Thursday, April 05, 2012
Obama's Got a Gun
Sad Hill News:
Obama says, ‘There is going to be a tug-of-war within the US between those who see globalization as a threat, and those who accept it’...
Yes, there is.
Among all the factors pushing up prices at the gas pump, the weakness of the U.S. dollar is one of the most important and least discussed. Ultimately, supply and demand set the price of oil, gasoline and all other sources of energy. But the fact that oil is priced globally in dollars also has consequences for American consumers.
When the dollar buys less, Americans pay more for oil. And right now the dollar is weak, its buying power diluted by easy money and huge budget deficits...
[Oil] plunged in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan and the Federal Reserve under Paul Volcker moved aggressively to tamp down inflation and restore confidence in the dollar. The effort succeeded.
In some ways the world oil market has changed little since then. The Mideast is still the center of the action, and Iran is still the threat at center stage. But it's a different world for the dollar. Budget deficits under Barack Obama dwarf those under Ronald Reagan (and red ink back then broke peacetime records).
The Fed under Ben Bernanke has flooded markets with liquidity every bit as aggressively as Volcker's Fed worked to tighten. Though a weak-dollar policy is not official, it is widely recognized as a fact. Reversing that policy is possible, but it would take commitment and courage that we don't see from the government today.
It's not courage. It's ideology. Call it Obama's Cloward-Piven Energy Policy.
Friday, April 6, 2012
“Opinion on Void Seizure”
Eugene Volokh • April 5, 2012 7:18 pm
Scott Johnson (PowerLine) reports on this very interesting case (United States v. $35,131.00 in United States Currency (S.D. Tex. Apr. 2, 2012)). I’m not sure whether the opinion is legally sound — this is far from my area of expertise — but I thought I’d pass it along, and I’d love to hear what others who know this area of the law have to say:
1. Introduction.
At the airport, federal officers confiscated $35,131 from a family flying to Ethiopia. They said that the couple intentionally attempted to evade the reporting requirements for taking money outside of the United States. The citizens clearly had no intention to violate the rules, and the government must return their money and pay for their attorney’s fees and costs of court.
2. Background.
On June 2, 2011, Kyle Jones and his wife Berekti Jones were at George Bush Intercontinental Airport with their daughter Soliyana. They were flying to Ethiopia through Dubai and planned to stay in Addis Ababa for two, months while visiting family and celebrating Soliyana’s second birthday.
The law requires that an international traveler declare on a form(a) that he has no more than $10,000 or (b) report the amount. When the couple reached the first check, officer Agustin Hernandez from the Customs and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security asked Kyle how much currency and monetary instruments he had on him. Kyle responded that he did not know. Hernandez then asked how many dollars he was carrying; Kyle replied that he would guess around $20,200. Hernandez wrote $20,200 on the form. He told Kyle to sign it, and Kyle did.
Hernandez then took the family to another table where officer Charlesworth Clarke told them to put all of their currency on it. At that point, Kyle asked what counted as currency because he had traveler’s checks. From his six carry-on bags and jacket he retrieved everything -– $20,000 in traveler’s checks and $11,131 in cash. Berekti, who had been tending to their daughter during the conversations, handed the officer her wallet. It had $4,ooo in cash. The officers then frisked the Joneses and searched their bags, and found no additional money -– however described.
The officers seized the entire $31,131 that the Joneses had voluntarily given them and released them from custody. Having missed their flight, the Joneses spent $1,500 to replace the tickets plus having had to rent a hotel room.
3. Intent.
Six officers appeared at the trial, four of whom testified. A “case agent” sat with the government’s counsel. He knew nothing. His sole contribution had been to enter data into a computer; he could not have assisted the United States attorney. In addition to overreaching the people whom they are to serve, three officers wasted oneehalf day watching four others embarrass themselves.
The government presented no evidence — none — that the Joneses intended to evade the reporting requirements. Kyle told Hernandez that he did not know the amount of money he was carrying. Saying “I do not know” is not a deliberate failure to report. After Hernandez insisted on an answer, Kyle said that he would have to guess. [Footnote: Reports on Exporting and Importing Monetary Instruments, 31 U.S.C. §§ 5316 (1986).] Guessing is not a material omission or a misstatement of fact — certainly not one the government can use to steal the money. [Id. §§ 5317(c)(2), 5324(c).]
The agency’s official publications say that its officers can help travelers complete the form if they require assistance. Instead of ensuring that the Joneses understood the scope of “monetary instruments” and other reporting requirements, the officers took advantage of their guess. Hernandez instructed Kyle to complete the form before allowing him to count his money, and the others never let them correct it once their guess was shown to have been low.
These public servants sought to earn credit with their agency by collecting money. Some of it is returned to the agency –- like justices of the peace whose pay is derived directly from the fines they impose. They focused on bureaucratic imperatives — not their duties to the public and law. [Footnote: Leonard W. Levy, A License to Steal: The Forfeiture of Property (1996).]
The agencies that manage law officers create profiles of suspicious people. Ignoring for a moment that they include contradictions — like he rushed or he was very early, he looked the officer in the eye or he evaded loohng him in the eye — the Joneses displayed no suspicious behavior. At every step they were candid if imprecise. They were traveling as a family, in normal dress, and remained polite and calm.
They were taking money for a two month stay in Addis Ababa, Berekti’s city of birth — a city that operates almost entirely in cash. It was reasonable that they would have cash and traveler’s checks, and it was a precaution to split it among their bags and each other. Nothing was hidden.
Hernandez never should have asked Kyle to sign the form on a guess; rather, he should have had him count it at the second station and report the exact amount. Hernandez, with the connivance of his fellows, showed the only deceit. It appears that the officer’s entire approach was to target the Joneses. They should have taken the family to the side and allowed them to count their money. They should have explained what constituted currency and given them adequate time to complete the form. Instead, they manipulated the Joneses’ confusion into a deliberate failure to report. The officers accepted a guess from Kyle. When it was wrong, they took all of their money — for no harm and no deceit. They had no interest in ensuring that the couple adhered to the law. They wanted a statistic for their supervisor, and they cudgeled the Joneses to get one.
A lack of leadership at the agency allowed this. Its mission statement — which none of the officers could recall at the trial — is to serve the American public with vigilance, integrity, and professionalism. They displayed none of these. The agency says that integrity is its cornerstone; that its officers are guided by the highest ethical and moral principles. A gang of armed security officers bullied this family — a family who cooperated with the officers to their detriment. Our homeland will not be secure by these rascals. They played agency games, abused the people they are to serve, and violated their oaths to support the Constitution.
In the initial conference, the United States demanded to seize the full amount even though, as the defense counsel mentioned, the recommended forfeiture for a conviction of criminal evasion would have been $500 to $5,000. The United States must pay the $35,131 to Kyle Jones and Berekti Jones and their attorney’s fees and costs of court.
Scott Johnson (PowerLine) reports on this very interesting case (United States v. $35,131.00 in United States Currency (S.D. Tex. Apr. 2, 2012)). I’m not sure whether the opinion is legally sound — this is far from my area of expertise — but I thought I’d pass it along, and I’d love to hear what others who know this area of the law have to say:
1. Introduction.
At the airport, federal officers confiscated $35,131 from a family flying to Ethiopia. They said that the couple intentionally attempted to evade the reporting requirements for taking money outside of the United States. The citizens clearly had no intention to violate the rules, and the government must return their money and pay for their attorney’s fees and costs of court.
2. Background.
On June 2, 2011, Kyle Jones and his wife Berekti Jones were at George Bush Intercontinental Airport with their daughter Soliyana. They were flying to Ethiopia through Dubai and planned to stay in Addis Ababa for two, months while visiting family and celebrating Soliyana’s second birthday.
The law requires that an international traveler declare on a form(a) that he has no more than $10,000 or (b) report the amount. When the couple reached the first check, officer Agustin Hernandez from the Customs and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security asked Kyle how much currency and monetary instruments he had on him. Kyle responded that he did not know. Hernandez then asked how many dollars he was carrying; Kyle replied that he would guess around $20,200. Hernandez wrote $20,200 on the form. He told Kyle to sign it, and Kyle did.
Hernandez then took the family to another table where officer Charlesworth Clarke told them to put all of their currency on it. At that point, Kyle asked what counted as currency because he had traveler’s checks. From his six carry-on bags and jacket he retrieved everything -– $20,000 in traveler’s checks and $11,131 in cash. Berekti, who had been tending to their daughter during the conversations, handed the officer her wallet. It had $4,ooo in cash. The officers then frisked the Joneses and searched their bags, and found no additional money -– however described.
The officers seized the entire $31,131 that the Joneses had voluntarily given them and released them from custody. Having missed their flight, the Joneses spent $1,500 to replace the tickets plus having had to rent a hotel room.
3. Intent.
Six officers appeared at the trial, four of whom testified. A “case agent” sat with the government’s counsel. He knew nothing. His sole contribution had been to enter data into a computer; he could not have assisted the United States attorney. In addition to overreaching the people whom they are to serve, three officers wasted oneehalf day watching four others embarrass themselves.
The government presented no evidence — none — that the Joneses intended to evade the reporting requirements. Kyle told Hernandez that he did not know the amount of money he was carrying. Saying “I do not know” is not a deliberate failure to report. After Hernandez insisted on an answer, Kyle said that he would have to guess. [Footnote: Reports on Exporting and Importing Monetary Instruments, 31 U.S.C. §§ 5316 (1986).] Guessing is not a material omission or a misstatement of fact — certainly not one the government can use to steal the money. [Id. §§ 5317(c)(2), 5324(c).]
The agency’s official publications say that its officers can help travelers complete the form if they require assistance. Instead of ensuring that the Joneses understood the scope of “monetary instruments” and other reporting requirements, the officers took advantage of their guess. Hernandez instructed Kyle to complete the form before allowing him to count his money, and the others never let them correct it once their guess was shown to have been low.
These public servants sought to earn credit with their agency by collecting money. Some of it is returned to the agency –- like justices of the peace whose pay is derived directly from the fines they impose. They focused on bureaucratic imperatives — not their duties to the public and law. [Footnote: Leonard W. Levy, A License to Steal: The Forfeiture of Property (1996).]
The agencies that manage law officers create profiles of suspicious people. Ignoring for a moment that they include contradictions — like he rushed or he was very early, he looked the officer in the eye or he evaded loohng him in the eye — the Joneses displayed no suspicious behavior. At every step they were candid if imprecise. They were traveling as a family, in normal dress, and remained polite and calm.
They were taking money for a two month stay in Addis Ababa, Berekti’s city of birth — a city that operates almost entirely in cash. It was reasonable that they would have cash and traveler’s checks, and it was a precaution to split it among their bags and each other. Nothing was hidden.
Hernandez never should have asked Kyle to sign the form on a guess; rather, he should have had him count it at the second station and report the exact amount. Hernandez, with the connivance of his fellows, showed the only deceit. It appears that the officer’s entire approach was to target the Joneses. They should have taken the family to the side and allowed them to count their money. They should have explained what constituted currency and given them adequate time to complete the form. Instead, they manipulated the Joneses’ confusion into a deliberate failure to report. The officers accepted a guess from Kyle. When it was wrong, they took all of their money — for no harm and no deceit. They had no interest in ensuring that the couple adhered to the law. They wanted a statistic for their supervisor, and they cudgeled the Joneses to get one.
A lack of leadership at the agency allowed this. Its mission statement — which none of the officers could recall at the trial — is to serve the American public with vigilance, integrity, and professionalism. They displayed none of these. The agency says that integrity is its cornerstone; that its officers are guided by the highest ethical and moral principles. A gang of armed security officers bullied this family — a family who cooperated with the officers to their detriment. Our homeland will not be secure by these rascals. They played agency games, abused the people they are to serve, and violated their oaths to support the Constitution.
In the initial conference, the United States demanded to seize the full amount even though, as the defense counsel mentioned, the recommended forfeiture for a conviction of criminal evasion would have been $500 to $5,000. The United States must pay the $35,131 to Kyle Jones and Berekti Jones and their attorney’s fees and costs of court.
What Happened to Black Pride?
April 6, 2012
What Happened to Black Pride?
By Kevin Jackson
For a few decades, black Liberals have settled for anything. Fake watches, fake purses, and especially fake leaders. If the black Liberal community were truthful, they would admit their disappointment in Barack Obama.
If Obama were a basketball player, he would be the equivalent of the guy who couldn't inbound the ball or constantly double-dribbles. He's the guy to whom you just quit passing the ball; because when he gets the ball, he always shoots and always misses.
What happened to black pride? There was a time when black people didn't settle for failures like Obama; they expected more from blacks who were blessed to get the opportunity for greatness. Whether it was sports, entertainment, or politics, blacks who were set up for something transcendental carried the expectation of the entire black race on their shoulders. Much was riding on his or her success, regardless of the role.
Each time the baton was passed, the next black understood the obligation to represent, to show the world that the black man had a contribution to make, and we would not squander it. We were to be among the best, and expected to be better than whites in terms of our humanity. Many blacks received the admonition that if you were to do a job that put you in the spotlight, do it "twice as good as a white person."
Blacks had known the shackles of slavery; thus we would work to see that no one was ever enslaved. We had witnessed the lack of civil rights at the hands of Democrats first-hand, so we would fight for the civil rights of all. Because of our struggles, blacks had a unique perspective passed on generation to generation as something that could unite us. Black knew something whites in America would never truly know -- the ability to rise above it all.
Every time there was black success, black people would say, "There's another example that you can't keep a black man down." How powerful is it to know that you can overcome anything? This is why black unemployment during the '50s was practically unheard of. Black people were the best employees, the most diligent, innovative and inventive of that time.
Yet in a few short decades, the Democrats managed to destroy that sense of pride in accomplishment in black America, trading it for pride in just being black, real pride of our glorious heritage stolen.
Liberal black "leaders" are the perpetrators of the theft. They victimize other blacks and the rest of the country in order to gain in stature and would sell their children to get ahead, and they have. Nevertheless, black Liberals want these circus clowns as their spokesmen, clowns who have convinced the black people they supposedly represent that a person is evil for simply having been born with slightly different DNA that makes them white.
The majority of blacks are employed by whites. But you won't see black ethno-centric '60s throwback radical quitting their jobs. Because in the time of the first black president, black unemployment is so high that these black radicals are lucky to have jobs. "Who are the real sellouts?"
Lovie Smith, the black coach of the Chicago Bears and member of "African-Americans for Obama" says, "Despite Obama's dismal record, we need to support him because he's black." Since Smith hasn't won a Super Bowl, can we assume that Smith isn't coaching as well as he would for a black owner? Or should we assume that the owner was forced to hire Smith based on the Affirmative Action, and Smith is simply another incompetent black Liberal in over his head.
When does truth trump color for black people? Black people in America have gotten almost everything we have asked of this country, yet it's still not enough for many blacks, Liberal Democrat racist blacks.
Our forefathers would be embarrassed at the outcome of the black community, and the fact that by now we have not overcome being the "black race" and risen to the level of being part of the "human race." Our forefathers pictured an America where faith in God, family, love of country, education and work-ethic were the core of what represented the black community. They expected by now that black people would represent the greatness of America, a country that despite its problems offered those once deemed lowest to rise to the top.
Instead of celebrating America's first recognized black president and all the strides black people have made however, there are those in the black community who want to make sure that black pride remains a thing of the past. Those black demagogues want America's first recognized black president to reset the clock on civil rights and oppress white people who had nothing to do with the past oppression of black people by Democrats.
Though a proud black man, I put no race above another. I believe in the human race above all things, as I believe God made man's essence in his own image, not his color. Color is merely a geographical trait and has no bearing on one's character. It's time black people concede to a higher calling, transcend race, and find the pride in having been a significant part in the building of the greatest country the world has ever known.
Kevin Jackson - The Black Sphere, LLC - All Rights Reserved.
What Happened to Black Pride?
By Kevin Jackson
For a few decades, black Liberals have settled for anything. Fake watches, fake purses, and especially fake leaders. If the black Liberal community were truthful, they would admit their disappointment in Barack Obama.
If Obama were a basketball player, he would be the equivalent of the guy who couldn't inbound the ball or constantly double-dribbles. He's the guy to whom you just quit passing the ball; because when he gets the ball, he always shoots and always misses.
What happened to black pride? There was a time when black people didn't settle for failures like Obama; they expected more from blacks who were blessed to get the opportunity for greatness. Whether it was sports, entertainment, or politics, blacks who were set up for something transcendental carried the expectation of the entire black race on their shoulders. Much was riding on his or her success, regardless of the role.
Each time the baton was passed, the next black understood the obligation to represent, to show the world that the black man had a contribution to make, and we would not squander it. We were to be among the best, and expected to be better than whites in terms of our humanity. Many blacks received the admonition that if you were to do a job that put you in the spotlight, do it "twice as good as a white person."
Blacks had known the shackles of slavery; thus we would work to see that no one was ever enslaved. We had witnessed the lack of civil rights at the hands of Democrats first-hand, so we would fight for the civil rights of all. Because of our struggles, blacks had a unique perspective passed on generation to generation as something that could unite us. Black knew something whites in America would never truly know -- the ability to rise above it all.
Every time there was black success, black people would say, "There's another example that you can't keep a black man down." How powerful is it to know that you can overcome anything? This is why black unemployment during the '50s was practically unheard of. Black people were the best employees, the most diligent, innovative and inventive of that time.
Yet in a few short decades, the Democrats managed to destroy that sense of pride in accomplishment in black America, trading it for pride in just being black, real pride of our glorious heritage stolen.
Liberal black "leaders" are the perpetrators of the theft. They victimize other blacks and the rest of the country in order to gain in stature and would sell their children to get ahead, and they have. Nevertheless, black Liberals want these circus clowns as their spokesmen, clowns who have convinced the black people they supposedly represent that a person is evil for simply having been born with slightly different DNA that makes them white.
The majority of blacks are employed by whites. But you won't see black ethno-centric '60s throwback radical quitting their jobs. Because in the time of the first black president, black unemployment is so high that these black radicals are lucky to have jobs. "Who are the real sellouts?"
Lovie Smith, the black coach of the Chicago Bears and member of "African-Americans for Obama" says, "Despite Obama's dismal record, we need to support him because he's black." Since Smith hasn't won a Super Bowl, can we assume that Smith isn't coaching as well as he would for a black owner? Or should we assume that the owner was forced to hire Smith based on the Affirmative Action, and Smith is simply another incompetent black Liberal in over his head.
When does truth trump color for black people? Black people in America have gotten almost everything we have asked of this country, yet it's still not enough for many blacks, Liberal Democrat racist blacks.
Our forefathers would be embarrassed at the outcome of the black community, and the fact that by now we have not overcome being the "black race" and risen to the level of being part of the "human race." Our forefathers pictured an America where faith in God, family, love of country, education and work-ethic were the core of what represented the black community. They expected by now that black people would represent the greatness of America, a country that despite its problems offered those once deemed lowest to rise to the top.
Instead of celebrating America's first recognized black president and all the strides black people have made however, there are those in the black community who want to make sure that black pride remains a thing of the past. Those black demagogues want America's first recognized black president to reset the clock on civil rights and oppress white people who had nothing to do with the past oppression of black people by Democrats.
Though a proud black man, I put no race above another. I believe in the human race above all things, as I believe God made man's essence in his own image, not his color. Color is merely a geographical trait and has no bearing on one's character. It's time black people concede to a higher calling, transcend race, and find the pride in having been a significant part in the building of the greatest country the world has ever known.
Kevin Jackson - The Black Sphere, LLC - All Rights Reserved.
Conservatives take over Obama’s latest hashtag
Posted at 8:41 pm on April 5, 2012 by Twitchy Staff
Despite its abysmal track record of launching hashtags on Twitter the Obama campaign decided to try again tonight. Thus #WhatsRomneyHiding was born.
Of course the hashtag, which became a worldwide trending topic, hasn’t been used as Obama’s campaign intended. Instead of demands to see Mitt Romney’s tax returns the hashtag is filled with random jokes and tweets mocking Obama. Here are the best #WhatsRomneyHiding tweets.
KEEP READING
Despite its abysmal track record of launching hashtags on Twitter the Obama campaign decided to try again tonight. Thus #WhatsRomneyHiding was born.
Of course the hashtag, which became a worldwide trending topic, hasn’t been used as Obama’s campaign intended. Instead of demands to see Mitt Romney’s tax returns the hashtag is filled with random jokes and tweets mocking Obama. Here are the best #WhatsRomneyHiding tweets.
KEEP READING
Canada abolishes long gun registry
David Kopel • April 5, 2012 6:17 pm
Yesterday the Canadian Senate voted 50-27 to abolish the long gun registry. Bill C-19 received unanimous support from Conservative Senators, and some support from Liberals. The bill had previously passed the House of Commons. It became the law of the land today, with the Royal Assent of Canada’s Governor-General.
The bill does not change Canada’s registration system for handguns, which has been in effect since the 1930s. Nor does it change the registration system for certain long guns which have been classified as “prohibited” or “restricted” weapons. Likewise unchanged is Canada’s complicated and burdensome system for licensing gun owners, which was created by a Liberal government in the 1990s.
The registration changes, however, are monumental. Registration records for seven million ordinary long guns are to be destroyed. The government of Quebec has announced that it while file suit to attempt to obtain custody of the 1.5 million registration records pertaining to citizens of Quebec.
Ever since the regime of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in the 1970s, gun control in Canada has been primarily a culture war campaign against the “masculine” values of rural Canada, and as a means of demonstrating the dominance of Canada’s urban New Class.
To this day, the foremost public justification for all forms of gun control is Gamil Rodrigue Gharbi (who changed his name Marc Lépine). Gharbi/Lépine was the son of an alcoholic, wife-beating, child abuser who had immigrated to Canada from Algeria. In 1989, he murdered 14 women (13 by gunshot, one by stabbing), and wounded 8 women and 4 men in the engineering building of a school affiliated with the University of Montreal. An incompetent response by police dispatchers to the 911 calls gave Gharbi/Lépine the opportunity to murder at leisure.
In The Montreal Massacre (gynergy books, 1991), Quebec feminists describe their outrage, and demanded the rehabilitation of masculinity, whose (allegedly) misogynist pro-death culture is based on aggressive sports, violent entertainment, and the penetration of women during sexual intercourse.
Canada’s leading public proponent of gun control, Prof. Wendy Cukier, had previously proclaimed that in Canada, gun control is a one-way street; once restrictions are imposed, they are never lifted. This was never entirely accurate; popular demand forced the removal of some long gun restrictions that had been imposed during the World Wars. But the removal of a major peacetime anti-gun law truly does signal a new era in Canadian right to arms politics.
Efforts to repeal the long gun registry lasted 17 years, and they finally succeeded in part because the majority of Canadians have concluded that the registry was a colossal waste of money, of no value in crime control, and a pointless invasion of privacy.
Globally speaking, the repeal of the registry is the most important gun policy event of the last year. As the United Nations works towards a final draft of an Arms Trade Treaty this year, the Canadian public’s rejection of registry adds to the challenges of the global gun control organizations which want the Treaty to include gun registration requirements.
An article in Forbes profiles Saskatchewan MP Garry Breitkreuz, whose tireless work was essential to the repeal. Breitkreuz, incidentally, had started out as a supporter of registration, and changed his mind after studying the evidence about whether it would help reduce crime. Kudos also to the Canadian Sport Shooting Association, to Canada’s National Firearms Association, and especially to the late David Tomlinson, who passed away in 2007, and who for over three decades was the Founding Father and leader of Canada’s right to arms movement.
Canadian gun owners know that much more needs to be done to undo the damage caused the kulturkampf which Trudeau began, and which has burdened Canadians with laws that do nothing to enhance public safety, but whose purpose and effect is to harass and persecute law-abiding gun owners. Bill C-19 is a good first step, and a monumental one.
SOURCE: Volokh Conspiracy
Yesterday the Canadian Senate voted 50-27 to abolish the long gun registry. Bill C-19 received unanimous support from Conservative Senators, and some support from Liberals. The bill had previously passed the House of Commons. It became the law of the land today, with the Royal Assent of Canada’s Governor-General.
The bill does not change Canada’s registration system for handguns, which has been in effect since the 1930s. Nor does it change the registration system for certain long guns which have been classified as “prohibited” or “restricted” weapons. Likewise unchanged is Canada’s complicated and burdensome system for licensing gun owners, which was created by a Liberal government in the 1990s.
The registration changes, however, are monumental. Registration records for seven million ordinary long guns are to be destroyed. The government of Quebec has announced that it while file suit to attempt to obtain custody of the 1.5 million registration records pertaining to citizens of Quebec.
Ever since the regime of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in the 1970s, gun control in Canada has been primarily a culture war campaign against the “masculine” values of rural Canada, and as a means of demonstrating the dominance of Canada’s urban New Class.
To this day, the foremost public justification for all forms of gun control is Gamil Rodrigue Gharbi (who changed his name Marc Lépine). Gharbi/Lépine was the son of an alcoholic, wife-beating, child abuser who had immigrated to Canada from Algeria. In 1989, he murdered 14 women (13 by gunshot, one by stabbing), and wounded 8 women and 4 men in the engineering building of a school affiliated with the University of Montreal. An incompetent response by police dispatchers to the 911 calls gave Gharbi/Lépine the opportunity to murder at leisure.
In The Montreal Massacre (gynergy books, 1991), Quebec feminists describe their outrage, and demanded the rehabilitation of masculinity, whose (allegedly) misogynist pro-death culture is based on aggressive sports, violent entertainment, and the penetration of women during sexual intercourse.
Canada’s leading public proponent of gun control, Prof. Wendy Cukier, had previously proclaimed that in Canada, gun control is a one-way street; once restrictions are imposed, they are never lifted. This was never entirely accurate; popular demand forced the removal of some long gun restrictions that had been imposed during the World Wars. But the removal of a major peacetime anti-gun law truly does signal a new era in Canadian right to arms politics.
Efforts to repeal the long gun registry lasted 17 years, and they finally succeeded in part because the majority of Canadians have concluded that the registry was a colossal waste of money, of no value in crime control, and a pointless invasion of privacy.
Globally speaking, the repeal of the registry is the most important gun policy event of the last year. As the United Nations works towards a final draft of an Arms Trade Treaty this year, the Canadian public’s rejection of registry adds to the challenges of the global gun control organizations which want the Treaty to include gun registration requirements.
An article in Forbes profiles Saskatchewan MP Garry Breitkreuz, whose tireless work was essential to the repeal. Breitkreuz, incidentally, had started out as a supporter of registration, and changed his mind after studying the evidence about whether it would help reduce crime. Kudos also to the Canadian Sport Shooting Association, to Canada’s National Firearms Association, and especially to the late David Tomlinson, who passed away in 2007, and who for over three decades was the Founding Father and leader of Canada’s right to arms movement.
Canadian gun owners know that much more needs to be done to undo the damage caused the kulturkampf which Trudeau began, and which has burdened Canadians with laws that do nothing to enhance public safety, but whose purpose and effect is to harass and persecute law-abiding gun owners. Bill C-19 is a good first step, and a monumental one.
SOURCE: Volokh Conspiracy
Congressional Black Caucus introduces resolution to honor Trayvon Martin citing racial bias
The race hustling continues. Missouri Marxist Democrat Emanuel Cleaver has introduced a resolution in the House honoring Trayvon Martin. According to the Daily Caller, Cleaver’s resolution states that George Zimmerman has “unfounded assumptions and racial bias led to the use of deadly force” and that “this case sets a horrific precedent of vigilante justice and compromises the integrity of the legal system.” Even though nothing has been proven yet. This is the same Emanuel Cleaver who claimed he was spit on and called the n-word during the Democrats “march” to Capitol Hill before passing ObamaCARE. Cleaver has never been able to proof he was spit on, or that anyone called him the n-word.
According to Cleaver, legislators must re-examine the “troubling ‘Stand your Ground law’ which has enabled George Zimmerman to remain free.”
“To honor Trayvon’s life and protect others, it is imperative that we shine a light on this controversial, dangerous, and sometimes, deadly law that has been adopted in over 20 states, to protect our communities, and the integrity of our nation’s legal system,” he said in a statement.
Hastings claimed that Stand Your Ground laws turn “streets into a showdown at the OK Corral.”
“Let Trayvon’s death not be for naught,” Hastings added. “Let us honor his life by righting this wrong, and seeing that justice is served for Trayvon and his family. George Zimmerman must be prosecuted for his admitted shooting of Trayvon Martin and the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law must be repealed.”
SOURCE: FireAndreaMitchell.Com
According to Cleaver, legislators must re-examine the “troubling ‘Stand your Ground law’ which has enabled George Zimmerman to remain free.”
“To honor Trayvon’s life and protect others, it is imperative that we shine a light on this controversial, dangerous, and sometimes, deadly law that has been adopted in over 20 states, to protect our communities, and the integrity of our nation’s legal system,” he said in a statement.
Hastings claimed that Stand Your Ground laws turn “streets into a showdown at the OK Corral.”
“Let Trayvon’s death not be for naught,” Hastings added. “Let us honor his life by righting this wrong, and seeing that justice is served for Trayvon and his family. George Zimmerman must be prosecuted for his admitted shooting of Trayvon Martin and the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law must be repealed.”
SOURCE: FireAndreaMitchell.Com
How the Left Operates
April 5, 2012
By Lonely Conservative
Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-NY) was subjected to leftist tactics by responding to a question by a local reporter. Her opponent in the next election is former Rep. Dan Maffei, who wants his job back. He penned an attack letter that appeared in the local newspaper over the weekend that began with a lie. Buerkle was asked about the letter during an interview with YNN’s Liz Benjamin, and this is how she responded:
“I thought that his letter to the paper was irresponsible, because if you don’t like this plan, tell us: What is your plan? What is your alternative?”
“When you have the Medicare actuaries telling us that Medicare Part A is going to go bankrupt by 2024, we as legislators need to be responsible and have a discussion.
And he knows that this proposal does not effect those 55 years and above. They don’t have to worry about their Medicare program being changed or altered or cut.”
What he failed to say is that the health care law does cut Medicare, and that’s a discussion that anyone who voted for the Affordable Care Act is afraid to have, because that, in fact, does cut Medicare, and that is the law. And that is, in fact, what seniors are going to be feeling and seeing in 2014.”
Sounds reasonable to me. But how did Benjamin characterize Buerkle’s statement? Like this:
In response to my question on last night’s CapTon about how she plans to prevent this year’s rematch with … ex-Rep. Dan Maffei, from descending into a mud-slinging festival, Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle…went on the attack.
Really? She defended herself against Maffei’s lies and it’s an attack? I thought reporters were trained to be more subtle. Subtle or not, this is how the left operates.
Unfortunately, the less public leftists are even worse, as I’ve noted here in recent days.
They attack , insult and ridicule us. When we respond they unleash their hidden soldiers who come after us with vigor in an effort to discredit or destroy us. When we call attention to their tactics, they tell us it’s our own fault. As if we should just sit back and take their abuse, or succumb to their will.
Well here’s a newsflash – it ain’t going to happen. We aren’t going away and we aren’t shutting up. Get used to it.
Zilla, Pete DaTechGuy, and Donald Douglas have related posts that you may have missed.
By Lonely Conservative
Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-NY) was subjected to leftist tactics by responding to a question by a local reporter. Her opponent in the next election is former Rep. Dan Maffei, who wants his job back. He penned an attack letter that appeared in the local newspaper over the weekend that began with a lie. Buerkle was asked about the letter during an interview with YNN’s Liz Benjamin, and this is how she responded:
“I thought that his letter to the paper was irresponsible, because if you don’t like this plan, tell us: What is your plan? What is your alternative?”
“When you have the Medicare actuaries telling us that Medicare Part A is going to go bankrupt by 2024, we as legislators need to be responsible and have a discussion.
And he knows that this proposal does not effect those 55 years and above. They don’t have to worry about their Medicare program being changed or altered or cut.”
What he failed to say is that the health care law does cut Medicare, and that’s a discussion that anyone who voted for the Affordable Care Act is afraid to have, because that, in fact, does cut Medicare, and that is the law. And that is, in fact, what seniors are going to be feeling and seeing in 2014.”
Sounds reasonable to me. But how did Benjamin characterize Buerkle’s statement? Like this:
In response to my question on last night’s CapTon about how she plans to prevent this year’s rematch with … ex-Rep. Dan Maffei, from descending into a mud-slinging festival, Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle…went on the attack.
Really? She defended herself against Maffei’s lies and it’s an attack? I thought reporters were trained to be more subtle. Subtle or not, this is how the left operates.
Unfortunately, the less public leftists are even worse, as I’ve noted here in recent days.
They attack , insult and ridicule us. When we respond they unleash their hidden soldiers who come after us with vigor in an effort to discredit or destroy us. When we call attention to their tactics, they tell us it’s our own fault. As if we should just sit back and take their abuse, or succumb to their will.
Well here’s a newsflash – it ain’t going to happen. We aren’t going away and we aren’t shutting up. Get used to it.
Zilla, Pete DaTechGuy, and Donald Douglas have related posts that you may have missed.
Jim Marshall, maker of rock-and-roll guitar amplifiers, dies at 88
RALPH ORLOWSKI/REUTERS - Jim Marshall, builder of amplifiers, poses with one of his products in 2002.
Marshall, who pioneered guitar amplifiers used by some of the greatest names in rock earning him the nickname “Lord of Loud,” died April 5 at 88.
By T. Rees Shapiro,
Jim Marshall, a British music store owner who influenced the raucous sound and chest-thumping volume of rock-and-roll with his Marshall amplifiers, the stage hardware of choice for guitarists Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton and Slash, died April 5 at a hospice in London. He was 88.
The death, of undisclosed causes, was announced on the Marshall amplifiers Web site.
To the parents of teenage wannabe bedroom rockers, Mr. Marshall’s amps were not welcome household company. But to those young players, Mr. Marshall was the Lord of Loud, the man who gave rock its gritty, beautifully distorted, cacophonous sound.
The big, black boxes resembled refrigerators, and when arranged in formation, they emitted a wall of sound.
Many of the most popular guitarists in history used Marshall amps, including Pete Townshend of The Who, Ritchie Blackmore of Deep Purple, Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine, Slash of Guns N’ Roses and Kurt Cobain of Nirvana.
Marshall amps became such staples of the rock world that they became fodder for comedians, memorably in Rob Reiner’s 1984 satirical documentary “This is Spinal Tap.” In one scene, the fictional band’s clueless lead guitarist, Nigel Tufnel (played by Christopher Guest), explains that he uses special Marshall amps that “go to 11” as opposed to ordinary amps that only have a top volume setting of 10.
“Does that mean it’s louder?” asks the fake documentary director Marty DiBergi (played by Reiner).
“Well, it’s one louder, isn’t it?” Tufnel replies.
(In 1990, Mr. Marshall produced an amp he called JCM900 and, in homage to “This is Spinal Tap,” the volume settings went to 20. Guest reprised his role as Tufnel in advertisements for the new equipment.)
Among nonfictional guitarists, Marshall amps became popular for emitting “the most outrageously overdriven rock sounds people had ever heard,” Chris Vinnicombe, guitar editor of the Web site MusicRadar, said in an interview. “There’s a sort of aggression to the sound, a definite kind of bite to the upper-mid range that cuts through everything with an attitude that’s distinctively Marshall.”
Before he made amplifiers, Mr. Marshall was a shoe salesman, a scrap-metal yard worker, a baker in a biscuit factory and a boiler for a fruit-jam maker. He also briefly was a meat slicer for a canned-food manufacturer, until he chopped off part of a thumb.
That he even got into the music business was largely due to a debilitating illness that kept him out of school for most of his childhood.
James Charles Marshall was born July 29, 1923, in London. His father managed a fish-and-chips shop.
As a boy, Mr. Marshall contracted a form of tuberculosis that affected his bones. For treatment, he was kept in plaster casts from his ankles to his armpits until he was a teenager. To work up his leg strength, Mr. Marshall took up tap dancing.
In between jobs working at aircraft manufacturers during World War II, Mr. Marshall danced for a band. When the group’s drummer was called to the war, Mr. Marshall took over.
He became such a proficient drummer that he started a drum school, teaching youngsters such as Mitch Mitchell, who later played for Hendrix, and Micky Waller, who later played for Little Richard.
By 1960, Mr. Marshall opened a music store and sold drum kits, guitars and amplifiers. Soon, he began tinkering in the back of his shop, and with the help of engineers Dudley Craven and Ken Bran, he made his own amplifiers for bassists who had complained that guitarists were drowning them out.
His handiwork quickly caught the attention of The Who’s Townshend, whose father, a clarinetist, Mr. Marshall had jammed with years earlier.
Marshall amps were born after Townshend asked Mr. Marshall to produce an amplifier that would be louder and “dirtier” than the American-made Fender units.
The project ultimately resulted with the Marshall stack, two speaker cabinets stacked on top of one another and, above them, an amplifier “head” to control the sound. (Townshend became known for finishing his performances by swinging his guitar like a battle-ax into his Marshall amps. It was Mr. Marshall, himself, who repaired the amps’ torn fabric covering.)
The brand’s popularity took off during the mid-1960s when Clapton used them playing with the band John Mayall and the Bluesbreakers and then with power trio Cream. Hendrix, whom Mr. Marshall called his brand’s “greatest ambassador,” played them at the 1969 Woodstock concert.
Marshall amps remain fixtures at concerts and are used by bands such as Sleigh Bells and the electronic dance duo Justice.
A complete list of Mr. Marshall’s survivors could not be determined.
The success of Mr. Marshall’s amps was sealed in the late 1960s when a young American guitarist was photographed kneeling in front of his flaming guitar. Behind him were Marshall amps.
In an odd twist, the image represented the work of three men named James Marshall. The guitarist was James Marshall Hendrix. The photographer was James Joseph Marshall. The amps were by James Charles Marshall.
SOURCE: WaPo
Marshall, who pioneered guitar amplifiers used by some of the greatest names in rock earning him the nickname “Lord of Loud,” died April 5 at 88.
By T. Rees Shapiro,
Jim Marshall, a British music store owner who influenced the raucous sound and chest-thumping volume of rock-and-roll with his Marshall amplifiers, the stage hardware of choice for guitarists Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton and Slash, died April 5 at a hospice in London. He was 88.
The death, of undisclosed causes, was announced on the Marshall amplifiers Web site.
To the parents of teenage wannabe bedroom rockers, Mr. Marshall’s amps were not welcome household company. But to those young players, Mr. Marshall was the Lord of Loud, the man who gave rock its gritty, beautifully distorted, cacophonous sound.
The big, black boxes resembled refrigerators, and when arranged in formation, they emitted a wall of sound.
Many of the most popular guitarists in history used Marshall amps, including Pete Townshend of The Who, Ritchie Blackmore of Deep Purple, Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine, Slash of Guns N’ Roses and Kurt Cobain of Nirvana.
Marshall amps became such staples of the rock world that they became fodder for comedians, memorably in Rob Reiner’s 1984 satirical documentary “This is Spinal Tap.” In one scene, the fictional band’s clueless lead guitarist, Nigel Tufnel (played by Christopher Guest), explains that he uses special Marshall amps that “go to 11” as opposed to ordinary amps that only have a top volume setting of 10.
“Does that mean it’s louder?” asks the fake documentary director Marty DiBergi (played by Reiner).
“Well, it’s one louder, isn’t it?” Tufnel replies.
(In 1990, Mr. Marshall produced an amp he called JCM900 and, in homage to “This is Spinal Tap,” the volume settings went to 20. Guest reprised his role as Tufnel in advertisements for the new equipment.)
Among nonfictional guitarists, Marshall amps became popular for emitting “the most outrageously overdriven rock sounds people had ever heard,” Chris Vinnicombe, guitar editor of the Web site MusicRadar, said in an interview. “There’s a sort of aggression to the sound, a definite kind of bite to the upper-mid range that cuts through everything with an attitude that’s distinctively Marshall.”
Before he made amplifiers, Mr. Marshall was a shoe salesman, a scrap-metal yard worker, a baker in a biscuit factory and a boiler for a fruit-jam maker. He also briefly was a meat slicer for a canned-food manufacturer, until he chopped off part of a thumb.
That he even got into the music business was largely due to a debilitating illness that kept him out of school for most of his childhood.
James Charles Marshall was born July 29, 1923, in London. His father managed a fish-and-chips shop.
As a boy, Mr. Marshall contracted a form of tuberculosis that affected his bones. For treatment, he was kept in plaster casts from his ankles to his armpits until he was a teenager. To work up his leg strength, Mr. Marshall took up tap dancing.
In between jobs working at aircraft manufacturers during World War II, Mr. Marshall danced for a band. When the group’s drummer was called to the war, Mr. Marshall took over.
He became such a proficient drummer that he started a drum school, teaching youngsters such as Mitch Mitchell, who later played for Hendrix, and Micky Waller, who later played for Little Richard.
By 1960, Mr. Marshall opened a music store and sold drum kits, guitars and amplifiers. Soon, he began tinkering in the back of his shop, and with the help of engineers Dudley Craven and Ken Bran, he made his own amplifiers for bassists who had complained that guitarists were drowning them out.
His handiwork quickly caught the attention of The Who’s Townshend, whose father, a clarinetist, Mr. Marshall had jammed with years earlier.
Marshall amps were born after Townshend asked Mr. Marshall to produce an amplifier that would be louder and “dirtier” than the American-made Fender units.
The project ultimately resulted with the Marshall stack, two speaker cabinets stacked on top of one another and, above them, an amplifier “head” to control the sound. (Townshend became known for finishing his performances by swinging his guitar like a battle-ax into his Marshall amps. It was Mr. Marshall, himself, who repaired the amps’ torn fabric covering.)
The brand’s popularity took off during the mid-1960s when Clapton used them playing with the band John Mayall and the Bluesbreakers and then with power trio Cream. Hendrix, whom Mr. Marshall called his brand’s “greatest ambassador,” played them at the 1969 Woodstock concert.
Marshall amps remain fixtures at concerts and are used by bands such as Sleigh Bells and the electronic dance duo Justice.
A complete list of Mr. Marshall’s survivors could not be determined.
The success of Mr. Marshall’s amps was sealed in the late 1960s when a young American guitarist was photographed kneeling in front of his flaming guitar. Behind him were Marshall amps.
In an odd twist, the image represented the work of three men named James Marshall. The guitarist was James Marshall Hendrix. The photographer was James Joseph Marshall. The amps were by James Charles Marshall.
SOURCE: WaPo
Obama Misquotes Bible on Wealth Redistribution
April 5, 2012
Obama Misquotes Bible on Wealth Redistribution
By W.A. Beatty
Liberals/Progressives/Democrats say the Bible is off-limits when it addresses the subject of homosexuality, homosexual marriage, abortion, or any issue liberals favor but the Bible condemns. But it's permitted to be used when wealth-redistribution is being discussed. The only problem is that when President Barack Hussein Obama quoted from the Bible, he both took his quotation out of context and got it wrong.
On Friday, March 30, 2012, in an address to supporters at the University of Vermont in Burlington, VT, Obama condemned what he called "you're-on-your-own economics," arguing for policies that involve transferring wealth from one group of citizens to another to support providing public schools with more money for teachers' salaries; supporting companies developing bio-fuels, electric batteries, and wind and solar power; and funding scientists who are researching climate change. Obama then quoted from Genesis to support his argument for more taxes and wealth redistribution.
Obama said, "I hear politicians talking about values in an election year. I hear a lot about that. Let me tell you about values. Hard work, personal responsibility - those are values. But looking out for one another. That's a value. The idea that we're all in this together. I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper. That's a value."
Obama said, "I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper." The "brother's keeper" quote comes from the book of Genesis. But when the entire story is presented, a quite different message comes forth:
1Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man." 2Later she gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4And Abel also brought an offering - fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. 6Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it. 8Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Lets go out to the field." While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. 9Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?"
"I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?"
10The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground[.]"
By the way, I searched the NIV Bible, with "brother's keeper" as my search argument, and found reference only to Genesis 4:9, so Obama cannot plead "wrong verse."
Further, the Hebrew word for "keeper" is what a prison guard does, keeping prisoners in cells. Abel was a keeper of flocks, not a lamb that needed "keeping." A "keeper" implies control of a flock of docile, stupid, incompetent, wandering, helpless...sheep. The only economic function of sheep is to be sheared. The State has been the "keeper" of the poor for so long that many of them act like caged animals, fed through the bars of their limited freedom, beholden to the State for sustenance.
This passage has become a familiar one in liberal political and theological circles. The liberal interpretation of this passage is that each man owes his neighbor property, confiscated from the rich through political action. We are supposedly the guardians of the poor, the infirm, and the feebleminded. We have this responsibility, liberals say, as members of the body politic, not as Christian individuals, members of churches, or contributors to voluntary charities. (See page 215 of Dr. North's referenced PDF.)
So the question is, "Is Obama (or his teleprompter) suggesting that we 'keep' our brothers?" Is being kept what Obama really has in mind? The verse Obama misquoted asks a question of a liar (Cain knew where his brother was) and a murderer. To use Cain's reply to God as justification for wealth redistribution is like using the quotation usually attributed to Joseph Stalin -- "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs" -- to support "change."
A better illustration of care would be the Good Samaritan in the tenth chapter of Luke, but that wouldn't work for Obama because the Samaritan used his own money.
What is saddest is that we in the internet blogosphere can find the biblical reference and its complete meaning, but the MSM cannot or will not.
Obama Misquotes Bible on Wealth Redistribution
By W.A. Beatty
Liberals/Progressives/Democrats say the Bible is off-limits when it addresses the subject of homosexuality, homosexual marriage, abortion, or any issue liberals favor but the Bible condemns. But it's permitted to be used when wealth-redistribution is being discussed. The only problem is that when President Barack Hussein Obama quoted from the Bible, he both took his quotation out of context and got it wrong.
On Friday, March 30, 2012, in an address to supporters at the University of Vermont in Burlington, VT, Obama condemned what he called "you're-on-your-own economics," arguing for policies that involve transferring wealth from one group of citizens to another to support providing public schools with more money for teachers' salaries; supporting companies developing bio-fuels, electric batteries, and wind and solar power; and funding scientists who are researching climate change. Obama then quoted from Genesis to support his argument for more taxes and wealth redistribution.
Obama said, "I hear politicians talking about values in an election year. I hear a lot about that. Let me tell you about values. Hard work, personal responsibility - those are values. But looking out for one another. That's a value. The idea that we're all in this together. I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper. That's a value."
Obama said, "I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper." The "brother's keeper" quote comes from the book of Genesis. But when the entire story is presented, a quite different message comes forth:
1Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man." 2Later she gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4And Abel also brought an offering - fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. 6Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it. 8Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Lets go out to the field." While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. 9Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?"
"I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?"
10The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground[.]"
By the way, I searched the NIV Bible, with "brother's keeper" as my search argument, and found reference only to Genesis 4:9, so Obama cannot plead "wrong verse."
Further, the Hebrew word for "keeper" is what a prison guard does, keeping prisoners in cells. Abel was a keeper of flocks, not a lamb that needed "keeping." A "keeper" implies control of a flock of docile, stupid, incompetent, wandering, helpless...sheep. The only economic function of sheep is to be sheared. The State has been the "keeper" of the poor for so long that many of them act like caged animals, fed through the bars of their limited freedom, beholden to the State for sustenance.
This passage has become a familiar one in liberal political and theological circles. The liberal interpretation of this passage is that each man owes his neighbor property, confiscated from the rich through political action. We are supposedly the guardians of the poor, the infirm, and the feebleminded. We have this responsibility, liberals say, as members of the body politic, not as Christian individuals, members of churches, or contributors to voluntary charities. (See page 215 of Dr. North's referenced PDF.)
So the question is, "Is Obama (or his teleprompter) suggesting that we 'keep' our brothers?" Is being kept what Obama really has in mind? The verse Obama misquoted asks a question of a liar (Cain knew where his brother was) and a murderer. To use Cain's reply to God as justification for wealth redistribution is like using the quotation usually attributed to Joseph Stalin -- "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs" -- to support "change."
A better illustration of care would be the Good Samaritan in the tenth chapter of Luke, but that wouldn't work for Obama because the Samaritan used his own money.
What is saddest is that we in the internet blogosphere can find the biblical reference and its complete meaning, but the MSM cannot or will not.
Probe reveals New Black Panther ties to Hezbollah
Anthony Martin
Conservative Examiner
Two separate investigations into the New Black Panthers have been conducted this month, one in response to charges of homegrown terrorism and the other in response to the group's placing a bounty on the head of George Zimmerman, the alleged shooter of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin.
The results of the twofold probe, one of which was released yesterday, reveals New Black Panther ties to the Middle East terrorist group Hezbollah.
Congressman Peter King, R-NY, has been investigating Hezbollah's activities within the United States as part of a Congressional probe into homegrown terrorism. King is Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security. Part of the results of his investigation can be read here.
On the heels of King's report came another significant development yesterday as a researcher who works with retired General Paul Vallely, a former Fox News analyst, issued a separate report, published here, which exposes significant collaboration between Hezbollah and the New Black Panthers.
The report states,
The springboard of Hezbollah has bearing with regard to the deep ties to people within the Black Panthers Party and the New Black Panther Party and their later affiliation with terror organizations such as Hezbollah. It is important to understand that while there are two distinct names, the doctrine, and the mission and in many cases the same people have been carried over by name and relationships over the years. The Black Panthers, like the New Black Panthers Party, have a Marxist doctrine and have merged much of the common objectives and like minded attitudes to Islam.
David Horowitz of Front Page Magazine and Discover the Networks has provided further in depth information on Hezbollah, the Black Panthers, and the New Black Panthers here, here, and here.
The central issue that can be gleaned from the various probes into the connections between the New Black Panthers and Hezbollah is the failure on the part of Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice to hold these groups accountable for their actions, the latest of which is the bounty placed on the head of George Zimmerman.
Holder had previously dropped the charges of felony voter intimidation against the New Black Panthers in a case that drew national scrutiny in 2008 when members of the group were videotaped swinging clubs and billy sticks at voters outside a polling place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
When the history of the New Black Panthers, the Black Panthers, Hezbollah, the Nation of Islam, and high profile members of the Obama Administration are considered within the broad spectrum of long standing connections, advocacy, and legal maneuvering, many observers contend that it is not difficult to understand why Holder would be quick to drop the charges against the New Black Panthers in the voter intimidation case.
It would also explain, say critics, why Holder has failed to launch an investigation into the group's statements and activities in the aftermath of the Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida.
Holder, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and others within this exclusive circle such as Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates all share a common long standing history of close associations with dubious figures in the underground movement involving Black Muslims, the New Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam, the Black Panther Party, Hezbollah, and Hamas.
The names of major figures within this underground movement invariably come to the surface when delving into the background of Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Professor Gates, and others involved in the darker side of left wing politics--Eldridge Cleaver, H. Rap Brown, Malik Shabazz, Abdul Alim Musa, Khalid Abdul Muhammad, Carlos Torres, and Marilyn Buck.
The latter two, Torres and Buck, were recently released from federal prison after Holder quietly implemented a policy of granting freedom to terrorists. Buck had been a member of the Weathermen along with Obama associates Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, and had participated in homegrown terror during the 1960s and 70s. She had also maintained membership in the Black Liberation Army and the Black Panthers.
As this report from Yahoo News shows, the reasons the DOJ provided for the release of Buck from prison drew sharp criticism from those familiar with the case.
A video at the top of the left column summarizes the close ties between homegrown left wing terrorist organizations and overseas terrorists associated with radicalized Islam. Click on the image in order to view the video.
Conservative Examiner
Two separate investigations into the New Black Panthers have been conducted this month, one in response to charges of homegrown terrorism and the other in response to the group's placing a bounty on the head of George Zimmerman, the alleged shooter of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin.
The results of the twofold probe, one of which was released yesterday, reveals New Black Panther ties to the Middle East terrorist group Hezbollah.
Congressman Peter King, R-NY, has been investigating Hezbollah's activities within the United States as part of a Congressional probe into homegrown terrorism. King is Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security. Part of the results of his investigation can be read here.
On the heels of King's report came another significant development yesterday as a researcher who works with retired General Paul Vallely, a former Fox News analyst, issued a separate report, published here, which exposes significant collaboration between Hezbollah and the New Black Panthers.
The report states,
The springboard of Hezbollah has bearing with regard to the deep ties to people within the Black Panthers Party and the New Black Panther Party and their later affiliation with terror organizations such as Hezbollah. It is important to understand that while there are two distinct names, the doctrine, and the mission and in many cases the same people have been carried over by name and relationships over the years. The Black Panthers, like the New Black Panthers Party, have a Marxist doctrine and have merged much of the common objectives and like minded attitudes to Islam.
David Horowitz of Front Page Magazine and Discover the Networks has provided further in depth information on Hezbollah, the Black Panthers, and the New Black Panthers here, here, and here.
The central issue that can be gleaned from the various probes into the connections between the New Black Panthers and Hezbollah is the failure on the part of Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice to hold these groups accountable for their actions, the latest of which is the bounty placed on the head of George Zimmerman.
Holder had previously dropped the charges of felony voter intimidation against the New Black Panthers in a case that drew national scrutiny in 2008 when members of the group were videotaped swinging clubs and billy sticks at voters outside a polling place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
When the history of the New Black Panthers, the Black Panthers, Hezbollah, the Nation of Islam, and high profile members of the Obama Administration are considered within the broad spectrum of long standing connections, advocacy, and legal maneuvering, many observers contend that it is not difficult to understand why Holder would be quick to drop the charges against the New Black Panthers in the voter intimidation case.
It would also explain, say critics, why Holder has failed to launch an investigation into the group's statements and activities in the aftermath of the Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida.
Holder, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and others within this exclusive circle such as Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates all share a common long standing history of close associations with dubious figures in the underground movement involving Black Muslims, the New Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam, the Black Panther Party, Hezbollah, and Hamas.
The names of major figures within this underground movement invariably come to the surface when delving into the background of Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Professor Gates, and others involved in the darker side of left wing politics--Eldridge Cleaver, H. Rap Brown, Malik Shabazz, Abdul Alim Musa, Khalid Abdul Muhammad, Carlos Torres, and Marilyn Buck.
The latter two, Torres and Buck, were recently released from federal prison after Holder quietly implemented a policy of granting freedom to terrorists. Buck had been a member of the Weathermen along with Obama associates Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, and had participated in homegrown terror during the 1960s and 70s. She had also maintained membership in the Black Liberation Army and the Black Panthers.
As this report from Yahoo News shows, the reasons the DOJ provided for the release of Buck from prison drew sharp criticism from those familiar with the case.
A video at the top of the left column summarizes the close ties between homegrown left wing terrorist organizations and overseas terrorists associated with radicalized Islam. Click on the image in order to view the video.
Carney on Engagement: We’ll Judge Muslim Brotherhood by Actions, Not ‘Religious Affiliation’
White House spokesman Jay Carney today defended the administration’s “mid-level” meetings with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood — which, in yesterday’s press briefing, he called meetings with “lower-level” National Security Council officials.
Regardless, he said in both briefings, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) spoke with Muslim Brotherhood officials when visiting Egypt, and they “outrank” Samantha Power, a special assistant to President Obama.
“Look, they are not — they are mid-level members of directorates at the National Security Council,” Carney said when pressed on the meeting. “Our policy is clear and is the same, which is that in the aftermath of Egypt’s revolution, we have broadened our engagement to include new and emerging political parties and actors — because it’s a fact that Egypt’s political landscape has changed and the actors have become more diverse, and our engagement reflects that. The point is that we will judge Egypt’s political actors by how they act, not by their religious affiliation.”
Carney said that the conversation included the Muslim Brotherhood’s plan to hold a referendum on the Camp David Accords and “our belief in the need for Egypt to abide by its treaty with Israel, and broadly, by its international obligations.”
“I think it is known to everyone who has paid any attention to the post-revolution developments in Egypt that the Muslim Brotherhood will be a major player, and we are engaging because that is the appropriate and right thing to do,” he said, adding that he expects “that kind of engagement will continue.”
Carney was asked if the administration officials have ever asked the Muslim Brotherhood to stop brutalizing Christians.
“Again, I don’t have readouts on that, but we are very candid in all of our discussions with actors on the political scene in Egypt and elsewhere about what we consider to be appropriate and democratic conduct in a society that has gone through a revolution and a democratic revolution and that aspires to be a full democracy,” he said.
When pressed on why the administration didn’t suspend aid to Egypt over its repression of democracy advocates, including Americans, Carney said, “The approach we are taking is the one we believe will yield the greatest potential for a positive result.”
April 5th, 2012 by Bridget Johnson - PJ Media
Regardless, he said in both briefings, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) spoke with Muslim Brotherhood officials when visiting Egypt, and they “outrank” Samantha Power, a special assistant to President Obama.
“Look, they are not — they are mid-level members of directorates at the National Security Council,” Carney said when pressed on the meeting. “Our policy is clear and is the same, which is that in the aftermath of Egypt’s revolution, we have broadened our engagement to include new and emerging political parties and actors — because it’s a fact that Egypt’s political landscape has changed and the actors have become more diverse, and our engagement reflects that. The point is that we will judge Egypt’s political actors by how they act, not by their religious affiliation.”
Carney said that the conversation included the Muslim Brotherhood’s plan to hold a referendum on the Camp David Accords and “our belief in the need for Egypt to abide by its treaty with Israel, and broadly, by its international obligations.”
“I think it is known to everyone who has paid any attention to the post-revolution developments in Egypt that the Muslim Brotherhood will be a major player, and we are engaging because that is the appropriate and right thing to do,” he said, adding that he expects “that kind of engagement will continue.”
Carney was asked if the administration officials have ever asked the Muslim Brotherhood to stop brutalizing Christians.
“Again, I don’t have readouts on that, but we are very candid in all of our discussions with actors on the political scene in Egypt and elsewhere about what we consider to be appropriate and democratic conduct in a society that has gone through a revolution and a democratic revolution and that aspires to be a full democracy,” he said.
When pressed on why the administration didn’t suspend aid to Egypt over its repression of democracy advocates, including Americans, Carney said, “The approach we are taking is the one we believe will yield the greatest potential for a positive result.”
April 5th, 2012 by Bridget Johnson - PJ Media
Why shouldn’t Mexico compensate us for illegal aliens?
April 5, 2012
by John Hawkins
HotAir:
One of the dirty little secrets on our southern border is that Mexico actually encourages its citizens to come here illegally. Not only does Mexico refuse to work with us to secure its side of the border, it’s actually put out comic books explaining to its citizens how to cross into our country illegally. To a barely functional, exploitive nation like Mexico, this is a win/win situation. The illegals who come to the United States send billions back home every year, plus Mexico uses them and their families in the States as a political wedge to try to manipulate our political process in its favor.
That may be all well and good for Mexico, but it’s an expensive proposition for the American taxpayers. So, why not ask Mexico to pay the bills for its own citizens?
A state legislator is taking the unusual step of corresponding directly with the leader of a foreign nation.
Republican Texas State Rep. Lyle Larson is calling on Mexican President Felipe Calderon to reimburse Texas for services used by illegal aliens.
In a letter he revealed Tuesday and sent in late March, the San Antonio legislator requests that Mexico pay Texas back for the annual $6 billion to $8 billion he said that Texas spends on health care, education and other public services for the estimated 1.6 million illegal immigrants in the state.
According to the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, Larson does not expect a response from Mexico. However, that did not stop him from offering Mexico suggestions for how to pay off the tab.
“If Mexico is unable to provide monetary compensation, we should be open to discussing other forms of payment,” Larson said, according to News 4 WOAI. “Mexico could provide payment for these services by allowing U.S. companies to develop mineral rich areas of northern Mexico and collect these resources as an in-kind payment.”
The real question isn’t why would Larson send that request to Felipe Calderon; it’s why haven’t we done this already?
Mexico is our third biggest trading partner behind Canada and China and we’ve given it billions of dollars in aid. What’s unreasonable about asking Mexico to either make a good faith effort to stop illegal immigration into our country or pay the tab for its citizens that are coming here illegally with its blessing?
by John Hawkins
HotAir:
One of the dirty little secrets on our southern border is that Mexico actually encourages its citizens to come here illegally. Not only does Mexico refuse to work with us to secure its side of the border, it’s actually put out comic books explaining to its citizens how to cross into our country illegally. To a barely functional, exploitive nation like Mexico, this is a win/win situation. The illegals who come to the United States send billions back home every year, plus Mexico uses them and their families in the States as a political wedge to try to manipulate our political process in its favor.
That may be all well and good for Mexico, but it’s an expensive proposition for the American taxpayers. So, why not ask Mexico to pay the bills for its own citizens?
A state legislator is taking the unusual step of corresponding directly with the leader of a foreign nation.
Republican Texas State Rep. Lyle Larson is calling on Mexican President Felipe Calderon to reimburse Texas for services used by illegal aliens.
In a letter he revealed Tuesday and sent in late March, the San Antonio legislator requests that Mexico pay Texas back for the annual $6 billion to $8 billion he said that Texas spends on health care, education and other public services for the estimated 1.6 million illegal immigrants in the state.
According to the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, Larson does not expect a response from Mexico. However, that did not stop him from offering Mexico suggestions for how to pay off the tab.
“If Mexico is unable to provide monetary compensation, we should be open to discussing other forms of payment,” Larson said, according to News 4 WOAI. “Mexico could provide payment for these services by allowing U.S. companies to develop mineral rich areas of northern Mexico and collect these resources as an in-kind payment.”
The real question isn’t why would Larson send that request to Felipe Calderon; it’s why haven’t we done this already?
Mexico is our third biggest trading partner behind Canada and China and we’ve given it billions of dollars in aid. What’s unreasonable about asking Mexico to either make a good faith effort to stop illegal immigration into our country or pay the tab for its citizens that are coming here illegally with its blessing?
Obama Campaign Scrubs Website of Alarmist Videos Targeting Black Voters…
The Daily Caller has a compilation of the vids that were removed including the one that invokes Saint Trayvon.
Via TheDC:
President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign website has removed several videos that pitched alarmist messages to African-American voters, following reporting by The Daily Caller and the Fox News Channel.
In one video that the campaign yanked from the “African-Americans for Obama” section of its website Tuesday, actress Tatyana Ali seemed to predict that a second Obama term would bring a host of benefits to African-Americans once the president no longer had to concern himself with campaigning.
“What really excites me . . . is that a U.S. president has only two terms,” a laughing Ali said in the footage that the Obama campaign scrubbed from its website Tuesday. “In the second term, ‘it’s on,’ because we don’t have to worry about re-election.”
The video series, titled “Leading Women Defined,” focuses on African-American women, including Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s longtime aide and a former Chicago government official. It was produced by Black Entertainment Television and is still available on that that network’s website.
Keep reading…
Posted by ZIP on Thursday, April 5, 2012, at 11:17 pm
Via TheDC:
President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign website has removed several videos that pitched alarmist messages to African-American voters, following reporting by The Daily Caller and the Fox News Channel.
In one video that the campaign yanked from the “African-Americans for Obama” section of its website Tuesday, actress Tatyana Ali seemed to predict that a second Obama term would bring a host of benefits to African-Americans once the president no longer had to concern himself with campaigning.
“What really excites me . . . is that a U.S. president has only two terms,” a laughing Ali said in the footage that the Obama campaign scrubbed from its website Tuesday. “In the second term, ‘it’s on,’ because we don’t have to worry about re-election.”
The video series, titled “Leading Women Defined,” focuses on African-American women, including Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s longtime aide and a former Chicago government official. It was produced by Black Entertainment Television and is still available on that that network’s website.
Keep reading…
Posted by ZIP on Thursday, April 5, 2012, at 11:17 pm
Moonbat Alert! Mike Papantonio Claims Fracking Kills 'Thousands of Americans'
By Jack Coleman
April 05, 2012
Newsbusters:
Move over, Mike Malloy -- you might not be the most unhinged man in media.
Malloy's competition for this dubious distinction comes from Mike Papantonio, co-host of the radio show "Ring of Fire" when he isn't chasing ambulances to drive up billable hours or appearing on MSNBC.
On Tueday, Papantonio filled in on Ed Schultz's radio show and managed to make Schultz seem balanced by comparison.
Papantonio was talking with Daily Beast contributor Rick Outzen, his goofy sidekick whenever Papantonio sits in for Schultz, about hydraulic fracturing, aka fracking (audio) --
OUTZEN: I was just looking on Yahoo, BP just leased 84,000 acres in Ohio. Now what could go wrong when BP gets into fracking?!
PAPANTONIO: Why did they do it? Because the politics allowed 'em to do it.
OUTZEN: Exactly.
PAPANTONIO: It used to be you had a political system that said, wait just a sec, let's look at what, let's look at how fracking has destroyed the health of thousands of Americans, has killed thousands of Americans, has contanimated the aquifer, has poisoned the air, has destroyed actual soil that'll never be rejuvenated and be usable. But in Ohio, look at the story behind the story. The Republicans allowed it to happen because they're not even a political party, Rick. They're not a political party. All they are is a corporate entity.
Yes, hard to believe Panantonio actually says things like that, not so hard to believe he didn't cite a scintilla of evidence. Then again, how could he when searching for it would prove time consuming and futile? Reckless left-wingers aren't known for their patience.
Is fracking dangerous? That it is -- to phony "green" jobs that liberals prefer to the ones that actually produce energy. Over at Townhall.com, Paul Driessen wrote a March 28 column titled "Fracking: An Existential Threat to Green Dogma."
"Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing is a true 'game changer'," Driessen writes. "In less than two years, this proven but still rapidly advancing technology has obliterated longstanding claims that we are running out of petroelum. Instead, the USA now finds itself blessed with centuries of oil and gas. ... By making more natural gas available, fracking has reduced the US price for this clean-burning fuel to under $3 per thousand cubic feet (or million Btu), compared to a peak of $8 a few years ago."
"... In response, eco-activists are spreading unfounded fears about this proven technology," Driessen writes, claiming that "unregulated fracking companies are operating with little concern for ecological values and causing cancer, earthquakes and groundwater contamination. ... Drilling and fracking have been carefully and effectively regulated by states for decades. As studies by the University of Texas and various state agencies have documented, there has never been a confirmed case of groundwater contamination due to fracking. Even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson acknowledged that to a congressional panel."
Fracking has already created tens of thousands of new jobs, writes The Weekly Standard's Kevin D. Williamson, "and tens of billions of dollars in new wealth has been injected into the ailing U.S. economy, since Marcellus production really picked up around 2008. Pennsylvania and West Virginia saw 57,000 new Marcellus jobs in a single year, as firms ranging from scrappy independents to giants such as Royal Dutch Shell poured billions of dollars into shale investments -- land, equipment, buildings, roads, machinery: capital, in a word. Massive capital.
"Cheap, relatively clean, ayatollah-free energy, enormous investments in real capital and infrastructure, thousands of new jobs for blue-collar workers and Ph.D.s alike, Americans engineering something other than financial derivatives," Williamson writes. "Who could not love all that?"
Who indeed, aside from obvious suspects like Papantonio and Outzen who'd prefer perpetual double-digit unemployment in the Rust Belt.
Papantonio doubled down on his idiocy about energy during the same show, suggesting this about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve while talking with a caller about high gas prices (audio) --
PAPANTONIO: One thing you do immediately is you say, I'm letting all the reserves out. Look, you, you have, you have Exxon running against Obama. That's the truth, they're running against Obama. You have the oil companies running against Obama. If I'm Obama, I'm saying, OK, let's mix it up some, man. You want to mix it up? Let's mix it up. I'm going to mix it up by letting reserves out. I'm going to mix it up by windfall tax. You want to play games with the executive branch? Let's play some games.
Yes -- "letting all the reserves out." Consider yourself fortunate this man does not wield anything resembling actual power.
Papantonio wasn't done there. He also treated Schultz's audience to a textbook example of the incoherence he fobs off as analysis (audio) --
The votes, Mr. GOP, that you're going to pick up from groups like the teabaggers or the white supremacists, they're not worth the cost in the long-lasting harm that you've inflicted on your party. And don't be so willing to believe that the American people are so stupid that they believe that a Sarah Palin or a Michele Bachmann or a Rick Santorum or a Romney are serious leaders, instead of just being political caricatures of circus clowns. Yeah, I mean the American public is reading and they comprehend most of the time on about a sixth- or seventh-grade level, but ultimately they figure it out.
Stop belittling those stupid Americans as stupid. "Ultimately they figure it out," Papantonio assures us, unlike him, who remains stubbornly clueless.
Just out of curiosity, if Barney Frank switched parties, would Papantonio still call him a teabagger?
(h/t, Brian Maloney at Radio Equalizer)
April 05, 2012
Newsbusters:
Move over, Mike Malloy -- you might not be the most unhinged man in media.
Malloy's competition for this dubious distinction comes from Mike Papantonio, co-host of the radio show "Ring of Fire" when he isn't chasing ambulances to drive up billable hours or appearing on MSNBC.
On Tueday, Papantonio filled in on Ed Schultz's radio show and managed to make Schultz seem balanced by comparison.
Papantonio was talking with Daily Beast contributor Rick Outzen, his goofy sidekick whenever Papantonio sits in for Schultz, about hydraulic fracturing, aka fracking (audio) --
OUTZEN: I was just looking on Yahoo, BP just leased 84,000 acres in Ohio. Now what could go wrong when BP gets into fracking?!
PAPANTONIO: Why did they do it? Because the politics allowed 'em to do it.
OUTZEN: Exactly.
PAPANTONIO: It used to be you had a political system that said, wait just a sec, let's look at what, let's look at how fracking has destroyed the health of thousands of Americans, has killed thousands of Americans, has contanimated the aquifer, has poisoned the air, has destroyed actual soil that'll never be rejuvenated and be usable. But in Ohio, look at the story behind the story. The Republicans allowed it to happen because they're not even a political party, Rick. They're not a political party. All they are is a corporate entity.
Yes, hard to believe Panantonio actually says things like that, not so hard to believe he didn't cite a scintilla of evidence. Then again, how could he when searching for it would prove time consuming and futile? Reckless left-wingers aren't known for their patience.
Is fracking dangerous? That it is -- to phony "green" jobs that liberals prefer to the ones that actually produce energy. Over at Townhall.com, Paul Driessen wrote a March 28 column titled "Fracking: An Existential Threat to Green Dogma."
"Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing is a true 'game changer'," Driessen writes. "In less than two years, this proven but still rapidly advancing technology has obliterated longstanding claims that we are running out of petroelum. Instead, the USA now finds itself blessed with centuries of oil and gas. ... By making more natural gas available, fracking has reduced the US price for this clean-burning fuel to under $3 per thousand cubic feet (or million Btu), compared to a peak of $8 a few years ago."
"... In response, eco-activists are spreading unfounded fears about this proven technology," Driessen writes, claiming that "unregulated fracking companies are operating with little concern for ecological values and causing cancer, earthquakes and groundwater contamination. ... Drilling and fracking have been carefully and effectively regulated by states for decades. As studies by the University of Texas and various state agencies have documented, there has never been a confirmed case of groundwater contamination due to fracking. Even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson acknowledged that to a congressional panel."
Fracking has already created tens of thousands of new jobs, writes The Weekly Standard's Kevin D. Williamson, "and tens of billions of dollars in new wealth has been injected into the ailing U.S. economy, since Marcellus production really picked up around 2008. Pennsylvania and West Virginia saw 57,000 new Marcellus jobs in a single year, as firms ranging from scrappy independents to giants such as Royal Dutch Shell poured billions of dollars into shale investments -- land, equipment, buildings, roads, machinery: capital, in a word. Massive capital.
"Cheap, relatively clean, ayatollah-free energy, enormous investments in real capital and infrastructure, thousands of new jobs for blue-collar workers and Ph.D.s alike, Americans engineering something other than financial derivatives," Williamson writes. "Who could not love all that?"
Who indeed, aside from obvious suspects like Papantonio and Outzen who'd prefer perpetual double-digit unemployment in the Rust Belt.
Papantonio doubled down on his idiocy about energy during the same show, suggesting this about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve while talking with a caller about high gas prices (audio) --
PAPANTONIO: One thing you do immediately is you say, I'm letting all the reserves out. Look, you, you have, you have Exxon running against Obama. That's the truth, they're running against Obama. You have the oil companies running against Obama. If I'm Obama, I'm saying, OK, let's mix it up some, man. You want to mix it up? Let's mix it up. I'm going to mix it up by letting reserves out. I'm going to mix it up by windfall tax. You want to play games with the executive branch? Let's play some games.
Yes -- "letting all the reserves out." Consider yourself fortunate this man does not wield anything resembling actual power.
Papantonio wasn't done there. He also treated Schultz's audience to a textbook example of the incoherence he fobs off as analysis (audio) --
The votes, Mr. GOP, that you're going to pick up from groups like the teabaggers or the white supremacists, they're not worth the cost in the long-lasting harm that you've inflicted on your party. And don't be so willing to believe that the American people are so stupid that they believe that a Sarah Palin or a Michele Bachmann or a Rick Santorum or a Romney are serious leaders, instead of just being political caricatures of circus clowns. Yeah, I mean the American public is reading and they comprehend most of the time on about a sixth- or seventh-grade level, but ultimately they figure it out.
Stop belittling those stupid Americans as stupid. "Ultimately they figure it out," Papantonio assures us, unlike him, who remains stubbornly clueless.
Just out of curiosity, if Barney Frank switched parties, would Papantonio still call him a teabagger?
(h/t, Brian Maloney at Radio Equalizer)
Rasmussen: 53% of GOPers view Tea Party as a plus, just 32% of Dems view Occupy as a positive
Wednesday, April 04, 2012
Of the Occupy movement, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said "God bless them." Elizabeth Warren, who is running for the Democratic nomination for the US Senate in Massachusetts, had this to say about the group: "I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do. I support what they do."
They may want to take back those statements. In an article that is partially behind a pay-wall, Rasumussen Reports explains why. This is the headline on their site about their story: 53% of Republicans See Tea Party As Political Plus; 32% of Democrats Say Same of Occupy.
It's important to keep in mind that the legacy meeting has been knocking the Tea Party movement since its inception three years ago, while under-reporting and obscuring what I call occtrocities, which include nearly 7,000 arrests, 11 deaths, and numerous sexual assaults.
If the general public knew the real story behind the 'mostly peaceful' movement, its meager support would plummet.
Source: Marathon Pundit
Of the Occupy movement, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said "God bless them." Elizabeth Warren, who is running for the Democratic nomination for the US Senate in Massachusetts, had this to say about the group: "I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do. I support what they do."
They may want to take back those statements. In an article that is partially behind a pay-wall, Rasumussen Reports explains why. This is the headline on their site about their story: 53% of Republicans See Tea Party As Political Plus; 32% of Democrats Say Same of Occupy.
It's important to keep in mind that the legacy meeting has been knocking the Tea Party movement since its inception three years ago, while under-reporting and obscuring what I call occtrocities, which include nearly 7,000 arrests, 11 deaths, and numerous sexual assaults.
If the general public knew the real story behind the 'mostly peaceful' movement, its meager support would plummet.
Source: Marathon Pundit
Supreme Contempt
What is the context of these current pressure tactics being used by the executive branch on the judicial branch?
Supreme Contempt
Dr. Robert R. Owens
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Recently President Obama made this remarkable statement, “Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” For someone reputed to be a former professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago this statement is hard to explain. Any high school student in a sophomore American History class knows there are many precedents for the Supreme Court making laws passed by Congress null and void. As a matter of fact, in the system of government tradition has delivered to us overturning laws as unconstitutional has been an important power of the Supreme Court for more than two hundred years.
And if the primary content of the President’s statement isn’t strange enough the supporting information is wrong. Obamacare wasn’t passed by a strong majority in Congress. In reality the final vote in the House vote was 220 to 215.Every Republican and thirty four Democrats voted against the law. In the Senate the vote was sixty Democrats and Independents voting for and thirty nine Republicans voting against. The Democrats, even though they controlled both houses of Congress knew they would lose enough of their own members that it was going to be a close vote so they moved the bill outside the regular order of business and used a legislative maneuver known as reconciliation to avoid giving the Republicans the opportunity to filibuster the law.
What is the context of these current pressure tactics being used by the executive branch on the judicial branch?
Soon after taking office in 1829, President Andrew Jackson a long time Indian fighter spearheaded one of his signature pieces of legislation through Congress: the Indian Removal Act. This act gave the president the power to negotiate treaties with the various tribes which still existed in America East of the Mississippi. These treaties, often accepted either under duress or under questionable circumstances seized the lands of the tribes and forced them to move West to the Indian Territory in what is today Oklahoma. The time for fighting had passed and most of the tribes quietly left their ancestral lands.
One tribe decided to try another route. The Cherokee Nation had adopted the ways of the Europeans. They devised their own written language and wrote their own Constitution. They had their own plantations, printing presses, and businesses. They also had their own lawyers and instead of going on the warpath as their ancestors had done they went to court to fight the orders from the State of Georgia which dispossessed them of their land.
In two cases; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia (1832), the United States Supreme Court considered whether or not it had the power to enforce the rights of Native American nations in disputes between them and the states. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to review the claims of any Indian nation within the United States. In Worcester v. Georgia, the Court ruled that only the Federal Government not the states, had the power to regulate the Indian nations.
What the ruling in Worcester v. Georgia meant was that Georgia could not legally seize the Cherokee lands. It was at this junction when referring to the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall that President Andrew Jackson made one his most famous statements, “Mr. Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!” Instead of enforcing the ruling the Federal government joined in and the result was the Trail of Tears as the Cherokee lost their lands and moved west.
Franklin D. Roosevelt legislating Keynesian economic philosophy in the New Deal sought to end the Depression through government spending and central control. With massive majorities in both houses of Congress the president’s agenda was enacted as quickly as possible. Then less than three years after the New Deal began to transform America the Supreme Court began overturning some of the central portions of Roosevelt’s program
In response to this resistance to his vision for what should be done FDR decided to pack the court with Justices who would support his laws. What he proposed was that for any justice over the age of seventy who refused to retire, the president could appoint a new justice to sit beside the current justice and do his work. If his plan had been adopted and none of the then current Justices retired he would have been able to appoint six new Justices. Since he couldn’t force the conservative justices to retire he sought in this way to outnumber them and thus change the ideological complexion of the court. As the president moved ahead in his attempt to pack the court the Supremes started ruling in his favor which eventually stopped the need for his effort to influence the court through overwhelming appointments. Then time and attrition did what he had tried to do with legislation. By 1941, four justices had retired and two had died consequently by the end of his presidency seven of the nine justices were Roosevelt appointees.
Now we come full circle to President Obama and his obvious attempt to belittle and intimidate the court. Should anyone be surprised? This is nothing more than standard operating procedure for a Chicago politician. It is also a normal technique for a community organizer who has been trained in the tactics of Saul Alinsky. No, we shouldn’t be surprised but we could have expected more of anyone who has been entrusted with the highest office in the land. It is just such crude strong-arm tactics such as this which open Mr. Obama up to charges of being a typical South Chicago thug. If he wishes to avoid such charges he needs to avoid such actions.
The above brief review clearly shows that this was not the first attempt of a president to influence the court. However coming from one who is constantly extolled as a constitutional scholar it is certainly disquieting. As a constitutional scholar the president would obviously know what he said was incorrect leaving no other interpretation to his words than a conscious effort to alter the traditional system of checks and balances and the power relationship between the separate branches of the federal government.
Supreme Contempt
Dr. Robert R. Owens
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Recently President Obama made this remarkable statement, “Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” For someone reputed to be a former professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago this statement is hard to explain. Any high school student in a sophomore American History class knows there are many precedents for the Supreme Court making laws passed by Congress null and void. As a matter of fact, in the system of government tradition has delivered to us overturning laws as unconstitutional has been an important power of the Supreme Court for more than two hundred years.
And if the primary content of the President’s statement isn’t strange enough the supporting information is wrong. Obamacare wasn’t passed by a strong majority in Congress. In reality the final vote in the House vote was 220 to 215.Every Republican and thirty four Democrats voted against the law. In the Senate the vote was sixty Democrats and Independents voting for and thirty nine Republicans voting against. The Democrats, even though they controlled both houses of Congress knew they would lose enough of their own members that it was going to be a close vote so they moved the bill outside the regular order of business and used a legislative maneuver known as reconciliation to avoid giving the Republicans the opportunity to filibuster the law.
What is the context of these current pressure tactics being used by the executive branch on the judicial branch?
Soon after taking office in 1829, President Andrew Jackson a long time Indian fighter spearheaded one of his signature pieces of legislation through Congress: the Indian Removal Act. This act gave the president the power to negotiate treaties with the various tribes which still existed in America East of the Mississippi. These treaties, often accepted either under duress or under questionable circumstances seized the lands of the tribes and forced them to move West to the Indian Territory in what is today Oklahoma. The time for fighting had passed and most of the tribes quietly left their ancestral lands.
One tribe decided to try another route. The Cherokee Nation had adopted the ways of the Europeans. They devised their own written language and wrote their own Constitution. They had their own plantations, printing presses, and businesses. They also had their own lawyers and instead of going on the warpath as their ancestors had done they went to court to fight the orders from the State of Georgia which dispossessed them of their land.
In two cases; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia (1832), the United States Supreme Court considered whether or not it had the power to enforce the rights of Native American nations in disputes between them and the states. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to review the claims of any Indian nation within the United States. In Worcester v. Georgia, the Court ruled that only the Federal Government not the states, had the power to regulate the Indian nations.
What the ruling in Worcester v. Georgia meant was that Georgia could not legally seize the Cherokee lands. It was at this junction when referring to the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall that President Andrew Jackson made one his most famous statements, “Mr. Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!” Instead of enforcing the ruling the Federal government joined in and the result was the Trail of Tears as the Cherokee lost their lands and moved west.
Franklin D. Roosevelt legislating Keynesian economic philosophy in the New Deal sought to end the Depression through government spending and central control. With massive majorities in both houses of Congress the president’s agenda was enacted as quickly as possible. Then less than three years after the New Deal began to transform America the Supreme Court began overturning some of the central portions of Roosevelt’s program
In response to this resistance to his vision for what should be done FDR decided to pack the court with Justices who would support his laws. What he proposed was that for any justice over the age of seventy who refused to retire, the president could appoint a new justice to sit beside the current justice and do his work. If his plan had been adopted and none of the then current Justices retired he would have been able to appoint six new Justices. Since he couldn’t force the conservative justices to retire he sought in this way to outnumber them and thus change the ideological complexion of the court. As the president moved ahead in his attempt to pack the court the Supremes started ruling in his favor which eventually stopped the need for his effort to influence the court through overwhelming appointments. Then time and attrition did what he had tried to do with legislation. By 1941, four justices had retired and two had died consequently by the end of his presidency seven of the nine justices were Roosevelt appointees.
Now we come full circle to President Obama and his obvious attempt to belittle and intimidate the court. Should anyone be surprised? This is nothing more than standard operating procedure for a Chicago politician. It is also a normal technique for a community organizer who has been trained in the tactics of Saul Alinsky. No, we shouldn’t be surprised but we could have expected more of anyone who has been entrusted with the highest office in the land. It is just such crude strong-arm tactics such as this which open Mr. Obama up to charges of being a typical South Chicago thug. If he wishes to avoid such charges he needs to avoid such actions.
The above brief review clearly shows that this was not the first attempt of a president to influence the court. However coming from one who is constantly extolled as a constitutional scholar it is certainly disquieting. As a constitutional scholar the president would obviously know what he said was incorrect leaving no other interpretation to his words than a conscious effort to alter the traditional system of checks and balances and the power relationship between the separate branches of the federal government.
BREAKING: Bus Explosion & Fire in New York City – Photos
Posted by Jim Hoft
April 5, 2012, 11:32 PM
Gateway Pundit:
This is breaking news…
A bus is on fire- possible explosion in New York City according to police dispatches in New York City.
A team of dispatchers – New York City Alerts reported this:
Brooklyn: *Bus On Fire* Box #2748. 7 Ave & 92 St. U/D; units repotring a MTA bus exploded involving 6 cars. NY01
Brooklyn: *Bus On Fire* 7 Ave & 92 St. U/D; EMS treating 7 victims, 1 in serious condition likely to die. Fire is knocked down. NY01
Here’s a photo from Twitter
UPDATE: A bus and six cars were torched in the blaze.
The New York Daily News reported:
A twin-size mattress that ended up under an MTA bus is being blamed for sparking a bizarre Thursday night Brooklyn blaze that left the bus and six parked cars torched.
The S53 bus from Staten Island ran over the mattress just after 11 p.m. and dragged it across the Verrazano Bridge, a police source said.
Metal springs in the mattress apparently punctured the bus’ gas tank, setting the coach ablaze moments after the driver pulled over in Bay Ridge and evacuated passengers.
Witnesses said gas from the bus spilled into the gutter on Dahlgren Place near 92nd St., triggering a fiery stream underneath a half-dozen cars that rapidly went up in flames.
No one was injured.
April 5, 2012, 11:32 PM
Gateway Pundit:
This is breaking news…
A bus is on fire- possible explosion in New York City according to police dispatches in New York City.
A team of dispatchers – New York City Alerts reported this:
Brooklyn: *Bus On Fire* Box #2748. 7 Ave & 92 St. U/D; units repotring a MTA bus exploded involving 6 cars. NY01
Brooklyn: *Bus On Fire* 7 Ave & 92 St. U/D; EMS treating 7 victims, 1 in serious condition likely to die. Fire is knocked down. NY01
Here’s a photo from Twitter
UPDATE: A bus and six cars were torched in the blaze.
The New York Daily News reported:
A twin-size mattress that ended up under an MTA bus is being blamed for sparking a bizarre Thursday night Brooklyn blaze that left the bus and six parked cars torched.
The S53 bus from Staten Island ran over the mattress just after 11 p.m. and dragged it across the Verrazano Bridge, a police source said.
Metal springs in the mattress apparently punctured the bus’ gas tank, setting the coach ablaze moments after the driver pulled over in Bay Ridge and evacuated passengers.
Witnesses said gas from the bus spilled into the gutter on Dahlgren Place near 92nd St., triggering a fiery stream underneath a half-dozen cars that rapidly went up in flames.
No one was injured.
Politi-Fact Rates Obama’s SCOTUS Claim “False” and Jeff Schreiber a Constitutional Scholar
By Duane Lester
All American Blogger
April 5, 2012
PolitiFact has weighed in on President Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court and found it wanting in truthiness:
Our ruling
That was a lot of Supreme Court history. First, let’s review Obama’s statement: “Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
There’s simply no support for the assertion that the law was passed by a “strong majority.” It was passed along party lines in a sharply partisan climate, and the 60 votes in the Senate were the minimum needed to keep Republicans from bottling it up in a filibuster.
But the “unprecedented” idea is more nuanced. It’s without question that the Supreme Court overturning a law passed by Congress — by any margin — is a common and routine occurrence, and by no means without precedent. Volokh gave us a close analogy with the case of Boerne vs. Flores, a religious freedom law that glided through Congress but was held unconstitutional by a majority of the court, including two of its liberal justices.
However, Obama’s elaboration a day later at least gives us more to think about. He argued that invalidation of the health care law would represent a court action unseen since the Great Depression on an issue that affects every American. Ornstein echoed that interpretation, saying that a ruling by the court which overturns a major social policy and challenges prior court rulings would be unprecedented.
But we’re taking Obama literally, and that historical perspective was not reflected in his original statement, which is what we’re ruling on. He simply said the law passed with a strong majority and overturning it would be unprecedented. Wrong and wrong. We rate the statement False.
On last night’s All American Radio, after I ruined the end of George R. R. Martin’s “A Dance of Dragons” for Jimmie Bise, I talked with Jeff Schreiber of America’s Right about his open letter to the president. In it, Jeff wrote:
Wave the white flag, Mr. President. Or, preferably, you can continue to make a fool of yourself. In my Trial Advocacy class at Rutgers-Camden, after all, we were taught how do deal with opposing counsel who was floundering in front of a judge or jury: sit tight, smile, and just let the other side self-destruct.
Now, Rutgers-Camden is a fine school, but it sure ain’t Harvard. Nevertheless, I’m the one who is sitting tight and smiling.
While I don’t have a photo of Jeff actually sitting tight and smiling, I went ahead and made this for the occasion:
Yep, Mr. President. That just happened.
Rutgers-Camden FTW!
All American Blogger
April 5, 2012
PolitiFact has weighed in on President Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court and found it wanting in truthiness:
Our ruling
That was a lot of Supreme Court history. First, let’s review Obama’s statement: “Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
There’s simply no support for the assertion that the law was passed by a “strong majority.” It was passed along party lines in a sharply partisan climate, and the 60 votes in the Senate were the minimum needed to keep Republicans from bottling it up in a filibuster.
But the “unprecedented” idea is more nuanced. It’s without question that the Supreme Court overturning a law passed by Congress — by any margin — is a common and routine occurrence, and by no means without precedent. Volokh gave us a close analogy with the case of Boerne vs. Flores, a religious freedom law that glided through Congress but was held unconstitutional by a majority of the court, including two of its liberal justices.
However, Obama’s elaboration a day later at least gives us more to think about. He argued that invalidation of the health care law would represent a court action unseen since the Great Depression on an issue that affects every American. Ornstein echoed that interpretation, saying that a ruling by the court which overturns a major social policy and challenges prior court rulings would be unprecedented.
But we’re taking Obama literally, and that historical perspective was not reflected in his original statement, which is what we’re ruling on. He simply said the law passed with a strong majority and overturning it would be unprecedented. Wrong and wrong. We rate the statement False.
On last night’s All American Radio, after I ruined the end of George R. R. Martin’s “A Dance of Dragons” for Jimmie Bise, I talked with Jeff Schreiber of America’s Right about his open letter to the president. In it, Jeff wrote:
Wave the white flag, Mr. President. Or, preferably, you can continue to make a fool of yourself. In my Trial Advocacy class at Rutgers-Camden, after all, we were taught how do deal with opposing counsel who was floundering in front of a judge or jury: sit tight, smile, and just let the other side self-destruct.
Now, Rutgers-Camden is a fine school, but it sure ain’t Harvard. Nevertheless, I’m the one who is sitting tight and smiling.
While I don’t have a photo of Jeff actually sitting tight and smiling, I went ahead and made this for the occasion:
Yep, Mr. President. That just happened.
Rutgers-Camden FTW!
Red Bull may no longer give you wings if Sen. Durbin gets his way
Posted at 9:46 am on April 5, 2012
by Twitchy Staff
Naturally there’s a petition demanding greater FDA regulation of caffeinated beverages, but as of 9:30 a.m. ET today, it had attracted just 53 signatures.
KEEP READING
by Twitchy Staff
Naturally there’s a petition demanding greater FDA regulation of caffeinated beverages, but as of 9:30 a.m. ET today, it had attracted just 53 signatures.
KEEP READING
Arby’s resorts to blocking conservatives on Twitter
Posted at 7:00 pm on April 5, 2012
by Twitchy Staff
You may recall that yesterday, Arby’s announced via Twitter that it would no longer advertise on Rush Limbaugh’s show. Conservatives were not at all happy – and they got very vocal about it.
Well, as it turns out, Arby’s has begun blocking conservatives who have tweeted complaints.
FULL STORY HERE
by Twitchy Staff
You may recall that yesterday, Arby’s announced via Twitter that it would no longer advertise on Rush Limbaugh’s show. Conservatives were not at all happy – and they got very vocal about it.
Well, as it turns out, Arby’s has begun blocking conservatives who have tweeted complaints.
FULL STORY HERE
Could be Obama’s son – Tyrone Woodfork accused of first-degree murder, severely beating an elderly couple – 85 year old female dies, 90 year old male in and out of hospital – national media silent
Strange. I didn’t hear about this from the lame stream pink slime media. I only first learned about this story today via social networks. It seems a few local stations in Oklahoma barely covered the story, but outside of that nothing. I wonder why? Wouldn’t you think that someone who could be Obama’s son like Tyrone Woodfork who has been accused of first-degree murder for fatally beating an 85 year old women and wife of the other victim who is a 90 year old white man. Oh wait, I get it. The pink slime media doesn’t find this newsworthy because there was no “white Hispanic” being accused of murdering a 17 year old black teen. You see, about a week ago, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a black teen named Tyrone Woodfork severely beat an elderly couple. The couple had been married for 65 years, and the male who is still alive is 90 years old and served in the 101st Airborne during World War II. The wife was an 85 year old. The few local media reports that did come out on this story failed to mention the race of Woodford (black) and the victims (white.) If the situation was reversed and the white 90 year old man fatally beat the girlfriend of Tyrone Woodfork and severally beat Tyrone, this would be a bigger story than the Trayvon Martin story. Yet, for some reason, the pink slime media doesn’t feel this is news worthy. This attack happened on March 14th, during the height of the media and progressive liberal race baiting and demagoguing the Trayvon Martin story. Though none of the media reports mention if Woodfork mentioned anything about Martin, one has to wonder if this brutal attack would have happened if not for the race baiting.
Obama said that if he had a son he could have looked like Trayvon Martin. If Obama had a son, he could have also looked like Tyrone Woodfork too. Aside from being married 65 years, the couple also had had six children and 18 grandchildren. They even had great, great, great grandchildren.
SOURCE: FireAndreaMitchell.Com
City of Sanford preps for worst with decision looming in Trayvon Martin case
Zimmerman shot, killed Trayvon Martin in February
Published On: Apr 05 2012 06:11:38 PM EDT
Updated On: Apr 05 2012 08:08:06 PM EDT
SANFORD, Florida:
The city of Sanford is preparing for the outcome of the special prosecutor's decision about George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watchman who shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin but has not been charged.
Sanford Mayor Jeff Triplett said on Thursday that the city's emergency management team has met regularly with the U.S Department of Justice to construct a plan. Officials said extra police officers and fire department officials are on standby. Neighboring agencies have also been asked to assist, if needed.
"You always prepare for the worst and hope for the best," Triplett said. "We're planning for the 'what-if' case scenario, and that would be to make sure that all of our citizens get the protection they pay their taxes for."
Triplett noted that previous protests have been peaceful, and he hopes that trend continues.
"Those that would like to make this a defining moment for the city of Sanford are wrong, and we just have to make sure that we do a good job of making sure that that's not our lasting image," Triplett said.
It's not known when Angela Corey, a state attorney appointed as the special prosecutor by Gov. Rick Scott, will make a ruling.
Residents said they feel the pressure of the decision looming over the community.
"Sanford is still a good little town," said Jimbo Carter of McRoberts Auto Center. Carter has been working at the auto center in Sanford for 30 years and he said the outcome of the decision could hurt the town.
"Yeah, I'm worried if he's not charged (that) we're gonna have trouble in this town," Carter said.
But Tommy Oliver, who was born and raised in Sanford, said he isn't concerned at all.
"People march, but this a new day and age and not too much is going to happen," Oliver said.
Zimmerman, 28, hasn't been arrested or charged in the Feb. 26 shooting death of Martin, sparking outrage across the nation.
Zimmerman claims the shooting was in self-defense after he was attacked by Martin. Martin's parents say their son was the victim of an attack fueled by racial profiling.
SOURCE: ClickOrlando.com
Published On: Apr 05 2012 06:11:38 PM EDT
Updated On: Apr 05 2012 08:08:06 PM EDT
SANFORD, Florida:
The city of Sanford is preparing for the outcome of the special prosecutor's decision about George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watchman who shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin but has not been charged.
Sanford Mayor Jeff Triplett said on Thursday that the city's emergency management team has met regularly with the U.S Department of Justice to construct a plan. Officials said extra police officers and fire department officials are on standby. Neighboring agencies have also been asked to assist, if needed.
"You always prepare for the worst and hope for the best," Triplett said. "We're planning for the 'what-if' case scenario, and that would be to make sure that all of our citizens get the protection they pay their taxes for."
Triplett noted that previous protests have been peaceful, and he hopes that trend continues.
"Those that would like to make this a defining moment for the city of Sanford are wrong, and we just have to make sure that we do a good job of making sure that that's not our lasting image," Triplett said.
It's not known when Angela Corey, a state attorney appointed as the special prosecutor by Gov. Rick Scott, will make a ruling.
Residents said they feel the pressure of the decision looming over the community.
"Sanford is still a good little town," said Jimbo Carter of McRoberts Auto Center. Carter has been working at the auto center in Sanford for 30 years and he said the outcome of the decision could hurt the town.
"Yeah, I'm worried if he's not charged (that) we're gonna have trouble in this town," Carter said.
But Tommy Oliver, who was born and raised in Sanford, said he isn't concerned at all.
"People march, but this a new day and age and not too much is going to happen," Oliver said.
Zimmerman, 28, hasn't been arrested or charged in the Feb. 26 shooting death of Martin, sparking outrage across the nation.
Zimmerman claims the shooting was in self-defense after he was attacked by Martin. Martin's parents say their son was the victim of an attack fueled by racial profiling.
SOURCE: ClickOrlando.com
New photo shows old man Manson at 77
4/5/2012 10:44:26 PM
(AP) New photo shows old man Manson at 77
By LINDA DEUTSCH
AP Special Correspondent
LOS ANGELES
It is a mug shot for the ages.
Charles Manson, the most notorious mass murderer imprisoned in California and perhaps the nation, stares glumly at a camera, holding his booking number in front of him.
In the latest photo released by the California Department of Corrections, the 77-year-old Manson is gray-haired and gray-bearded, a shadow of the shaggy haired, wild-eyed killer whose visage glared from the covers of magazines in 1969.
He was a cult leader back then, the domineering force behind a rag-tag family of followers who said they killed for him.
Next Wednesday, Manson faces his 12th parole hearing. It could be his last because state law now allows a denial of parole for up to 15 years.
The chances that he will be released are nil and he has told his jailers that he doesn't plan to attend the hearing. But California Department of Corrections spokeswoman Terry Thornton said he could change his mind at the last minute.
Manson has not attended a parole hearing since 1997, when he rambled on for hours, denying that he had killed anyone and espousing the beliefs that guided his cult.
"I'm not saying that I wasn't involved. I'm saying that I did not break man's law nor did I break God's law. Consider that in the judgments that you have for yourselves. Good day. Thank you," he told the parole board.
Now, 43 years after the world learned his name, Manson is an old man living among a few other notorious killers whose lives would be in jeopardy if released into the general population at Corcoran State Prison, Thornton said. They are in a protective housing unit and can go outside into a yard.
Even now, Manson is a problem prisoner, having racked up rules violations for receiving smuggled cell phones and for having a homemade weapon in his cell last October.
One thing about Manson has not changed. The swastika he carved in his forehead during his trial is a dark reminder of his past.
Manson was found guilty in seven murders, including the killing of actress Sharon Tate, that stunned the world. Later, he was convicted in two other killings. His trial with three women acolytes was a spectacle that drew international attention.
Manson was depicted as the evil master of murder, commanding a small army of young followers. He and the three women were sentenced to death. But their lives were spared when the California Supreme Court briefly outlawed the death penalty in 1972
GSA Federal Worker Does Rap Video Bragging About Lavish Perks
4/5/2012
FOXNATION.COM
Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa's office issued the following press release regarding a video they uncovered of a General Services Administration (GSA) employee bragging about lavish taypayer funded perks he enjoyed while working there.
===================
Federal Worker “American Idle” Uncovered:
Winning Video Skit from Taxpayer Funded Luxury Las Vegas GSA Convention
Video featuring Federal Employees jokes about never being under Inspector General Investigation, Lavish GSA Spending
The video clips below are from the U.S. General Services Administration’s (GSA) October 2010 Western Region Conference in Las Vegas, NV. It was played on Thursday, October 28, 2010 at the “Capstone Dinner Event.”
Obama better prepare, when I’m Commissioner.
I’d have a road show like [Acting Regional GSA Administrator Jeffrey] Neely, every time you see me rolling on 20s yeah, in my GOV.
Spend BA 61 all on fun.
ATF can’t touch GS-15 guns!
Cause I buy everything your field office can’t afford.
Every GS-5 would get a top hat award.
Donate my vacation, love to the nation,
I’ll never be under OIG investigation.
In congratulating the winner at the conference, Deputy Commissioner of the Public Building Service David Foley presents an award and jokes about the previous night’s lavish “party that was held in the commissioner’s suite,” having to respond to congressional oversight, and Obama Administration efforts to restrict executive pay. GSA Administrator Martha Johnson later resigned after the GSA Inspector General presented findings of abuse and waste of taxpayer dollars at the conference.
===========
UPDATE
GSA has issued a statement condemning the video that was released earlier today by Issa’s office, showing GSA employees joking about the 2010 conference.
“This video is another example of the complete lack of judgment exhibited during the 2010 Western Regions Conference. Our agency continues to be appalled by this indefensible behavior, and we are taking every step possible to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again.” - GSA Spokesman
Jesse Jackson calls on blacks to wear hoodies to polling places
Speaking to The Tom Joyner Morning Show on Wednesday, Jesse Jackson said:
"If a white kills a black we revolt, if a black kills a white it's jail time, we kill each other it's Miller time. It's as if somebody has the right to kill us."
Jackson then added "This right wing, we got to win the election, so wear your hoodie, put a voter registration card under your hoodie if you have a hoodie without a voter card you've been Hoodiewinked."
SOURCE: Breitbart.Com
Woman Arrested For Driving While Texting -- With A Baby On Lap!
April 4, 2012 8:35 PM
TORRANCE (CBS) — Torrance police arrested a woman seen driving on the San Diego (405) Freeway with a baby in her lap, a cellphone in one hand and two unsecured children in the back seat, a lieutenant said Wednesday.
Shawndeeia Bowen, 29, of Hawthorne, was arrested about 12:30 p.m. Tuesday, Lt. Stephen D’anjou said.
A tipster, who saw the woman as he rounded the “South Bay Curve,” called 911.
The caller kept tabs on Bowen, and police stopped her as she exited the freeway. The 1-year-old was still in her lap and the phone still in a hand, according to D’anjou.
A 2-year-old child in the back seat was in a safety seat, but it was not fastened with a seat belt, D’anjou said. A 4-year-old, also in the back seat, did not have a seat belt on.
“In the event of an accident, there’s no way a parent or guardian will be able to stop a child from flying into the windshield of the car so it’s very dangerous,” D’anjou said.
Bowen was arrested on suspicion of child endangerment, and the three children were taken into protective custody, police said.
The arrest came as Torrance police joined other law enforcement agencies for Distracted Driving Awareness Month.
“Her excuse was that, while she was driving on the 91 Freeway near Compton, the 1-year-old started crying and in an effort to comfort the 1-year-old, she pulled the 1-year-old to the front seat,” D’anjou added.
In California, holding a cell phone to an ear while driving is a citable offense, but police can give tickets any time they believe a driver is not devoting enough attention to the road.
TORRANCE (CBS) — Torrance police arrested a woman seen driving on the San Diego (405) Freeway with a baby in her lap, a cellphone in one hand and two unsecured children in the back seat, a lieutenant said Wednesday.
Shawndeeia Bowen, 29, of Hawthorne, was arrested about 12:30 p.m. Tuesday, Lt. Stephen D’anjou said.
A tipster, who saw the woman as he rounded the “South Bay Curve,” called 911.
The caller kept tabs on Bowen, and police stopped her as she exited the freeway. The 1-year-old was still in her lap and the phone still in a hand, according to D’anjou.
A 2-year-old child in the back seat was in a safety seat, but it was not fastened with a seat belt, D’anjou said. A 4-year-old, also in the back seat, did not have a seat belt on.
“In the event of an accident, there’s no way a parent or guardian will be able to stop a child from flying into the windshield of the car so it’s very dangerous,” D’anjou said.
Bowen was arrested on suspicion of child endangerment, and the three children were taken into protective custody, police said.
The arrest came as Torrance police joined other law enforcement agencies for Distracted Driving Awareness Month.
“Her excuse was that, while she was driving on the 91 Freeway near Compton, the 1-year-old started crying and in an effort to comfort the 1-year-old, she pulled the 1-year-old to the front seat,” D’anjou added.
In California, holding a cell phone to an ear while driving is a citable offense, but police can give tickets any time they believe a driver is not devoting enough attention to the road.
CHEVY VOLT PAYS FOR ITSELF -- IN JUST 27 YEARS!
Savings come slowly for hybrid, electric car owners
April 5, 2012
Nevin Batiwalla
Nashville Business Journal
If you're thinking about buying a fuel-efficient hybrid, electric or otherwise eco-friendly vehicle as a way to save money over time, do your homework — or be prepared to wait.
Buyers who choose Nissan's all-electric Leaf ($28,421) over its approximate gas-powered equivalent, Nissan's Versa ($18,640), will likely wait nearly 9 years until they break even, according to a new report by The New York Times that examines the cost of fuel efficiency.
For drivers of the Chevrolet Volt ($31,767), the wait is even longer— 26.6 years.
A few vehicles begin paying off relatively soon after leaving the dealership. Two hybrids— Toyota's Prius ($23,537) and Lincoln's MKZ ($33,887)— as well as Volkswagen's diesel-powered Jetta TDI ($25,242) all take less than two years before they start saving their owners money.
Check out this chart by the Times that breaks down the savings delay for many popular fuel-efficient models.
The high price tag of many fuel-efficient vehicles — including the Nissan Leaf, which will soon be made in Smyrna, Tenn. — is one reason consumers have yet to embrace them with open arms.
April 5, 2012
Nevin Batiwalla
Nashville Business Journal
If you're thinking about buying a fuel-efficient hybrid, electric or otherwise eco-friendly vehicle as a way to save money over time, do your homework — or be prepared to wait.
Buyers who choose Nissan's all-electric Leaf ($28,421) over its approximate gas-powered equivalent, Nissan's Versa ($18,640), will likely wait nearly 9 years until they break even, according to a new report by The New York Times that examines the cost of fuel efficiency.
For drivers of the Chevrolet Volt ($31,767), the wait is even longer— 26.6 years.
A few vehicles begin paying off relatively soon after leaving the dealership. Two hybrids— Toyota's Prius ($23,537) and Lincoln's MKZ ($33,887)— as well as Volkswagen's diesel-powered Jetta TDI ($25,242) all take less than two years before they start saving their owners money.
Check out this chart by the Times that breaks down the savings delay for many popular fuel-efficient models.
The high price tag of many fuel-efficient vehicles — including the Nissan Leaf, which will soon be made in Smyrna, Tenn. — is one reason consumers have yet to embrace them with open arms.
Holder says court power to review laws 'beyond dispute'
Published April 05, 2012
FoxNews.com
Attorney General Eric Holder assured a federal appeals court Thursday that the Obama administration believes judges have the authority to overturn federal laws, after President Obama's comments earlier this week raised concerns from the bench about his view of judicial power.
Holder, in a three-page letter to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, said "the power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation is beyond dispute," though it should only be exercised in "appropriate cases." He also claimed laws passed by Congress are "presumptively constitutional."
The response capped an unusual dispute between the co-equal branches of government, one which has since reverberated on the campaign trail and beyond.
Obama originally said Monday it would be "unprecedented" for the Supreme Court to overturn the federal health care overhaul, following its three-day review of the law last week. Administration officials later insisted that the president was not making a broad statement -- and was rather referring only to cases pertaining to the Commerce Clause and dealing with matters of the national economy.
The comments, though, caught the attention of a three-judge panel on the 5th Circuit, as Judge Jerry Smith paused during a hearing Tuesday to chide the administration for what he said was being perceived as a "challenge" to judicial authority.
"That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority," Smith said. "And that's not a small matter."
Smith, part of a panel of all Republican appointees, then ordered an explanation by Thursday of no fewer than three pages.
Holder provided the single-spaced, three-page letter by the deadline. In it, he backed up the president's remarks. While saying the court has the right to review laws, he cited prior opinions that acts of Congress are "presumptively constitutional" and said the executive branch has "often urged courts to respect the legislative judgments of Congress."
He wrote that the "principles of deference are fully applicable when Congress legislates in the commercial sphere," calling Obama's comments "fully consistent" with the principles in the letter.
The fallout from the president's comments, though, is likely to drag on, with the presidential general election campaign on the horizon -- and a Supreme Court decision likely to land in the middle of it. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, in prepared remarks for a speech Thursday afternoon, told Obama to "back off" and "let the court do its work."
Holder already previewed what his response would be on Wednesday, saying the courts have "final say."
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has also argued that there's no dispute from the administration regarding the courts' authority to strike down laws. He says the president was instead referring specifically to the traditional deference the court has shown Congress when it comes to laws addressing challenges to the economy -- such as health care.
"What he did was make an unremarkable observation about 80 years of Supreme Court history," Carney said Wednesday.
House Speaker John Boehner's office later cited cases over the past two decades where the Supreme Court overturned federal laws because they exceeded limitations under the Commerce Clause -- which is at the heart of the health care case.
An administration official, though, noted that those cases did not deal with major economic regulation as the health care law does.
Though Carney says the president did not misspeak when he discussed the case on Monday, Obama was not quite so specific.
"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said on Monday. "And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."
Obama reiterated his stance on Tuesday, saying the court has traditionally shown "deference" to Congress and that "the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this."
FoxNews.com
Attorney General Eric Holder assured a federal appeals court Thursday that the Obama administration believes judges have the authority to overturn federal laws, after President Obama's comments earlier this week raised concerns from the bench about his view of judicial power.
Holder, in a three-page letter to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, said "the power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation is beyond dispute," though it should only be exercised in "appropriate cases." He also claimed laws passed by Congress are "presumptively constitutional."
The response capped an unusual dispute between the co-equal branches of government, one which has since reverberated on the campaign trail and beyond.
Obama originally said Monday it would be "unprecedented" for the Supreme Court to overturn the federal health care overhaul, following its three-day review of the law last week. Administration officials later insisted that the president was not making a broad statement -- and was rather referring only to cases pertaining to the Commerce Clause and dealing with matters of the national economy.
The comments, though, caught the attention of a three-judge panel on the 5th Circuit, as Judge Jerry Smith paused during a hearing Tuesday to chide the administration for what he said was being perceived as a "challenge" to judicial authority.
"That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority," Smith said. "And that's not a small matter."
Smith, part of a panel of all Republican appointees, then ordered an explanation by Thursday of no fewer than three pages.
Holder provided the single-spaced, three-page letter by the deadline. In it, he backed up the president's remarks. While saying the court has the right to review laws, he cited prior opinions that acts of Congress are "presumptively constitutional" and said the executive branch has "often urged courts to respect the legislative judgments of Congress."
He wrote that the "principles of deference are fully applicable when Congress legislates in the commercial sphere," calling Obama's comments "fully consistent" with the principles in the letter.
The fallout from the president's comments, though, is likely to drag on, with the presidential general election campaign on the horizon -- and a Supreme Court decision likely to land in the middle of it. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, in prepared remarks for a speech Thursday afternoon, told Obama to "back off" and "let the court do its work."
Holder already previewed what his response would be on Wednesday, saying the courts have "final say."
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has also argued that there's no dispute from the administration regarding the courts' authority to strike down laws. He says the president was instead referring specifically to the traditional deference the court has shown Congress when it comes to laws addressing challenges to the economy -- such as health care.
"What he did was make an unremarkable observation about 80 years of Supreme Court history," Carney said Wednesday.
House Speaker John Boehner's office later cited cases over the past two decades where the Supreme Court overturned federal laws because they exceeded limitations under the Commerce Clause -- which is at the heart of the health care case.
An administration official, though, noted that those cases did not deal with major economic regulation as the health care law does.
Though Carney says the president did not misspeak when he discussed the case on Monday, Obama was not quite so specific.
"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said on Monday. "And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."
Obama reiterated his stance on Tuesday, saying the court has traditionally shown "deference" to Congress and that "the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this."
Zimmerman racial slur narrative falling apart
Posted by William A. Jacobson
Thursday, April 5, 2012 at 12:10pm
Legal Insurrection.Com
As with so much else in this case, the original media report of George Zimmerman using the pejorative “coons,” which has been accepted as true and then repeated endlessly by the left blogosphere and mainstream media, now is in doubt.
An enhanced analysis now appears to indicate Zimmerman said “cold.”
Some of the other narrative problems:
Person screaming for help on 911 tape allegedly was not Zimmerman.
Police station video allegedly shows no head injury to Zimmerman.
Zimmerman allegedly found Martin suspicious because Martin was wearing a hoodie.
Since the beginning of this case I have urged caution not to jump to conclusions. The questionable narratives suggest I was correct.
Thursday, April 5, 2012 at 12:10pm
Legal Insurrection.Com
As with so much else in this case, the original media report of George Zimmerman using the pejorative “coons,” which has been accepted as true and then repeated endlessly by the left blogosphere and mainstream media, now is in doubt.
An enhanced analysis now appears to indicate Zimmerman said “cold.”
Some of the other narrative problems:
Person screaming for help on 911 tape allegedly was not Zimmerman.
Police station video allegedly shows no head injury to Zimmerman.
Zimmerman allegedly found Martin suspicious because Martin was wearing a hoodie.
Since the beginning of this case I have urged caution not to jump to conclusions. The questionable narratives suggest I was correct.
Sweden's 'damn Jew' problem
Wearing a yarmulke is no longer safe in the city of Malmö. The mayor blames the Jews, while other Swedish politicians point to ‘social inequality.’
By Paulina Neuding
April 5, 2012 7:00 AM
TabletMag.Com
Protest of the Davis Cup tennis match on March 7, 2009 in Malmö. (Andreas Blixt/Flickr)
The store window had been smashed many times before. The shoe-repair shop is located in one of the rougher parts of Malmö, Sweden, and the Jewish owner, a native of the city, had gotten used to this sort of vandalism. But in the spring of 2004, a group of immigrants just under the age of 15—too young to be prosecuted by Swedish law—walked into the store yelling about “damn Jews.” The owner was hit in the face by one of the boys. Yasha, an 85-year-old customer and relative of mine, was struck in the back of his head. The doctor who received him at the emergency room concluded that he must have been hit with a blunt object. “I left Poland to get away from anti-Semitism,” he later told the police. “But at least there I never experienced any violence. That only happened to me here, in Sweden.”
The Jews of Malmö, a community of about 1,500 in a city of 300,000, are living through a new form of anti-Semitism. This kind does not stem from neo-Nazis or right-wing extremists—traditional perpetrators of European Jew-hatred—but has come to the city through immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East and is part of a larger, countrywide problem of failed integration. According to the 2011 census, one in 10 Malmö citizens comes from the Middle East and North Africa, and ethnic Swedes are no longer in the majority among 15-year-olds. In 2009, 60 hate crimes against Jews were reported in Malmö, ranging from hate speech to assault. The city’s Chicago-born Chabad rabbi, Shneur Kesselman, estimates that he alone has been the victim of 100 incidents during his few years in the city. A dozen families have already left Malmö for Stockholm, Israel, or the United States because of anti-Semitism, according to community leaders.
If only this were the whole problem. But Malmö’s mayor of 17 years, Ilmar Reepalu, has “Tourettes syndrome with respect to Jews,” according to Kvällsposten, a Swedish newspaper. Last week, Reepalu, a Social Democrat, made headlines across the country after I published an interview with him in which he said that Sweden Democrats, an anti-immigrant party with its roots in the Swedish neo-Nazi movement, had “infiltrated” Malmö’s Jewish community in order to turn it against Muslims. On Monday, he was publicly reprimanded by the head of his party.
Reeplau has promised that he is no anti-Semite, but this is far from the first time that he has put his foot in his mouth on the subject of Jews. When a journalist from the Malmö daily Skånska Dagbladet asked him in January 2010 about growing anti-Semitism in his city, he replied, “We accept neither anti-Semitism nor Zionism in Malmö.” His reaction to the fact that Jews are leaving his city because of anti-Semitism was to maintain that “there have been no attacks against Jews, and if Jews want to leave for Israel that is not a concern for Malmö.” In an interview with Danish television in March 2010, he described criticism about his statements regarding Jews and Zionism as an attack orchestrated by “the Israeli lobby.” When I met him in February he clarified the latter statement: “I understand that my words were misinterpreted as being somehow anti-Semitic,” he said. “I shouldn’t have called it ‘an Israeli lobby’ but ‘a pro-Israeli lobby.’ ”
During Israel’s 2008-2009 war against Hamas in Gaza, there was a sharp increase in anti-Semitic violence in Malmö—but the mayor didn’t seem concerned. On Dec. 27, 2008, as Israel Defense Forces launched Operation Cast Lead, the Jewish community of Malmö held a demonstration in the city’s main square to express sympathy for “all civilian victims” in Gaza and the Jewish state. They were soon confronted by a much larger counter-demonstration, consisting mainly of immigrants from the Middle East. The Jews were singing hine ma tov, but was their song was overwhelmed by chants of “damn Jews” and “Hitler, Hitler, Hitler!” A glass bottle flew through the air and hit a Jewish girl in the back. When a homemade bomb was fired straight into the Jewish group, the police decided to evacuate them. The Jews fled from the square but were followed by kids who used cellphones to report back to the counter-demonstration with which direction “the Jews” were heading. Among those running were 85-year-old Yasha’s grandchildren, all born and raised in Malmö.
When Reepalu was questioned about these events, he chose to criticize the Jews of his city for not taking a firm stand against the policies of the state of Israel: “Instead they choose to have a demonstration at the main square, which can send the wrong signals,” he said, while referring in passing to Israel’s “genocide” in Gaza.
Two months after the Cast Lead demonstration, I went to Malmö on the occasion of a Davis Cup tennis match between Sweden and Israel. The city made the decision that no audience would be allowed at the match, marking the first time Sweden decided to subject a country to a sports boycott since barring South African athletes from entering the country during apartheid. “Don’t forget,” said Reepalu, “this isn’t a match against just anyone. It’s a match against the state of Israel.” Anarchists, feminists, Islamists, and left-wing extremists from around the country gathered in the city to protest against Israel.
I found out from a friend that the Jewish community was hosting a secret welcome party for the Israeli tennis players. The party had not been publicly announced; the information was spread by word of mouth. My friend hushed me when I told the taxi driver where we were going–this is one of those things that Malmö’s Jews have learned to do–and instead gave him an address near the Jewish Community Center. We had to walk for a few blocks before we turned into an empty street that had been sealed off by cars from the Swedish Security Service.
***
At the end of 2010, Shimon Samuels and Rabbi Abraham Cooper from the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles visited Malmö to judge the situation first-hand. They met in Stockholm with Reepalu and Sweden’s conservative Secretary of Justice Beatrice Ask. At these meetings Reepalu and Ask were informed that the Wiesenthal Center would issue a travel advisory for Jews visiting southern Sweden. Later, the Center issued a statement: “A contributing factor to this decision has been the outrageous remarks of Malmö mayor Ilmar Reepalu, who blames the Jewish community for failing to denounce Israel. The travel advisory urges extreme caution when visiting southern Sweden. It is not connected to last week’s Islamist terrorist bombing in the heart of Stockholm.”
When the Wiesenthal Center repeated the travel advisory at the beginning of 2012, Reepalu called the decision bizarre: “I get the impression that the aim of the [Simon Wiesenthal] Center is to make people forget what is going on in the state of Israel—human rights abuse that all people should denounce.” When I met with the mayor in February, he added: “I realize that this is a minefield, but I will happily enter it in order for this issue to get the right proportions. I get accused of being an anti-Semite when I say that Jews are actually not the only ones having a hard time, but that things are actually just as hard and sometimes even harder for other groups.”
Continue reading: Riots in the welfare state
By Paulina Neuding
April 5, 2012 7:00 AM
TabletMag.Com
Protest of the Davis Cup tennis match on March 7, 2009 in Malmö. (Andreas Blixt/Flickr)
The store window had been smashed many times before. The shoe-repair shop is located in one of the rougher parts of Malmö, Sweden, and the Jewish owner, a native of the city, had gotten used to this sort of vandalism. But in the spring of 2004, a group of immigrants just under the age of 15—too young to be prosecuted by Swedish law—walked into the store yelling about “damn Jews.” The owner was hit in the face by one of the boys. Yasha, an 85-year-old customer and relative of mine, was struck in the back of his head. The doctor who received him at the emergency room concluded that he must have been hit with a blunt object. “I left Poland to get away from anti-Semitism,” he later told the police. “But at least there I never experienced any violence. That only happened to me here, in Sweden.”
The Jews of Malmö, a community of about 1,500 in a city of 300,000, are living through a new form of anti-Semitism. This kind does not stem from neo-Nazis or right-wing extremists—traditional perpetrators of European Jew-hatred—but has come to the city through immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East and is part of a larger, countrywide problem of failed integration. According to the 2011 census, one in 10 Malmö citizens comes from the Middle East and North Africa, and ethnic Swedes are no longer in the majority among 15-year-olds. In 2009, 60 hate crimes against Jews were reported in Malmö, ranging from hate speech to assault. The city’s Chicago-born Chabad rabbi, Shneur Kesselman, estimates that he alone has been the victim of 100 incidents during his few years in the city. A dozen families have already left Malmö for Stockholm, Israel, or the United States because of anti-Semitism, according to community leaders.
If only this were the whole problem. But Malmö’s mayor of 17 years, Ilmar Reepalu, has “Tourettes syndrome with respect to Jews,” according to Kvällsposten, a Swedish newspaper. Last week, Reepalu, a Social Democrat, made headlines across the country after I published an interview with him in which he said that Sweden Democrats, an anti-immigrant party with its roots in the Swedish neo-Nazi movement, had “infiltrated” Malmö’s Jewish community in order to turn it against Muslims. On Monday, he was publicly reprimanded by the head of his party.
Reeplau has promised that he is no anti-Semite, but this is far from the first time that he has put his foot in his mouth on the subject of Jews. When a journalist from the Malmö daily Skånska Dagbladet asked him in January 2010 about growing anti-Semitism in his city, he replied, “We accept neither anti-Semitism nor Zionism in Malmö.” His reaction to the fact that Jews are leaving his city because of anti-Semitism was to maintain that “there have been no attacks against Jews, and if Jews want to leave for Israel that is not a concern for Malmö.” In an interview with Danish television in March 2010, he described criticism about his statements regarding Jews and Zionism as an attack orchestrated by “the Israeli lobby.” When I met him in February he clarified the latter statement: “I understand that my words were misinterpreted as being somehow anti-Semitic,” he said. “I shouldn’t have called it ‘an Israeli lobby’ but ‘a pro-Israeli lobby.’ ”
During Israel’s 2008-2009 war against Hamas in Gaza, there was a sharp increase in anti-Semitic violence in Malmö—but the mayor didn’t seem concerned. On Dec. 27, 2008, as Israel Defense Forces launched Operation Cast Lead, the Jewish community of Malmö held a demonstration in the city’s main square to express sympathy for “all civilian victims” in Gaza and the Jewish state. They were soon confronted by a much larger counter-demonstration, consisting mainly of immigrants from the Middle East. The Jews were singing hine ma tov, but was their song was overwhelmed by chants of “damn Jews” and “Hitler, Hitler, Hitler!” A glass bottle flew through the air and hit a Jewish girl in the back. When a homemade bomb was fired straight into the Jewish group, the police decided to evacuate them. The Jews fled from the square but were followed by kids who used cellphones to report back to the counter-demonstration with which direction “the Jews” were heading. Among those running were 85-year-old Yasha’s grandchildren, all born and raised in Malmö.
When Reepalu was questioned about these events, he chose to criticize the Jews of his city for not taking a firm stand against the policies of the state of Israel: “Instead they choose to have a demonstration at the main square, which can send the wrong signals,” he said, while referring in passing to Israel’s “genocide” in Gaza.
Two months after the Cast Lead demonstration, I went to Malmö on the occasion of a Davis Cup tennis match between Sweden and Israel. The city made the decision that no audience would be allowed at the match, marking the first time Sweden decided to subject a country to a sports boycott since barring South African athletes from entering the country during apartheid. “Don’t forget,” said Reepalu, “this isn’t a match against just anyone. It’s a match against the state of Israel.” Anarchists, feminists, Islamists, and left-wing extremists from around the country gathered in the city to protest against Israel.
I found out from a friend that the Jewish community was hosting a secret welcome party for the Israeli tennis players. The party had not been publicly announced; the information was spread by word of mouth. My friend hushed me when I told the taxi driver where we were going–this is one of those things that Malmö’s Jews have learned to do–and instead gave him an address near the Jewish Community Center. We had to walk for a few blocks before we turned into an empty street that had been sealed off by cars from the Swedish Security Service.
***
At the end of 2010, Shimon Samuels and Rabbi Abraham Cooper from the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles visited Malmö to judge the situation first-hand. They met in Stockholm with Reepalu and Sweden’s conservative Secretary of Justice Beatrice Ask. At these meetings Reepalu and Ask were informed that the Wiesenthal Center would issue a travel advisory for Jews visiting southern Sweden. Later, the Center issued a statement: “A contributing factor to this decision has been the outrageous remarks of Malmö mayor Ilmar Reepalu, who blames the Jewish community for failing to denounce Israel. The travel advisory urges extreme caution when visiting southern Sweden. It is not connected to last week’s Islamist terrorist bombing in the heart of Stockholm.”
When the Wiesenthal Center repeated the travel advisory at the beginning of 2012, Reepalu called the decision bizarre: “I get the impression that the aim of the [Simon Wiesenthal] Center is to make people forget what is going on in the state of Israel—human rights abuse that all people should denounce.” When I met with the mayor in February, he added: “I realize that this is a minefield, but I will happily enter it in order for this issue to get the right proportions. I get accused of being an anti-Semite when I say that Jews are actually not the only ones having a hard time, but that things are actually just as hard and sometimes even harder for other groups.”
Continue reading: Riots in the welfare state
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)







