will have to come up with the money for damages if the suit is successful, and guess where the money is coming from: your taxes.

Boehner asks Obama to detail $1 billion regulations

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is pressing President Obama for information on costly government regulations, days after the White House announced a plan to eliminate more than 500 federal rules in an effort to save $10 billion over the next five years.

In a letter sent to Obama on Friday, Boehner reiterated a request he made this time last year for the administration to provide details on regulations with a projected cost of more than $1 billion, arguing that new projections by the White House point to 219 new planned regulations at a nearly 15 percent increase in cost over last year.

“I am again asking that your Administration provide a list of all pending and planned rulemakings with a projected impact on our economy in excess of $1 billion,” Boehner wrote in his letter Friday.

“I ask that you provide this information by the time Congress reconvenes, so that the information will be available as the House considers legislation requiring a congressional review and approval of any proposed federal government regulation that will have a significant impact on the economy as we continue our efforts to remove impediments to job creation and economic growth for the American people.”

The letter comes as the House prepares to take up legislation this fall that would require congressional approval for new federal rules.

Earlier this week, Cass Sunstein, the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs administrator, defended the administration’s efforts to streamline existing regulations even as it enacts some new ones, contending that the savings that will be achieved are “a pretty big deal.”

By Felicia Sonmez

Indiana College Bans "Too Violent" National Anthem

Indiana College Bans "Too Violent" National Anthem
First it banned the words, now the whole song

Tiny Goshen College in Indiana has banned the "The Star Spangled Banner: at all sporting events because the Mennonite school's president considers the National Anthem's words to be too violent.

The 1,000-student school had already banned the words last year, but the band could still play the music for patriots in attendance. Now, the school has banned the song entirely, according to NBC Sports.

The school’s board of directors told college President Jim Brenneman to “find an alternative to playing the National Anthem that fits with sports tradition, that honors country and that resonates with Goshen College’s core values and respects the views of diverse constituencies.”

Brenneman was okay with that.

“I am committed to retaining the best of what it means to be a Mennonite college, while opening the doors wider to all who share our core values,” Brenneman said. “And I invite others to join us at Goshen College as we make peace in all of its forms, even with the national anthem.”

Art professor John Blosser told The Goshen News that there is much national pride at the school, but that most people aren't going to blindly accept what the country does.

NBC Sports' Rick Chandler weighed in, saying: "I suppose we could have followed the example of the Mennonites and simply fled, giving the nation back to the British. But then we’d all be playing cricket."

Obama Creates Office Of Diversity, Inclusion

The economy remains in shambles yet President Obama keeps wasting taxpayer dollars expanding an already bloated U.S. government, this month launching a new office to help build a “diverse and inclusive workforce” at all federal agencies.

The new Office of Diversity and Inclusion will ensure that the entire U.S. government develops comprehensive strategies to drive and integrate diversity and inclusion practices. It will assist the different agencies in building a workforce that “respects individual and organizational cultures” by examining policy options, data trends and employee survey findings.

The goal is to eliminate demographic group imbalances in targeted occupations and improve workforce diversity. To attain this, special initiatives have been created targeting specific groups, including Hispanics, African Americans, American Indians, women and gays and lesbians. The idea is to create a workforce that truly reflects America’s diversity, according to the Obama Administration.

In fact, the Obama executive order creating the new agency assures that it will promote the federal workplace as a model of equal opportunity, diversity and inclusion. It will also establish a coordinated government-wide initiative to promote the cause. The investment is worth it because a commitment to equal opportunity, diversity and inclusion is critical for the federal government as an employer, according to the commander-in-chief.

The president’s new plan will force agencies to identify and remove barriers to equal employment opportunities that may exist in the federal government’s recruitment, hiring, promotion, retention, professional development and training policies and practices.

The Consequence Of Surrender: Our Own Ethics Are Being Used To Crush Us

Robert Spencer’s “N.J. Murder the Latest Outrage in the Islamic Blame Game” is an important column and shows how the Right’s strategy of surrender not only leads to our defeat, but will also lead to our extinction.

Spencer details how at least one person implicated him as bearing some responsibility for the “Islamophobic” murder of a Muslim woman, and that a U.S. Islamic group was waiting to blame him as well. However, Spencer noted that the Muslim husband of the woman is now a suspect in the murder. And so for now, the calls for the heads of the Right have subsided to normal levels.

Yet this isn’t the time for relief. Instead, the Right needs to use this incident to identify and fix a fatal flaw in its strategy. Here’s what I mean.

Had “Islamophobic” Americans actually been the murderers of the Muslim woman, Muslims and their leftist allies would have demanded that the Right defend our existence and why we “hate” so much. And we would have obliged. But why would we have done that?

Why would anyone on the Right feel the need to become defensive even if it had been “Islamophobic” Americans who murdered the Muslim woman? Would anyone be shocked if such a thing did happen even as we don’t condone it? Didn’t society used to expect this sort of behavior against a group of people identified with a worldwide threat? “Yes! But we’ve grown since then and no longer allow it!” Precisely. Our own ethics and morality are being used to crush us.


We’ve outlawed vigilantism although we may understand the passions that drive the desire. Yet while our culture should be praised for this advancement we instead have allowed our enemies to wield it as a weapon to destroy us. In other words, on the rare occasion when someone does act out on his passions (or even when leftists and their allies lie about someone doing so) we don’t say, “We understand his anger but we no longer allow revenge killings. This man is wrong and he will be punished. At the same time, we need to deal with our enemies.” Instead, we allow our enemies—who continue practicing “revenge” killings or who continue rationalizing them—to condemn us as “evil” without vigorously calling them on their fallacy.

And so we are where we are today: our enemies engage in endless acts of Islamic terrorism and their cause isn’t hurt by it—indeed we must “understand why they hate.” Our enemies riot in London, riot in the U.S., rampage and slaughter in the U.S. and it never damages their cause—indeed, they are justified in doing so. They even can claim that their rampaging and murdering are done by the Right and we fall for it—we defend ourselves from such baseless accusations.

And it is this fatal flaw that Spencer’s Human Events column identifies: the Right has allowed things to reach a state where the left can engage in an infinite amount of violence and never be brought to justice for it. Yet if even once someone who in any way can be identified as being on the Right does something wrong, then the entire Right will be guilty and the left will demand our destruction.

Passiveness and appeasement must end. I repeat my call to investigate and prosecute the left in addition to backing the call to investigate and hold Islam accountable. Failing to do so and continuing with a strategy of surrender will result in the harsh consequence of utter annihilation for the Right.

Paul Hair

White House Insider: The Obama Plan – Part Two

"Even if it means the threat of race riots. They are willing to go that far – go down that road if need be. If the Obama team can’t guilt enough of White America into voting for them in 2012 – they are just fine with trying to scare the sh-t out of them to do it."

Author’s Note: This interview is the first face to face sit down in months with our longtime D.C. political operative we have come to simply call “Insider”. They offer up a unique perspective and insight based upon their decades-long experience as a D.C. insider working within the highest levels of government– including helping to elect Barack Obama in 2008. Here now are the words of Insider, unedited and published in their entirety per their request. This is part two of the interview. WARNING: Adult Content

Insider: None of this is beyond the norm though. Where it gets different for the Obama campaign is what I’ll just call the Obama Plan. They are going way beyond simply working up your typical campaign scenarios against potential opponents. The president – I was told of this about a week ago, maybe two weeks ago…(pause)… the president actually considered quitting. He really did. But now he’s going on the attack. He wants to give a big F-You to White America – that’s actually one of his primary motivations. You think the race card has been played up before? Just wait. 2012 is gonna be the most brutal political cycle we have ever witnessed. Ever.

Ulsterman: Hold up there. Obama – the president…he actually considered quitting? Where did you hear that?

Insider: Yes he considered it. How seriously I don’t know, but he was chirping about it to some people for a bit. Before uhh…before summer. He was considering…told the president described the idea as “cool”. That’s how he put—

Ulsterman:(Interrupts) —Where did you hear that? There has been nothing said about Obama quitting anywhere that I know of. Nothing.

Insider: That’s about right. Why would there be? But that’s what he was saying. Basically wondering out loud…something along those lines, about just quitting after one term. Then that talk went away – just like that, and now the president seems very-very motivated to kick some ass. Obviously somebody had a sit down with him and…modified the president’s way of thinking on that subject.

Ulsterman: Jarret?

Insider: Maybe. I’m sure she was involved on some level. She’s always there. Somewhere. Somehow. She can’t afford to have Obama just up and quit. None of them can. The tactics used to obtain the position of president are now being protected by the position of president. Sold his soul for a job he can’t stand. Get it? Obama put himself in a fuckin’ corner of his own making. His own and the makings of those who placed him there, and there ain’t no way they allow him to just quit it. Way too much invested in this cluster-fuck. Billions. Trillions. Who the fuck knows?

Ulsterman: Ok, so you say Barack Obama considered not running for re-election. But now he is running hard to do just that – and the campaign is going to be…what’s the word you used?

Insider: Brutal.

Ulsterman: How so? How brutal?

Insider: How brutal? Very, that’s…that’s what—

Ulsterman (Interrupts) —No, I mean, how is it going to brutal? Any more brutal than a typical presidential campaign?

Insider: Ah…well, I’ll first say there is nothin’ typical about any presidential campaign. They are all Frankensteins. The very worst of human behavior is par for the course. Ugly-ugly-ugly. Your boy Reagan – his people were about the toughest, meanest sons-a-bitches I ever seen run a presidential campaign. All smiles and jokes and positive messaging on the outside, and kick ‘em in the fucking teeth behind the scenes. As tough as those guys were, Barack Obama is gonna be much-much worse.

Ulsterman: How? What’s the plan? What’s going to be different from all the other campaigns?

Insider: You’ve already seen it. A taste of it. Race. The race card. Racism. Race-race-race. It’s all they fucking got to run on these days.

Ulsterman: Race? Hasn’t Obama played that one out already? It’s become a joke.

Insider: Played it out? No, not…you might think so but no…his people are going to raise the issue of race to a level this country hasn’t seen since the Civil Rights movement. White guilt got Barack Obama the nomination. White guilt got Barack Obama into the White House. At least it was a big part of it…they are not sure they can run on the economy by summer of 2012. Motivation is way down – the people on the ground. Many of them will be sitting this one out. The campaign conducted over five internals in the last few months. Each time the one issue that came back favorably for the president was the color of his skin. People are not comfortable…white people are not comfortable going against a person of color. At least not a whole lot of them. Those studies – those kinds of studies…they were first incorporated by the Hillary campaign back in 2007 and 2008. It scared the hell out of her – she was so afraid of being called a racist. So she attacked Obama on his lack of experience, she just touched on some of the Chicago garbage…but in the end, the race issue kept her from really engaging in all out political war. The Clinton machine was handcuffed. When Obama used race to get America to forgive the fact he spent some 20 years sitting in the church of a proven anti-American fascist fucking racist – what could they do? It was game over. I told you a bit of that already…at the start of all this. Right?

Ulsterman: Yes – how you were stunned Obama survived the Jeremiah Wright scandal.

Insider: Nobody should have survived that. No candidate…I don’t care how good…nobody survives something so – they had the videos for fuck’s sake!

Ulsterman: But he did survive it – and rather easily. He gave that speech, and the media praised him for it and the issue was dead.

Insider: EXACTLY. Don’t you understand it then? How race – that very thing that pulled his ass out of the fire back in 2008 – that’s the plan for 2012. But even more of it. They got an entire plan to utilize it. Targeting certain states. A media campaign. Use it as a weapon against prospective opponents – the Romney people better be ready because he’s gonna get his ass kicked with the race issue and he won’t even see it coming. They better have their boy prepared for that…

Ulsterman: States? Media campaign? For the race issue?

Insider: Yes. It’s in place and underway – being developed. Further developed. It’s gonna – gonna tie it in with the unions somehow. I don’t know exaclty how – just that’s included in it. It will be an all out campaign on race. The goal is to completely mobilize the Black vote while shaming an even greater number of white voters into not opposing a second Obama term. They are gonna get out the guilt vote man. The guilt vote!

Ulsterman: Obama…Democrats in general, already get the Black vote – most of it.

Insider: They want all of it. Every last one. Then bring in the Hispanic vote, tie them up in this race issue as well. Republicans want to toss you out. Obama wants to bring you in. They hate the color of Obama’s skin just like they hate the color of yours. Hey White America, you aren’t part of that group who hates non-whites are you? If not, you better get out and vote for Barack Obama.

Ulsterman: That sounds overly simplistic and insulting to voters. You really think something like that would actually work?

Insider: Hell yes-yes… it can work. It’s not gonna come so easy as it did in 2008, but that’s why they plan to ramp it up – the race issue. Look, you got generations of voters in this country who have been hammered with guilt for being white. Schools, television, movies…decades of this racism shit coming at them from all sides. White guilt is very real. I’ve used it-done it myself… countless times in an election campaign. And for Barack Obama…his re-election team – they are banking on it bringing victory in 2012. Even if it means the threat of race riots. They are willing to go that far – go down that road if need be. If the Obama team can’t guilt enough of White America into voting for them in 2012 – they are just fine with trying to scare the shit out of them to do it. And you need to know that there are a lot of Democrats who are hearing about this and are not on board. We’ve always used the race issue to our advantage – but what the Obama team has planned is something…it’s something else altogether. Off the charts stuff. Remember when I said that Obama ain’t no Democrat? That’s as true now as it’s ever been. And he’s on some kind of collission course now with everybody scrambling to get out of the way, and then some of us trying to do what we can to stop it before it’s too late. He’s already destroyed the party…much of it. Gonna take a long time to recover. Daley can’t stop this from within. He’s moderated the damage, but he’s wearing down. Now it’s the country we are worried about. My kids and grandkids will do all right without a Democratic Party around. They need to have an America though. The whole world does.

Ulsterman: You really believe Barack Obama would go that far to win in 2012? He would be willing to engage in that kind of tactic? Just how far would he go?

Insider: (Pauses)… As far as it takes. We’re preparing for it. I sure as hell hope America is too. Like I told you…this election coming up…Brutal.
___________________


PART ONE AVAILABLE HERE:

http://newsflavor.com/politics/white-house-insider-the-obama-plan-part-one/

PART THREE AVAILABLE HERE:

http://newsflavor.com/politics/us-politics/white-house-insider-the-obama-plan-part-three-2/

The Ulsterman Report: President Obama Places "N*gger" Painting in White House

In a move clearly supporting the dire warnings of a Barack Obama race-based re-election campaign, President Obama places just outside the Oval Office perhaps the most controversial painting to ever reside within the White House.

As he prepares to give a Martin Luther King memorial speech this weekend that D.C. insiders are already calling a move to further ignite the white guilt strategy that worked so well for them in 2008, the Obama administration too a further and perhaps even more stunning step in re-igniting old racial wounds across America. This week it became known that Obama had placed in a hall just outside the Oval Office the highly controversial Norman Rockwell painting named “The Problem We All Live With” – a searing depiction of the 1960 integration controversy that swept the country at that time.

That painting shows a then six-year old African American Ruby Bridges being escorted into a New Orleans elementary school by federal authorities despite strong opposition by white locals. The painting has the term “Nigger” as one of the primary focal points. It was his use of that term that has made the painting among the most controversial of Rockwell’s normally more historically serene depictions of Americana. The president’s use of this painting also coincides with a particularly aggressive attack by many leading Democrats against the Tea Party where the charges of racism against Tea Party members appears to be the most common tactic.

The fact Barack Obama would utilize such an openly controversial painting just outside the Oval Office, in conjunction with this weekend’s Martin Luther King memorial speech, is yet further proof of an administration quite willing to even more further utilize the issue of race politics in the upcoming 2012 re-election campaign than was done in 2008. It should also be noted that Barack Obama himself is not African American.

That reality is apparently of little concern to the Obama administration as it prepares to unleash its 2012 re-election race campaign.

RELATED STORY:


“Even if it means the threat of race riots. They are willing to go that far – go down that road if need be. If the Obama team can’t guilt enough of White America into voting for them in 2012 – they are just fine with trying to scare the sh-t out of them to do it.” -INSIDER

http://newsflavor.com/politics/us-politics/white-house-insider-the-obama-plan-part-two/

A White House Insider Look at the Obama “Playpen” — He Really IS Watching ESPN All Day??

For the last year, I’ve been reading the foul-mouthed rants of the mysterious ‘White House Insider’. No one knows who this man is, but one thing is for certain – he clearly has intense inside knowledge of the occupant of the Oval Office – Barack Hussein Obama. It was the Insider, for instance, who spilled the beans about how Obama had absolutely nothing to do with the take-down of bin Laden (it was then-CIA director, Leon Panetta who orchestrated it); and it was also the Insider who revealed the President’s laziness which led him to dump all of his work on aides, notably Valerie Jarrett (who is the ‘real’ power in the Oval Office). But I confess this latest expose of Obama’s total unfitness to be President has knocked me for a loop. According to the Insider, the President has abandoned his duties to this nation so totally that he’s morphed from a 50 year old adult in the Oval Office into a spoiled 12 year old kid in his play room.

Barack Obama travelling with his ...mmm....."body man" and basketballer Reggie Love

And it literally is a play room – specifically a room on the 2nd floor of the West Wing where the President now spends all his time. It’s to that room hapless officials must come to present their proposals to the President. And when those visitors arrive, this is the disgusting spectacle that greets them.

http://newsflavor.com/politics/us-politics/white-house-insider-the-obama-plan-part-three-2/

President Obama…spends his time there often in shorts, or sweats, a t-shirt, and those sandal things…flip-flops. There is a large screen television in there and that’s where hours of his time are spent when he is actually at the White House. Day in and day out. The First Lady rules the residence, and the president heads over to his 2nd floor West Wing study. Starting around last spring, he started to take regular briefings in there. And the instructions that went out on those briefings to the president were that they were to be most importantly – brief. Anything more than about 15 minutes is unacceptable to Obama.

So let’s look through the eyes of someone heading into Barack Obama’s upstairs office at the White House to give him a briefing. Maybe it’s on national security. Maybe the economy. Energy policy. Whatever – doesn’t matter. The scenario being played out these days is pretty much the same regardless of the particulars. You knock on the door – it’s always closed. Always. Often you have to knock for some time before being given approval from inside to enter. The big screen will be on – the volume loud. You can easily hear it from outside the door. The sports channels are the ones most commonly playing, though sometimes the channel will be set to music, or Fox News. Sometimes Valerie Jarrett might be there, but most often it is just the president and his personal aide. A large leather chair will be facing the television – it’s well worn. Not part of the White House furnishings but something the president must have brought in from back home. That’s where you’ll most often find the President of the United States – the most powerful man in the free fucking world. He often sits with one leg draped over one of the chair’s arms and the other leg stuck straight onto the floor. Shorts, sweats, a t-shirt, and like I said, no shoes or just those sandal things that so many of the younger people like to wear these days. And that leg that’s draped over an arm of the chair will be bopping up and down, like…like someone with a lot of nervous energy. Like a kid does. And there’s the smell of smoke hanging on the president. The guy never quit smoking – that was all bullshit. I told you that already. In fact, there’s one of those smokeless ash trays on the desk in there. And that desk, it’s a mess. Magazines spread out all over it. Stupid shit too. Real low brow reading material the president is into. People. Rolling Stone. Lots of those tabloid things. The most common thread with this shit is it’s about the president. If it’s about him, he’s gonna read it. Good or bad – doesn’t matter. If somebody is talking about him, he’s reading it. He’s watching it. Whatever. The guy’s self-obsession is off the f**king charts.

So that’s what you first see when you enter the room – the upstairs office of President Obama. Next you’re gonna notice how small the guy looks. Really thin. He pads his suits up you know. The top end. The shoulders. It became an actual issue during the 2008 campaign – some of his handlers were saying it made his neck look too small. Fact is, it made his neck look just like it is – small. The guy is scrawny. All knees and elbows sitting in that chair. Sometimes he gets up when you come in, sometimes he remains seated and will just turn the volume on the TV down with the remote and say, “What you got?” That foot is bouncing up and down while you give him the briefing, but he rarely looks over at you – always looking at whatever is on the television. If it’s Jarrett in the room, or the personal assistant, one of them is there to keep the time. Your time. Don’t go over that fifteen minutes. And even if the president doesn’t look like he hears a word you’re saying, they are listening to everything. Every g*dd*mn syllable coming out of your mouth, and if something is said they don’t like, they jot down notes. Been told it’s to use for the end of day summary they give the president – their own version of what is important and what can be ignored…and who might need to be pushed down, or pushed out…or whatever. So you’re looking at the president, this skinny guy, who’s ignoring you, who’s dressed like some kind of f**king frat boy wannabe, with somebody else taking notes on what you’re saying, and then you get up and walk out. The president might acknowledge you on some days, give a little nod, maybe even a thank you, but most often he just continues to look at the TV, bounce that foot on the chair, his skin looking off-color, pale, the eyes out of focus, the hair a helleva lot more gray than is shown in public, the wrinkles around the mouth far deeper…and the hands. His f**king hands are so…they are just these thin little stick digits. They are like these long-fingered woman’s hands. And his wrists, you could wrap your own fingers all the way around those wrists – again, so much like a woman’s hands. Almost freakish. Certainly not the strong alpha-male type image that America was given during the 2008 campaign.”

Well, the President had better enjoy his fun time in that room because, come November 2012, a whole lot of enraged voters are going to kick that ‘kid’ back to his grubby playpen in Chicago.



http://www.uncoverage.net/2011/08/a-white-house-insider-look-at-the...

Latinos now outnumber African Americans at college

Latinos now outnumber African Americans at college
Latino college enrollment surged 24% last year, the Pew Hispanic Center says

The number of Latino students enrolled at U.S. colleges has surpassed the number of African American students on campus for the first time, researchers at the Pew Hispanic Center have found.

Latino college enrollment surged 24% last fall, according to the center’s analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data gathered in October 2010. College-age Hispanics now represent 15 percent, or 1.8 million, of the young adults enrolled in U.S. colleges, while black students account for 1.7 million and Asians account for about 800,000, Reuters reports.

African Americans remained the largest minority group in four-year colleges because nearly half of all Hispanic students attended two-year community colleges.

Overall, college-age whites are still the largest population on college campuses. Of the 12.2 million young adults enrolled in college in 2010, 7.7 million were white, the Pew study said.

Several factors are behind the growing numbers of Latino college students, education experts explained.

Hispanics are a relatively young population, and an increasing percentage has been reaching college age, Deborah Santiago, vice president for policy and research at Washington-based research group Excelencia in Education, told Bloomberg News. In addition, she said, “we’re finding that more Latino students are graduating from high school after taking a curriculum that would make them college-ready.”

Richard Fry, the Pew researcher who authored the study, said the downturn in the U.S. economy might be inspiring Latino students to go to community colleges for more vocational training if they can’t find jobs after high school, Reuters reports.

Latino interest in higher education is good news for U.S. colleges, since white student enrollment is declining. White student enrollment decreased from 8 million to 7.7 million from 2009 to 2010, according to Pew. Yet increases in minority student enrollment pushed the number of 18- to 24-year-old college students to a record high in 2010. (Young black college enrollment increased by 5% and young Asian college enrollment by 6%, the Pew study said.)

At many colleges in the South and West, Jim Hundrieser, a vice president at education consultants Noel-Levitz in Colorado, told the Wall Street Journal, "Hispanic enrollment is going to be key to fiscal health."

Perfectly Timed Friday Afternoon Obamacare Waiver Dump

Ever since the waivers became a news item the administration has been working hard to downplay them. First they changed the website where the new waivers were announced, with no announcement or link to the new site. Now they’ve started waiting until Friday afternoons to release the latest figures:

The Obama administration granted another 106 waivers last month from part of the healthcare reform law — the first round of three-year waivers the Health and Human Services Department has approved.

The new approvals bring the total number of waivers to 1,472, according to HHS. Those figures cover waivers granted through the end of July. HHS will stop granting new waivers after September.

In case you missed it, Obama admitted the real purpose of these waivers at one of his recent bus tour campaign stops:

how do you manage that transition in a way in which a bunch of companies don’t say to themselves well we’re just going to eliminate healthcare…we’re willing to give some waivers to some companies that are doing something when it comes to healthcare because those employees don’t have a better option right now but as we build up this better option then they’ll be able to take advantage of that better option.

In other words, they don’t want companies to start dumping employees–exactly as conservative predicted would happen–until the exchanges are ready for them to be dumped upon. Once the exchanges are up and running and the waivers end, you can bet a lot of companies will be availing themselves of this option.

Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy Martin

You think it's rough for Obama now? Wait til Larry Johnson's sources finally release the Whitey tape!

Boy the waters are roiling. It is true that we stand on the precipice of electing the least vetted, unqualified man for President in the history of the United States. I am getting a flood of emails from folks–most well intentioned and a few trolls–desperate for the October surprise, whatever it might be. So let me try to answer some of the questions circulating.

The Whitey Tape–None of my three main sources on who told me about the existence of a video recording of Michelle Obama making disparaging comments about white folks have backed off. Two of these sources are Democrats and are journalists. They were not trying to sabotage the Obama campaign. They were passing on something they believed to be true. The fact that my third source, a person who lives on the West Coast and is a Republican, has no ties whatsoever to the other two but told the same story persuaded me this “tape” exists. My Republican friend tells me that the McCain campaign intervened and requested the tape not be used.

There also is the fact that the Obama campaign at one point circulated the lame story that Michelle was not using “whitey” as an epithet. Nope. She was saying, “Why’d he.” You don’t put out a story line like that if such a recording does not exist. At this point I don’t think it is going to be used.

African Press InternationalMany of the conservative blogs are buzzing about the supposed release of an audiotape featuring Michelle Obama complaining about API coverage and her alleged acknowledgment that Barack was an Indonesian citizen. I have no doubt that Barack was adopted by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro, and became an Indonesian citizen as a child. However, I don’t find this report credible. I am happy to be proven wrong in my belief, but I don’t think Michelle Obama is just sitting around watching and reading news accounts and calling up folks to complain. If that was true I would have expected a call from the lovely Mrs. Obama. API is claiming it has the audiotape and it will be released imminently. I was born and raised in Independence, Missouri. I am a Show Me state boy. I am not writing anymore on this matter until an audiotape appears.

Phil Berg and his lawsuit–Poor Phil Berg. He can’t get arrested in Philadelphia right now. His effort to mount a legal challenge to Barack Obama’s qualifications, or lack thereof in terms of citizenship, to be President appears to be going no where. Yet he is declaring victory of sorts today. According to a story at America’s Right:

Berg: Due to Procedure, Obama and DNC Admit all Allegations

According to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party upon whom requests for admissions have been served must respond, within 30 days, or else the matters in the requests will be automatically deemed conclusively admitted for purposes of the pending action.

On September 15, as part of his federal lawsuit contending that the Illinois senator is ineligible, pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, to serve as president of the United States, Philadelphia attorney Philip Berg served Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee with just such a request. Soon thereafter, on October 6, Barack Obama and the DNC acknowledged service in their motion for protective order, filed in an attempt to persuade the court to stay discovery. The Federal Rules require that a response to a request for admissions be served within the 30-day time limit, and Barack Obama and the DNC have not done so.

Therefore, this morning, amidst news reports that Barack Obama will be suspending his campaign for a few days so he can fly to Hawaii to visit his grandmother, who has suddenly fallen ill, Philip Berg will file two motions in district court in Philadelphia:

A motion requesting an immediate order deeming his request for admissions served upon Barack Obama and the DNC on September 15 admitted by default, and
A motion requesting an expedited ruling and/or hearing on Berg’s motion deeming the request for admissions served upon Obama and the DNC admitted.

Berg contends that the failure to respond and serve the response within the time limit is “damning,” and made two appearances overnight on Rollye James’ talk radio program, the second one coming shortly after midnight, during which he disclosed the meat of today’s filings and the legal and political ramifications of the defendants’ failure to respond.

I am not a lawyer but I thought the DNC has asked for a delay and the judge in the case still has not ruled. I think this much is certain. Even if Obama is elected these questions, like Whitewater in the case of the Clintons, is not going to disappear and will be fodder for further investigations and legal challenges.

Andy Martin–And Mr. Martin is in the news. The Obama team came after him as a rabid anti-Semite. Let me see if I have this right, Barack Obama hangs out with Louis Farrakhan and Rashid Khalidi and Andy Martin is the anti-Semite? Anyway, Andy is in Hawaii and many are speculating that his investigative efforts there are the real reason that Barack has suspended his campaign and headed for Honolulu. There is a nifty thread on Andy’s efforts over at the Hillary Clinton forum (read here). I don’t know if there is any fire beneath the smoke Andy is putting up, but we will know by next Tuesday.

Conclusion
I believe we ought to start the rumor that Barack Obama really is a disgruntled plumber from Ohio. That appears to be the only way the media will be inspired to conduct a thorough investigation of why Barack has covered up and mythologized his childhood and his ties to radicals like Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Louis Farrakhan. All hail Barack!

By Larry Johnson

Barack Obama in Serious Polling Trouble in Battle Ground State of Pennsylvania … 35% Job Approval

Key state battle ground polling troubles for Obama … looks like they cling to more than their “guns and Bibles”.

In the 2008 Presidential election, Barack Obama defeated John McCain in Pennsylvania 54.7% to 44.3%. In April 2009, just after Barack Obama started as President and and just after the stimulus bill was passed, Obama was at 61% approval in the Keystone state. Now according to a recent Muhlenberg College poll released Friday,Obama has dropped to a 35% job approval rating among registered voters. OUCH!!!

President Barack Obama, who political experts say will need a win in Pennsylvania to retain the White House, dipped to 35 percent approval among the state’s registered voters, according to a Muhlenberg College poll released Friday.

The results come on the heels of a bad week in polls for Obama that showed him first dropping to 39 percent nationwide in Gallup’s daily tracking poll. Then another set of Gallup results Thursday showed only 26 percent of Americans approve of how Obama is handling the economy.

The unemployment rate in PA is presently 9% and Pennsylvanians seem pessimistic about the economy.Once again Barack Obama is being bit by the terrible US economy and the fact that he has promised jobs and delivered nothing. Many in Pennsylvania believe that Obama’s policies have negatively affected the economy.

Asked if Obama’s policies have helped or hurt the economy, just 23 percent said helped, 41 percent said hurt and 32 percent said his policies haven’t made a difference.

Hot Air brings up some important voting registration demographic, as “Democrats enjoy a substantial registration advantage over Republicans, going well into double digits.” Earlier this month, a Quinnipiac poll had Obama with a 54% – 43% disapproval among Pennsylvania voters. There is no way that Barack Obama wins reelection if he loses Pennsylvania. However, Obama is going to have difficulty winning many states that he carried in 2008 like VA, NC, FL, OH, IN and NH. A look into the 2012 election crystal ball will show that not only will Obama have trouble in traditional swing states, or battleground states, but there will be new states that were once considered “Blue” that will be in play like Wisconsin and Michigan.

Nevada Democrat Accidentally Sends Out Internal Notes Detailing How Faking Support For Israel A “Useful” Ploy For A Democratic Candidate

Politico:

Nevadans were treated to a look inside the campaign of congressional candidate Kate Marshall on Wednesday when her staff sent out a press release that contained internal notes detailing why it would be “useful” for the Democratic candidate to support Israel.

Marshall, who is running in a special election for the seat in Nevada’s 2nd Congressional District, released a campaign statement supporting Israel as violence escalated in the Sinai peninsula and in the Gaza Strip. However, her aides accidentally left in a ‘background’ section at the bottom that explained why it would be “useful to express support for Israel.”

The background section, which was first noticed by the Las Vegas Sun’s Jon Ralston, explains that putting out the statement would “demonstrate some foreign policy prowess” during a time when “Israel has been in the news.”

The notes that were supposed to remain private also went on to say that a statement on Israel would be timely due to Glenn Beck’s recent ‘Rally to Restore Courage’ event in Jerusalem. The section alludes to the fact that Republicans are generally supporters of Israel, noting that Marshall could gain by siding with Israel “in an R district”.

The notes that were supposed to remain private also went on to say that a statement on Israel would be timely because of Glenn Beck’s recent Rally to Restore Courage event in Jerusalem. The section alludes to the fact that Republicans are generally supporters of Israel, noting that Marshall could gain by siding with Israel “in an R district.”

“I am proud to consider Israel a friend and I reiterate my unwavering support for its fundamental right to exist and the absolute necessity for Israel to secure its people from outside threats. I stand ready and willing to assist Israel in defending itself against all acts of terrorism,” Marshall said in the press release.

Marshall faces Republican Mark Amodei in a special election on Sept. 13.