Entering it's fouth week, it is scenes like these that have led some people to accuse the Occupy Wall Street protesters living in New York's financial district of causing unsanitary and filthy conditions. Shocking images from news sources demonstrate the extent to which conditions have deteriorated during demonstrations in downtown Manhattan.
'Normally the park is cleaned and inspected every week night. But because the protesters refuse to cooperate the park has not been cleaned since Friday, September 16th and as a result, sanitary conditions have reached unacceptable levels,' CBS News reported. New York officals today warned of a dramatic crackdown on Wall Street demonstrators, as the protests spread across America.
Not unexpected, disgraced former MSNBC leftist blowhard and now Current TV network empty suit Keith Olbermann, showed up at the New York protest to lend his support and do some shameless self- promotion of his basement rated nonsense on Al Gore's pathetic Current Network. Many protesters are the brain dead leftist that make up Olbermann's core audience. Olbermann gave no public statements at the event, but who cares what he says anyway.
Hundreds have been arrested in New York since the protests began last month. On Wednesday, the biggest crowd so far of about 5,000 people marched on New York's financial district, and police used pepper spray on some protesters. But protests for the most part have been non-violent.
A mixed message is being given in many protest: Multi-Millionaire and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has verbally given support to the protest ,as has Billionaire George Sorso, both who have made fortunes dealing with large corporations and on Wall Street. The Obama administration is seen to side with the protesters despite the fact their policies have worsened the very situations being protested, and Wall Street is one of the biggest contributers to the Obama power machine. Go figure.
Yesterday protesters in Washington DC tried to storm and occupy the Smithsonian Air & space Museum, but were turned back by museum security. Protest organizers predict nationwide momentum will continue to build as groups like highly paid labor movements thugs, employed by the same corporations being protested, join the growing numbers.
There is an interesting take on events at Pundit&Pundett that I encourage you to look at......
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Obama Bundler Joins OWS Movement
Sunday, October 09, 2011
Gee, who could have have seen this coming?
For three weeks now, protesters have been camping out for OccupyWallSt, an anti-corporate greed movement whose website states, "The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%."
Now, the movement has arrived in Venice.
Sunday morning, about 75 people gathered at Windward Circle to show their support.
"What we can create in this circle is a reflection of what we can create as humans," organizer Jodie Evans, founder of CodePink, told the crowd.
Evans, who traveled to New York and Washington, D.C. to support protests there, said she was inspired by the people who started the movement. "They were all young, and they didn't have anything to lose," she said.
"Everyday, they were watching their future deteriorate."
I guess the guys she raised money for has nothing to do with that.
Those charming Code Pink hags "protested" a Wounded Warriors race.
Just finished running Army Ten Miler... and unofficial time was 1 hr 29 mins and change, great seeing many old friends and former bosses. However, what struck me as shameful was Code Pink being out on the run course protesting. There were many Wounded Warriors doing the wheelchair race and running with their prosthetic devices. Perhaps Code Pink does not realize that those "Army Strong" men and women make it possible for them to stand on Independence Ave and demean their service, sacrifice, and commitment.......Land of the Free because we are the Home of the Brave!" Army Strong!
Gee, who could have have seen this coming?
For three weeks now, protesters have been camping out for OccupyWallSt, an anti-corporate greed movement whose website states, "The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%."
Now, the movement has arrived in Venice.
Sunday morning, about 75 people gathered at Windward Circle to show their support.
"What we can create in this circle is a reflection of what we can create as humans," organizer Jodie Evans, founder of CodePink, told the crowd.
Evans, who traveled to New York and Washington, D.C. to support protests there, said she was inspired by the people who started the movement. "They were all young, and they didn't have anything to lose," she said.
"Everyday, they were watching their future deteriorate."
I guess the guys she raised money for has nothing to do with that.
Those charming Code Pink hags "protested" a Wounded Warriors race.
Just finished running Army Ten Miler... and unofficial time was 1 hr 29 mins and change, great seeing many old friends and former bosses. However, what struck me as shameful was Code Pink being out on the run course protesting. There were many Wounded Warriors doing the wheelchair race and running with their prosthetic devices. Perhaps Code Pink does not realize that those "Army Strong" men and women make it possible for them to stand on Independence Ave and demean their service, sacrifice, and commitment.......Land of the Free because we are the Home of the Brave!" Army Strong!
'Harlem Tea Party' for Obama Draws Dozens!!!
Pathetic!
Gee, these massive rallies are just popping up everywhere.
Dozens of people rallied at a "Harlem Tea Party" Sunday in support of President Obama's reelection bid - and called for a more civil tone in the presidential race.
"This is a Harlem tea party," said Chet Whyte, director of Harlem 4 Obama. "This is about 'civilitea.' But don't let the smooth taste fool you."
"Our premise is that we have allowed the Tea Party to shape the debate," Whyte said. "We're going to take back the definition of tea party. They wanted to define us, we're redefining them."
Whyte said Harlem 4 Obama members would heed the example of those who peacefully demonstrated during the Civil Rights Movement.
"In their quiet dignity, they went up against dogs and firehouses in Selma," Whyte said. "They came back with the moral authority."
Oscar Carter, 65, of Harlem, told the crowd: "President Obama, we want you to know, Harlem has your back!"
Tekima Berlack, a retired social worker who was born and reared in Harlem, said, in some instances, racism has fueled the vitriolic criticism of the president.
"I think it's racism," said Berlack, who held up a sign that read "Expand Pell Grants for Low Income Students."
"I think anything the man does - they work against him," Berlack added. "The man is trying to save the country. They have an agenda, and I'm out here because we need an agenda. It's critical that we elect Obama in 2012."
If this "tea party" for Obama can only draws dozens of people in Harlem, he's in for a massive defeat next year.
Gee, these massive rallies are just popping up everywhere.
Dozens of people rallied at a "Harlem Tea Party" Sunday in support of President Obama's reelection bid - and called for a more civil tone in the presidential race.
"This is a Harlem tea party," said Chet Whyte, director of Harlem 4 Obama. "This is about 'civilitea.' But don't let the smooth taste fool you."
"Our premise is that we have allowed the Tea Party to shape the debate," Whyte said. "We're going to take back the definition of tea party. They wanted to define us, we're redefining them."
Whyte said Harlem 4 Obama members would heed the example of those who peacefully demonstrated during the Civil Rights Movement.
"In their quiet dignity, they went up against dogs and firehouses in Selma," Whyte said. "They came back with the moral authority."
Oscar Carter, 65, of Harlem, told the crowd: "President Obama, we want you to know, Harlem has your back!"
Tekima Berlack, a retired social worker who was born and reared in Harlem, said, in some instances, racism has fueled the vitriolic criticism of the president.
"I think it's racism," said Berlack, who held up a sign that read "Expand Pell Grants for Low Income Students."
"I think anything the man does - they work against him," Berlack added. "The man is trying to save the country. They have an agenda, and I'm out here because we need an agenda. It's critical that we elect Obama in 2012."
If this "tea party" for Obama can only draws dozens of people in Harlem, he's in for a massive defeat next year.
Craig's List Ad: Working Families Party Offers Job For Protestors at $350-650 a Week
I guess it depends upon your experience and qualifications, huh?
For God's sake!
The Working Families Party (WFP) (www.workingfamiliesparty.org) is New York's most energetic, independent and progressive political party. Formed in 1998 by a grassroots coalition of community organizations, neighborhood activists, and labor unions, we came together to build a society that works for all of us, not just Wall Street CEOs and the well-connected. WFP is independent from corporate and government funding and in-addition we are community based; community funded and equally uninfluenced by both major parties. Our agenda focuses on economic and social justice, corporate accountability, job creation, environmental protection, and investment in education and healthcare.
For the past twelve years the WFP has been at the fore front of progressive politics,
Leading the fight and helping to frame the debate. The WFP has a proud record of fighting for issues that matter and has been instrumental in implementing key pieces of legislation such as Raising New York's Minimum Wage, Enacting Living Wage Laws, Creating Thousands of Jobs In the Green Economy, Passing Healthcare Reforms on the Local Level, Fighting for Affordable Housing, Keeping Tuition Costs Low, A Progressive Tax Code, Reliable/Cost Effective Public Transit System, Public Financing Of Elections and Corporate Accountability . In addition, we have an unapologetic stance on supporting and pushing good candidates to enact progressive legislation
The WFP is seeking immediate hires.
You must be an energetic communicator, with a passion for social and economic justice.
Only outgoing, articulate dedicated, determined candidates will be considered for the positions.
For those candidates that qualify WFP offers substantial paid-training provided by senior leadership, on varied issues such as: advocacy, public speaking, mobilizing, fundraising, networking and organizing. We invest in passionate people with excellent communication skills and a full benefits package is offered to those candidates that qualify. In addition, there is opportunity for advancement and travel to our satellite chapters and out of state affiliates.
This is not a policy job! Through direct action you will be shaping NY state politics for the next 20 years.
If you care about New York and want to help educate and mobilize around legislative campaigns-then we look forward to hearing from you!
Apply at http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/jobs/.
Compensation: $350-$650 A Week Depending On Responsibility & Length Of Time On Staff
Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
Please, no phone calls about this job!
Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.
PostingID: 2618821815
Here's the Screen Shot:
Working Families Party was born out of a coalition made up of Unions, the New Party, and Acorn:
The Working Families Party (WFP) is a minor political party in the United States founded in New York in 1998. There are "sister" parties to the New York WFP in Connecticut, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Delaware, Vermont and Oregon, but there is as yet no national WFP. It seems likely that the state WFPs will form a federation of sorts before 2012, but nothing definitive has been announced.
New York's Working Families Party was first organized in 1998 by a coalition of labor unions, ACORN and other community organizations, members of the now-inactive national New Party, and a variety of public interest groups such as Citizen Action of New York.
For God's sake!
The Working Families Party (WFP) (www.workingfamiliesparty.org) is New York's most energetic, independent and progressive political party. Formed in 1998 by a grassroots coalition of community organizations, neighborhood activists, and labor unions, we came together to build a society that works for all of us, not just Wall Street CEOs and the well-connected. WFP is independent from corporate and government funding and in-addition we are community based; community funded and equally uninfluenced by both major parties. Our agenda focuses on economic and social justice, corporate accountability, job creation, environmental protection, and investment in education and healthcare.
For the past twelve years the WFP has been at the fore front of progressive politics,
Leading the fight and helping to frame the debate. The WFP has a proud record of fighting for issues that matter and has been instrumental in implementing key pieces of legislation such as Raising New York's Minimum Wage, Enacting Living Wage Laws, Creating Thousands of Jobs In the Green Economy, Passing Healthcare Reforms on the Local Level, Fighting for Affordable Housing, Keeping Tuition Costs Low, A Progressive Tax Code, Reliable/Cost Effective Public Transit System, Public Financing Of Elections and Corporate Accountability . In addition, we have an unapologetic stance on supporting and pushing good candidates to enact progressive legislation
The WFP is seeking immediate hires.
You must be an energetic communicator, with a passion for social and economic justice.
Only outgoing, articulate dedicated, determined candidates will be considered for the positions.
For those candidates that qualify WFP offers substantial paid-training provided by senior leadership, on varied issues such as: advocacy, public speaking, mobilizing, fundraising, networking and organizing. We invest in passionate people with excellent communication skills and a full benefits package is offered to those candidates that qualify. In addition, there is opportunity for advancement and travel to our satellite chapters and out of state affiliates.
This is not a policy job! Through direct action you will be shaping NY state politics for the next 20 years.
If you care about New York and want to help educate and mobilize around legislative campaigns-then we look forward to hearing from you!
Apply at http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/jobs/.
Compensation: $350-$650 A Week Depending On Responsibility & Length Of Time On Staff
Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
Please, no phone calls about this job!
Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.
PostingID: 2618821815
Here's the Screen Shot:
Working Families Party was born out of a coalition made up of Unions, the New Party, and Acorn:
The Working Families Party (WFP) is a minor political party in the United States founded in New York in 1998. There are "sister" parties to the New York WFP in Connecticut, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Delaware, Vermont and Oregon, but there is as yet no national WFP. It seems likely that the state WFPs will form a federation of sorts before 2012, but nothing definitive has been announced.
New York's Working Families Party was first organized in 1998 by a coalition of labor unions, ACORN and other community organizations, members of the now-inactive national New Party, and a variety of public interest groups such as Citizen Action of New York.
List of NFL Teams who Contribute to Republicans
Reuters - National Football League teams have donated at least $1.4 million to politicians, parties, and committees since 2009, with about two-thirds of the cash going to Republicans, a study released on Friday showed.
The bulk of the top NFL-affiliated political cash comes from team owners, according to analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan research group.
The league's newest team, the Houston Texans, leads the gridiron-giving pack, doling $293,100 to mainly Republican candidates and committees.
The team's contributions were buoyed by owner and founder, Robert McNair, a Texas energy and real estate magnate who has donated $215,200 to political causes since 2009. His net worth is estimated at $1.4 billion.
Among other donations in 2011, McNair has given $2,500 to rising Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain and over $60,000 to committees backing congressional Republicans, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
Reasons for political contributions vary, according to Michael Beckel of the CRP, ranging from seeking tax breaks or incentives to keep their team in a particular location, to labor relations issues.
"The giving often matches the political landscape of the team's city," said Beckel. "By in large, this is a GOP (Republican)-leaning group of people driven by geography and business interests."
Players and spouses are also included in the totals but they give in much smaller amounts.
The San Diego Chargers came in second, with its players and executives giving $171,500 mainly to Republicans and their committees since 2009. Their contributions were driven principally by the Spanos family, which includes the team's owner, Alex G. Spanos....
The New York Jets ranked third, giving $147,850 in campaign cash. Most of it came from Jets owner Woody Johnson, who gave $130,550 mainly to Republicans since 2009, the second most of anyone associated with the NFL.
Johnson has also given to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
Overall, teams mostly favoring Republicans donated at least 70 percent of their contributions to the party. They include the Texans, the Jets, the Chargers, Arizona Cardinals, Dallas Cowboys, Denver Broncos, Carolina Panthers, Kansas City Chiefs, Washington Redskins, Detroit Lions and the Baltimore Ravens.
Teams that mostly tilted to the Democrats pushed at least 70 percent of their contributions to left-leaning politicians and groups. They include the Seattle Seahawks, St. Louis Rams, San Francisco 49ers, Oakland Raiders, Philadelphia Eagles, New York Giants, New England Patriots, and New Orleans Saints.
Only Robert Kraft, the owner of the Patriots, has heavily favored Democrats and given enough to make the list of top 10 contributors. Of the $33,600 he has contributed since 2009, only $4,800 went to Republicans.
The Browns gave the least, at $750. Of that, about two thirds went to Republicans.
"For the most part, the NFL players are not opening their wallets despite often very sizable salaries," Beckel said.
Notable exceptions include Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning, who donated $5,000 to Republican Senator Bob Corker, and Julius Peppers, a defensive end for the Chicago Bears, who donated $2,400 to New York Democrat Kevin Powell.
(Additional reporting by Kim Dixon in Washington and Ros Krasny in Boston)
The bulk of the top NFL-affiliated political cash comes from team owners, according to analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan research group.
The league's newest team, the Houston Texans, leads the gridiron-giving pack, doling $293,100 to mainly Republican candidates and committees.
The team's contributions were buoyed by owner and founder, Robert McNair, a Texas energy and real estate magnate who has donated $215,200 to political causes since 2009. His net worth is estimated at $1.4 billion.
Among other donations in 2011, McNair has given $2,500 to rising Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain and over $60,000 to committees backing congressional Republicans, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
Reasons for political contributions vary, according to Michael Beckel of the CRP, ranging from seeking tax breaks or incentives to keep their team in a particular location, to labor relations issues.
"The giving often matches the political landscape of the team's city," said Beckel. "By in large, this is a GOP (Republican)-leaning group of people driven by geography and business interests."
Players and spouses are also included in the totals but they give in much smaller amounts.
The San Diego Chargers came in second, with its players and executives giving $171,500 mainly to Republicans and their committees since 2009. Their contributions were driven principally by the Spanos family, which includes the team's owner, Alex G. Spanos....
The New York Jets ranked third, giving $147,850 in campaign cash. Most of it came from Jets owner Woody Johnson, who gave $130,550 mainly to Republicans since 2009, the second most of anyone associated with the NFL.
Johnson has also given to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
Overall, teams mostly favoring Republicans donated at least 70 percent of their contributions to the party. They include the Texans, the Jets, the Chargers, Arizona Cardinals, Dallas Cowboys, Denver Broncos, Carolina Panthers, Kansas City Chiefs, Washington Redskins, Detroit Lions and the Baltimore Ravens.
Teams that mostly tilted to the Democrats pushed at least 70 percent of their contributions to left-leaning politicians and groups. They include the Seattle Seahawks, St. Louis Rams, San Francisco 49ers, Oakland Raiders, Philadelphia Eagles, New York Giants, New England Patriots, and New Orleans Saints.
Only Robert Kraft, the owner of the Patriots, has heavily favored Democrats and given enough to make the list of top 10 contributors. Of the $33,600 he has contributed since 2009, only $4,800 went to Republicans.
The Browns gave the least, at $750. Of that, about two thirds went to Republicans.
"For the most part, the NFL players are not opening their wallets despite often very sizable salaries," Beckel said.
Notable exceptions include Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning, who donated $5,000 to Republican Senator Bob Corker, and Julius Peppers, a defensive end for the Chicago Bears, who donated $2,400 to New York Democrat Kevin Powell.
(Additional reporting by Kim Dixon in Washington and Ros Krasny in Boston)
The US share of the IMF bailouts for Europe could easily exceed $100 BILLION
Politics, Money and OWS
Submitted by Bruce Krasting on 10/09/2011 08:50 -0400
The head of the IMF, Christine Legarde dropped a big bill on Tim Geithner’s desk after the market closed on Friday.
From the WSJ article:
The IMF could offer short-term lines valued at roughly $50 billion combined to Italy and Spain.
The credit lines for those two countries could double to roughly $100 billion combined once their IMF contributions increase next year.
It’s clear that Lagarde is after the ever-elusive leverage factor. In this case “creative” and “firewall” means SPV.
"We have really tried to be creative about our facilities and instruments."
The lines could be offered to a group of countries, which could "Install a firewall around the core of the system to prevent or mitigate the propagation of virulent shocks."
The new credit lines could be used cooperatively with regional financing programs such as the European bailout program.
Really? The IMF is going to be doing some leveraged lending? Bailout money? For Spain and Italy?
The USA share of any IMF bailout is 25%. So Christine thinks she can get Geithner to step up for 25 large. And that would be just for Italy and Spain. Forget all the other troubled EU countries that would be able to borrow under this facility. The USA share of the IMF bailouts could easily exceed $100 billion.
**************************
I never thought Obama’s “Jobs Plan” had much of a chance of passing. After reviewing the report by the CBO on S. 1549, The American Jobs Act of 2011, I’m convinced this legislation will never see the light of day.
This legislation is being sold as a jobs creator. It’s being sold as an economic stimulus. When you look at it, it’s obvious that this is an attempt to swing an election. It has nothing to do with good economic or fiscal policy.
The folks at the CBO look at things on a fiscal year basis. As a result, their analysis suggests that some of the “benefits” of the Bill will extend into 2013. I looked at it on a calendar year basis. This chart shows where the deficits (stimulus) and increased taxes (contraction) take place.
Clearly, this is a one trick pony. There is only one reason why the President proposed this “jobs” bill. He wants to get reelected. He thinks this will help. If the law is passed, it might just do that. The average family would get about $1,500 in their pocket. There would be signs on roads and schools that are being repaired that the work was being done on account of Obama.
That’s precisely the reason why the Bill is D.O.A.
I’m not at all sure what should be done with the US economy, nor am I sure what the right path in Europe should be. I am, however, certain that if some very dramatic steps are not taken over the next two weeks, the financial system in Europe is going to implode. I’m equally convinced that if the US does not get a meaningful stimulus in 2012 there will be a hell of recession next year.
Obama and Geithner have pushed publicly for “Bold Action” by the EU. That means they have to deliver on the US cost of this. America can’t walk on its obligations to the IMF. If it did, Europe would crumble. At the same time, O & G will fail in their effort to get a spending bill from Congress. So I see a scenario where The US is forced to participate in a EU bailout, while the US economy gets no support, and therefore withers.
I’m off to see the Wall Street protesters today. I expect there will be a big crowd. The press has been maligning these protests. The suggestion has been that there is no central theme or objectives of the OWS movement.
The OWS protest has legs at this point in history. The failed debate on the stimulus and a USA blank check for the IMF is exactly what the protesters need. A rallying point. I think they will get what they need/want to take this to the next level. It will happen over the next two weeks. As a result, the OWS movement will go nuclear.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it ends with violence. There are too many cops and way too many angry people. Soon they will have something to be really be angry about.
Submitted by Bruce Krasting on 10/09/2011 08:50 -0400
The head of the IMF, Christine Legarde dropped a big bill on Tim Geithner’s desk after the market closed on Friday.
From the WSJ article:
The IMF could offer short-term lines valued at roughly $50 billion combined to Italy and Spain.
The credit lines for those two countries could double to roughly $100 billion combined once their IMF contributions increase next year.
It’s clear that Lagarde is after the ever-elusive leverage factor. In this case “creative” and “firewall” means SPV.
"We have really tried to be creative about our facilities and instruments."
The lines could be offered to a group of countries, which could "Install a firewall around the core of the system to prevent or mitigate the propagation of virulent shocks."
The new credit lines could be used cooperatively with regional financing programs such as the European bailout program.
Really? The IMF is going to be doing some leveraged lending? Bailout money? For Spain and Italy?
The USA share of any IMF bailout is 25%. So Christine thinks she can get Geithner to step up for 25 large. And that would be just for Italy and Spain. Forget all the other troubled EU countries that would be able to borrow under this facility. The USA share of the IMF bailouts could easily exceed $100 billion.
**************************
I never thought Obama’s “Jobs Plan” had much of a chance of passing. After reviewing the report by the CBO on S. 1549, The American Jobs Act of 2011, I’m convinced this legislation will never see the light of day.
This legislation is being sold as a jobs creator. It’s being sold as an economic stimulus. When you look at it, it’s obvious that this is an attempt to swing an election. It has nothing to do with good economic or fiscal policy.
The folks at the CBO look at things on a fiscal year basis. As a result, their analysis suggests that some of the “benefits” of the Bill will extend into 2013. I looked at it on a calendar year basis. This chart shows where the deficits (stimulus) and increased taxes (contraction) take place.
That’s precisely the reason why the Bill is D.O.A.
I’m not at all sure what should be done with the US economy, nor am I sure what the right path in Europe should be. I am, however, certain that if some very dramatic steps are not taken over the next two weeks, the financial system in Europe is going to implode. I’m equally convinced that if the US does not get a meaningful stimulus in 2012 there will be a hell of recession next year.
Obama and Geithner have pushed publicly for “Bold Action” by the EU. That means they have to deliver on the US cost of this. America can’t walk on its obligations to the IMF. If it did, Europe would crumble. At the same time, O & G will fail in their effort to get a spending bill from Congress. So I see a scenario where The US is forced to participate in a EU bailout, while the US economy gets no support, and therefore withers.
I’m off to see the Wall Street protesters today. I expect there will be a big crowd. The press has been maligning these protests. The suggestion has been that there is no central theme or objectives of the OWS movement.
The OWS protest has legs at this point in history. The failed debate on the stimulus and a USA blank check for the IMF is exactly what the protesters need. A rallying point. I think they will get what they need/want to take this to the next level. It will happen over the next two weeks. As a result, the OWS movement will go nuclear.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it ends with violence. There are too many cops and way too many angry people. Soon they will have something to be really be angry about.
EPA loses battle against W. Va. coal mines
October 6, 2011 by Don Surber
U.S. District Judge Reggie Barnett Walton, a Bush 43 appointee to the D.C. bench, handed the Obama administration its hat today by ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency overstepped its authority in pulling Corps of Engineers permits for coal mines in Appalachia, including West Virginia. The National Mining Association had sued the EPA. The judge said: “Congress established a permitting scheme in which the Corps is to be the principal player, and the EPA is to play a lesser, clearly defined supporting role.”
Ry Rivard of the Charleston Daily Mail has a report.
Republican Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito said: “Today’s court ruling reaffirms what we’ve known all along in Appalachia, that the EPA has been overstepping its boundaries in the permit approval process in order to advance an anti-coal agenda. The EPA has tried everything, from abusing their regulatory authority to issuing ‘guidance’ reports in order to overstep the bounds of its traditional role in the permitting process. It’s about time the Courts ruled ‘enough is enough’ by re-establishing the Army Corps of Engineers’ role as the primary permitting authority. This is a significant step in our efforts to rein in the EPA which remains intent on rewarding a core constituency that doesn’t want any coal mining, no matter the cost to West Virginia or our nation. I will continue to monitor this important ruling and what it means for West Virginia.”
Democratic Senator Joe Manchin said: “I’m excited to hear that the federal court has ruled in favor of West Virginia – and against the EPA for overstepping their boundaries – on this partial summary judgment. I’m very hopeful that this will put us on the path of receiving the permits that are needed to provide the energy and the jobs not just for West Virginia but for this entire country. This is a great day for West Virginia.”
Undoubtedly West Virginia’s other two congressman — Democrat Nick Joe Rahall and Republican David McKinley — are pleased.
Ken Ward of the Charleston Gazette posted a PDF of the 19-page decision.
Judge Walton is an interesting man who grew up in Donora, Pennsylvania, the hometown of Stan Musial and Ken Griffey Jr. — and also the place where pollution from from the American Steel and Wire plant and Donora Zinc Works killed 50 people (including Stan Musial’s father) in an air inversion in 1948. Judge Walton is a 1971 graduate of West Virginia State, which is in the middle of the Chemical Valley, so I think we can assume he knows the dangers of industry.
As for his Bush appointment, Judge Walton threw the book at Scooter Libby.
The Associated Press report:
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency went too far when it began reviewing individual Clean Water Act permits on mountaintop mining operations, a federal judge ruled Thursday.
U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton in Washington issued a partial summary judgment in a lawsuit filed by a coal mining industry coalition against the EPA and its administrator, Lisa Jackson.
The National Mining Association had challenged a 2009 decision in which the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers agreed to coordinate reviews of backlogged permit applications for waste disposal at Appalachia mountaintop mining operations that raised serious environmental concerns.
Walton ruled the EPA’s 2009 process exceeded its statutory authority under the Clean Water Act. The process is limited to 29 permit applications in Kentucky and West Virginia.
“It’s about time the Courts ruled ‘enough is enough’ by re-establishing the Army Corps of Engineers’ role as the primary permitting authority,” said Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va. “This is a significant step in our efforts to rein in the EPA, which remains intent on rewarding a core constituency that doesn’t want any coal mining, no matter the cost to West Virginia or our nation.”
Last year, aides for then-Gov. Joe Manchin filed a similar lawsuit targeting EPA policies adopted since President Barack Obama took office that are designed to limit the practice of burying streams under excess rock removed while extracting coal at mines.
Critics say that practice destroys the environment. The mining industry defends it as an efficient way to produce cheap power and employ thousands in well-paying jobs.
Since Obama took office, the flow of water quality permits for Appalachian mines has slowed to a trickle.
“I’m very hopeful that this will put us on the path of receiving the permits that are needed to provide the energy and the jobs not just for West Virginia but for this entire country,” said Manchin, now a U.S. senator. “This is a great day for West Virginia.”
Environmental groups pledge their ongoing support Thursday for the EPA’s permitting process.
“If the Army Corps and EPA don’t do their job, we will only face more devastating loss of our mountains and streams,” said Dianne Bady, co-director of the Huntington-based Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition.
Further arguments are scheduled later on the portion of the coal industry’s lawsuit challenging EPA’s water quality guidelines for Appalachian mining operations.
U.S. District Judge Reggie Barnett Walton, a Bush 43 appointee to the D.C. bench, handed the Obama administration its hat today by ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency overstepped its authority in pulling Corps of Engineers permits for coal mines in Appalachia, including West Virginia. The National Mining Association had sued the EPA. The judge said: “Congress established a permitting scheme in which the Corps is to be the principal player, and the EPA is to play a lesser, clearly defined supporting role.”
Ry Rivard of the Charleston Daily Mail has a report.
Republican Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito said: “Today’s court ruling reaffirms what we’ve known all along in Appalachia, that the EPA has been overstepping its boundaries in the permit approval process in order to advance an anti-coal agenda. The EPA has tried everything, from abusing their regulatory authority to issuing ‘guidance’ reports in order to overstep the bounds of its traditional role in the permitting process. It’s about time the Courts ruled ‘enough is enough’ by re-establishing the Army Corps of Engineers’ role as the primary permitting authority. This is a significant step in our efforts to rein in the EPA which remains intent on rewarding a core constituency that doesn’t want any coal mining, no matter the cost to West Virginia or our nation. I will continue to monitor this important ruling and what it means for West Virginia.”
Democratic Senator Joe Manchin said: “I’m excited to hear that the federal court has ruled in favor of West Virginia – and against the EPA for overstepping their boundaries – on this partial summary judgment. I’m very hopeful that this will put us on the path of receiving the permits that are needed to provide the energy and the jobs not just for West Virginia but for this entire country. This is a great day for West Virginia.”
Undoubtedly West Virginia’s other two congressman — Democrat Nick Joe Rahall and Republican David McKinley — are pleased.
Ken Ward of the Charleston Gazette posted a PDF of the 19-page decision.
Judge Walton is an interesting man who grew up in Donora, Pennsylvania, the hometown of Stan Musial and Ken Griffey Jr. — and also the place where pollution from from the American Steel and Wire plant and Donora Zinc Works killed 50 people (including Stan Musial’s father) in an air inversion in 1948. Judge Walton is a 1971 graduate of West Virginia State, which is in the middle of the Chemical Valley, so I think we can assume he knows the dangers of industry.
As for his Bush appointment, Judge Walton threw the book at Scooter Libby.
The Associated Press report:
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency went too far when it began reviewing individual Clean Water Act permits on mountaintop mining operations, a federal judge ruled Thursday.
U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton in Washington issued a partial summary judgment in a lawsuit filed by a coal mining industry coalition against the EPA and its administrator, Lisa Jackson.
The National Mining Association had challenged a 2009 decision in which the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers agreed to coordinate reviews of backlogged permit applications for waste disposal at Appalachia mountaintop mining operations that raised serious environmental concerns.
Walton ruled the EPA’s 2009 process exceeded its statutory authority under the Clean Water Act. The process is limited to 29 permit applications in Kentucky and West Virginia.
“It’s about time the Courts ruled ‘enough is enough’ by re-establishing the Army Corps of Engineers’ role as the primary permitting authority,” said Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va. “This is a significant step in our efforts to rein in the EPA, which remains intent on rewarding a core constituency that doesn’t want any coal mining, no matter the cost to West Virginia or our nation.”
Last year, aides for then-Gov. Joe Manchin filed a similar lawsuit targeting EPA policies adopted since President Barack Obama took office that are designed to limit the practice of burying streams under excess rock removed while extracting coal at mines.
Critics say that practice destroys the environment. The mining industry defends it as an efficient way to produce cheap power and employ thousands in well-paying jobs.
Since Obama took office, the flow of water quality permits for Appalachian mines has slowed to a trickle.
“I’m very hopeful that this will put us on the path of receiving the permits that are needed to provide the energy and the jobs not just for West Virginia but for this entire country,” said Manchin, now a U.S. senator. “This is a great day for West Virginia.”
Environmental groups pledge their ongoing support Thursday for the EPA’s permitting process.
“If the Army Corps and EPA don’t do their job, we will only face more devastating loss of our mountains and streams,” said Dianne Bady, co-director of the Huntington-based Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition.
Further arguments are scheduled later on the portion of the coal industry’s lawsuit challenging EPA’s water quality guidelines for Appalachian mining operations.
Pics From 'We Stand With Gibson' Rally
I’m not good at making crowd estimations, but it looked like a pretty decent turn-out:
October, 8, 2011 — nicedeb
All photos via @TNReport
The purpose of the rally was to raise awareness and fuel outrage about the Gibson Guitar raid, a massive abuse of power that has become all too common in Obama’s gangster government. The TN Report has been covering the issue, and posting pictures of the rally on Twitter:
“I don’t think any other issue has captured the passions of tea partiers like this one has in the last year,” said Ben Cunningham, a blogger and spokesman for Tennessee Tax Revolt.
“There is near universal agreement among the tea party and conservative groups that the raids — the one that occurred in August and the one that occurred two years ago — were an overreach by the federal government. It was an abuse of power and authority,” said Cunningham.
The purpose of the “We Stand With Gibson” event is to say to the federal government, “Back off,” Cunningham said during a press conference Wednesday.
There were musical performances from Eric Lee Bedingfield, Grant Austin Taylor, Madison Rising and Rivoli Review.
More pictures taken by @TNReport at the rally can be viewed here.
Via @timeboat #RivoliRevue on stage. pic.twitter.com/EaAU1wYi
SEE ALSO:
Scared Monkeys: WE STAND WITH GIBSON RALLY … Pics … Great Crowd Showed Up in Support of Gibson Guitar, Part I
October, 8, 2011 — nicedeb
All photos via @TNReport
The purpose of the rally was to raise awareness and fuel outrage about the Gibson Guitar raid, a massive abuse of power that has become all too common in Obama’s gangster government. The TN Report has been covering the issue, and posting pictures of the rally on Twitter:
“I don’t think any other issue has captured the passions of tea partiers like this one has in the last year,” said Ben Cunningham, a blogger and spokesman for Tennessee Tax Revolt.
“There is near universal agreement among the tea party and conservative groups that the raids — the one that occurred in August and the one that occurred two years ago — were an overreach by the federal government. It was an abuse of power and authority,” said Cunningham.
The purpose of the “We Stand With Gibson” event is to say to the federal government, “Back off,” Cunningham said during a press conference Wednesday.
There were musical performances from Eric Lee Bedingfield, Grant Austin Taylor, Madison Rising and Rivoli Review.
Via @timeboat #RivoliRevue on stage. pic.twitter.com/EaAU1wYi
SEE ALSO:
Scared Monkeys: WE STAND WITH GIBSON RALLY … Pics … Great Crowd Showed Up in Support of Gibson Guitar, Part I
U.S. Diplomat Confirms Direct Talks with Egypt's Brotherhood
American officials have met with members of Egypt's long-banned Muslim Brotherhood, an unnamed senior U.S. diplomat told Reuters.
The official did not specify when the meetings took place, but noted that there has been no formal distinction between members of the Brotherhood or its affiliated political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), whose formation was first announced in February.
"We have had direct contacts with senior officials of the Freedom and Justice party," the American diplomat said, adding that the administration does not "have a policy that makes a distinction [between the Brotherhood and the FJP], that one or the other is off limits."
The latest talks involved "high-level" party members, the official said, in contrast to earlier contacts, which were mostly with Brotherhood-affiliated parliamentarians running as "independents."
It's pointless to try making distinction between the Brotherhood and its political arm: the senior leaders of the FJP were plucked directly from the Brotherhood's Executive Bureau after the FJP was formed, and the Brotherhood has shown time and time again that one cannot be a Muslim Brother without supporting the FJP and its political line.
This weekend's acknowledgment runs counter to earlier claims by senior Brotherhood leaders that the group had not met with American officials after the widely publicized June announcement that the United States would resume a policy of limited contacts with the Islamist group.
"It was not immediately clear why the two sides gave different accounts," Reuters noted.
"From our perspective it is important to be in touch with all of the emerging political forces here in Egypt, across the board, that are peaceful and committed to non-violence," the diplomat answered when asked why the United States is engaging with the long-banned party that has already begun to set its sights on an Islamic state in Egypt.
Peaceful and committed to non-violence? They must be talking about a different group.
The official did not specify when the meetings took place, but noted that there has been no formal distinction between members of the Brotherhood or its affiliated political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), whose formation was first announced in February.
"We have had direct contacts with senior officials of the Freedom and Justice party," the American diplomat said, adding that the administration does not "have a policy that makes a distinction [between the Brotherhood and the FJP], that one or the other is off limits."
The latest talks involved "high-level" party members, the official said, in contrast to earlier contacts, which were mostly with Brotherhood-affiliated parliamentarians running as "independents."
It's pointless to try making distinction between the Brotherhood and its political arm: the senior leaders of the FJP were plucked directly from the Brotherhood's Executive Bureau after the FJP was formed, and the Brotherhood has shown time and time again that one cannot be a Muslim Brother without supporting the FJP and its political line.
This weekend's acknowledgment runs counter to earlier claims by senior Brotherhood leaders that the group had not met with American officials after the widely publicized June announcement that the United States would resume a policy of limited contacts with the Islamist group.
"It was not immediately clear why the two sides gave different accounts," Reuters noted.
"From our perspective it is important to be in touch with all of the emerging political forces here in Egypt, across the board, that are peaceful and committed to non-violence," the diplomat answered when asked why the United States is engaging with the long-banned party that has already begun to set its sights on an Islamic state in Egypt.
Peaceful and committed to non-violence? They must be talking about a different group.
Virus infects computers piloting U.S. drones
By Michael Winter - USA Today
Posted : Saturday Oct 8, 2011 14:20:45 EDT
A computer virus that logs keystrokes has infected computers used in Nevada to remotely pilot U.S. drones over Afghanistan and other war zones, Wired reports. As far as the Pentagon knows, no classified information has been lost or transmitted outside.
The keystroke logger was first detected nearly two weeks ago at Creech Air Force Base, where most Predator and Reaper drones are guided, and has stubbornly resisted removal, sources told Noah Shachtman, who writes the Danger Room blog.
“We keep wiping it off, and it keeps coming back,” one source said.” We think it’s benign. But we just don’t know.”
Shachtman writes that the infection “underscores the ongoing security risks in what has become the U.S. military’s most important weapons system.”
Posted : Saturday Oct 8, 2011 14:20:45 EDT
A computer virus that logs keystrokes has infected computers used in Nevada to remotely pilot U.S. drones over Afghanistan and other war zones, Wired reports. As far as the Pentagon knows, no classified information has been lost or transmitted outside.
The keystroke logger was first detected nearly two weeks ago at Creech Air Force Base, where most Predator and Reaper drones are guided, and has stubbornly resisted removal, sources told Noah Shachtman, who writes the Danger Room blog.
“We keep wiping it off, and it keeps coming back,” one source said.” We think it’s benign. But we just don’t know.”
Shachtman writes that the infection “underscores the ongoing security risks in what has become the U.S. military’s most important weapons system.”
Friday White House Doc Dump: Solyndra Emails Indicate Politics, Possible Illegality in Loan Deal
John on October 7, 2011 at 3:10 pm
ABC has new Solyndra emails and they are political dynamite:
An elite Obama fundraiser hired to help oversee the administration’s energy loan program pushed and prodded career Department of Energy officials to move faster in approving a loan guarantee for Solyndra, even as his wife’s law firm was representing the California solar company, according to internal emails made public late Friday.
“How hard is this? What is he waiting for?” wrote Steven J. Spinner, a high-tech consultant and energy investor who raised at least $500,000 for the candidate before being appointed to a key job helping oversee the energy loan guarantee program. “I have OVP [the Office of the Vice President] and WH [the White House] breathing down my neck on this.“
Yeah, it went through the regular process. No one was pushing or anything, trying to create a photo op. But the really damaging part won’t be that, it’ll be this:
In one pointed memo, shortly before the company declared bankruptcy, a top Treasury official wrote to the White House to make clear that the decision to restructure the deal did not have Treasury or Justice Department approval — despite early suggestions that approval from both agencies may be required.
“To our knowledge, that has never happened,” wrote Mary J. Miller, Treasury’s assistant secretary for financial markets. “While I expect that DOE has a view about why loan subordination can occur without DOJ approval or Treasury consultation, I wanted to correct any impression that we have acquiesced in the steps to date.”
Recall that we’ve been down this road before in testimony:
The fact that neither Treasury nor DOJ had approved this move and wanted it in writing that they hadn’t lends a lot of credence to Republican claims that this was a violation of the statute and DOE had reason to know it or at least to suspect it.
ABC has new Solyndra emails and they are political dynamite:
An elite Obama fundraiser hired to help oversee the administration’s energy loan program pushed and prodded career Department of Energy officials to move faster in approving a loan guarantee for Solyndra, even as his wife’s law firm was representing the California solar company, according to internal emails made public late Friday.
“How hard is this? What is he waiting for?” wrote Steven J. Spinner, a high-tech consultant and energy investor who raised at least $500,000 for the candidate before being appointed to a key job helping oversee the energy loan guarantee program. “I have OVP [the Office of the Vice President] and WH [the White House] breathing down my neck on this.“
Yeah, it went through the regular process. No one was pushing or anything, trying to create a photo op. But the really damaging part won’t be that, it’ll be this:
In one pointed memo, shortly before the company declared bankruptcy, a top Treasury official wrote to the White House to make clear that the decision to restructure the deal did not have Treasury or Justice Department approval — despite early suggestions that approval from both agencies may be required.
“To our knowledge, that has never happened,” wrote Mary J. Miller, Treasury’s assistant secretary for financial markets. “While I expect that DOE has a view about why loan subordination can occur without DOJ approval or Treasury consultation, I wanted to correct any impression that we have acquiesced in the steps to date.”
Recall that we’ve been down this road before in testimony:
The fact that neither Treasury nor DOJ had approved this move and wanted it in writing that they hadn’t lends a lot of credence to Republican claims that this was a violation of the statute and DOE had reason to know it or at least to suspect it.
Hmmm: Owners of Zuccotti Park Recently Received $135 Million in Tax Money for Wind Farm
Isn't it curious that the management company that runs Zuccotti Park in Manhattan, where Obama's army of goons have been camping out the past few weeks, just so happened to get a $135 million loan to subsidize a New Hampshire wind farm just after opening their park to the anti-capitalist squatters?
In the name of “green energy,” the Obama administration is using taxpayer money to subsidize a New Hampshire wind farm that is a subsidiary of a hugely profitable company.
New Hampshire’s largest wind farm, the Granite Reliable Power project under construction in Coos County, is jointly owned by BAIF Granite Holdings, LLC and Freshnet Wind Energy, LLC. BAIF owns 75 percent of Granite Reliable. BAIF Granite Holdings was created earlier this year by Brookfield Renewable Power, which is a subsidiary of Brookfield Asset Management of New York.
That company, which runs clean energy operations around the world, has deep pockets. It reported net income of $454 million in 2009 and $3.2 billion in 2010. Brookfield Renewable Power financed the creation of BAIF Granite Holdings from its Brookfield Americas Infrastructure fund, which was reported in February to have $2.7 billion in assets. With that kind of backing, it is curious that the U.S. Department of Energy announced it would guarantee up to 80 percent of a $168.9 million loan for the Granite Reliable wind farm project last week.
Why would a company created by a $3.2 billion company and backed by a $2.7 billion private fund need federal loan guarantees? That would be an important question at any time, but it is more pertinent after the bankruptcy of Solyndra, a solar-panel maker that got a $535 million federal loan guarantee from the Obama administration last year.
Granite Reliable’s wind farm is not proven, and Granite Reliable is a limited liability company, which provides broad investor protection if the company goes down. If the wind farm flops, and investors cut their losses, the taxpayers stand to lose $135 million. What is the justification for risking $135 million in public money, especially on a company with access to so much private cash? Apparently, the justification is that Obama likes “green power” and wants to associate himself with it.
Now why does a company worth billions need taxpayer funding for some green energy project? Something surely smells here. Let's see: They opened the park in mid-September, and magically on September 23, here's a windfall of taxpayer cash.
You'll never guess who lobbies for Brookfield. The firm of Oldaker, Biden & Belair, founded by Joe Biden's son. Well, isn't that a cozy relationship?
There's actually more to it, as someone here has sifted through all the connections. Frankly, it reeks of cronyism and backscratching.
H/T Colleen.
In the name of “green energy,” the Obama administration is using taxpayer money to subsidize a New Hampshire wind farm that is a subsidiary of a hugely profitable company.
New Hampshire’s largest wind farm, the Granite Reliable Power project under construction in Coos County, is jointly owned by BAIF Granite Holdings, LLC and Freshnet Wind Energy, LLC. BAIF owns 75 percent of Granite Reliable. BAIF Granite Holdings was created earlier this year by Brookfield Renewable Power, which is a subsidiary of Brookfield Asset Management of New York.
That company, which runs clean energy operations around the world, has deep pockets. It reported net income of $454 million in 2009 and $3.2 billion in 2010. Brookfield Renewable Power financed the creation of BAIF Granite Holdings from its Brookfield Americas Infrastructure fund, which was reported in February to have $2.7 billion in assets. With that kind of backing, it is curious that the U.S. Department of Energy announced it would guarantee up to 80 percent of a $168.9 million loan for the Granite Reliable wind farm project last week.
Why would a company created by a $3.2 billion company and backed by a $2.7 billion private fund need federal loan guarantees? That would be an important question at any time, but it is more pertinent after the bankruptcy of Solyndra, a solar-panel maker that got a $535 million federal loan guarantee from the Obama administration last year.
Granite Reliable’s wind farm is not proven, and Granite Reliable is a limited liability company, which provides broad investor protection if the company goes down. If the wind farm flops, and investors cut their losses, the taxpayers stand to lose $135 million. What is the justification for risking $135 million in public money, especially on a company with access to so much private cash? Apparently, the justification is that Obama likes “green power” and wants to associate himself with it.
Now why does a company worth billions need taxpayer funding for some green energy project? Something surely smells here. Let's see: They opened the park in mid-September, and magically on September 23, here's a windfall of taxpayer cash.
You'll never guess who lobbies for Brookfield. The firm of Oldaker, Biden & Belair, founded by Joe Biden's son. Well, isn't that a cozy relationship?
There's actually more to it, as someone here has sifted through all the connections. Frankly, it reeks of cronyism and backscratching.
H/T Colleen.
"Arsenal Of Eric Holder's Guns Found In Drug Cartel Boss's Home..."
October 8th, 2011 Posted By Pat Dollard
The ATF is a part of the Justice Department. They don’t merely report to the Justice Department, they ARE the Justice Department. Eric Holder intentionally flooded Mexico with guns in order to then blame Arizona gun dealers, and then crack down on them. Obama admitted to Jim Brady’s wife, Sarah, “We’re working on gun control “under the radar.” He was talking about “Fast and Furious”>
Los Angeles Times:
Reporting from Washington— High-powered assault weapons illegally purchased under the ATF’s Fast and Furious program in Phoenix ended up in a home belonging to the purported top Sinaloa cartel enforcer in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, whose organization was terrorizing that city with the worst violence in the Mexican drug wars.
In all, 100 assault weapons acquired under Fast and Furious were transported 350 miles from Phoenix to El Paso, making that West Texas city a central hub for gun traffickers. Forty of the weapons made it across the border and into the arsenal of Jose Antonio Torres Marrufo, a feared cartel leader in Ciudad Juarez, according to federal court records and trace documents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
The smugglers’ tactics — quickly moving the weapons far from ATF agents in southern Arizona, where it had been assumed they would circulate — vividly demonstrate that what had been viewed as a local problem was much larger. Six other Fast and Furious guns destined for El Paso were recovered in Columbus, N.M.
“These Fast and Furious guns were going to Sinaloans, and they are killing everyone down there,” said one knowledgeable U.S. government source, who asked for anonymity because of the ongoing investigations. “But that’s only how many we know came through Texas. Hundreds more had to get through.”
Torres Marrufo, also known as “the Jaguar,” has been identified by U.S. authorities as the enforcer for Sinaloa cartel chieftain Joaquin “Chapo” Guzman. The Fast and Furious weapons were found at one of Torres Marrufo’s homes April 30 when Mexican police inspected the property. It was unoccupied but “showed signs of recent activity,” they said.
The basement had been converted into a gym with a wall covered with built-in mirrors. Behind the mirrors they found a hidden room with the Fast and Furious weapons and dozens more, including an antiaircraft machine gun, a sniper rifle and a grenade launcher.
“We have seized the most important cache of weapons in the history of Ciudad Juarez,” Chihuahua state Gov. Cesar Duarte said at the time, though he did not know that many of the weapons came from the U.S. and Fast and Furious.
Torres Marrufo has been indicted in El Paso, but authorities have been unable to locate and arrest him.
In the U.S., intelligence officials consider the Sinaloa cartel the most powerful drug trafficking organization in the world. Weekly reports from U.S. intelligence authorities to the Justice Department in the summer of 2010, at the height of Fast and Furious, warned about the proliferation of guns reaching the Sinaloa cartel.
Under Fast and Furious, begun in fall 2009, the ATF allowed illegal buyers to walk away with weapons in the hope that agents in Phoenix could track the guns and arrest cartel leaders.
Three months into the program, El Paso began to emerge as a hub, perhaps the central location, for Fast and Furious weapons. On Jan. 13, 2010, El Paso police stumbled upon 40 firearms after following a suspicious dark blue Volkswagen Jetta that backed into a garage at a local residence, according to federal court records.
Alberto Sandoval told authorities he acquired the weapons three days after they were purchased from someone he knew only as “Rudy.” He said he was paid $1,000 to store the guns and “knew the firearms were going to Mexico.”
Sandoval pleaded guilty in federal court in El Paso and was sentenced to 6 1/2 years in prison. A month later, on Dec. 17, 2010, he escaped from a minimum-security prison in Tucson; officials believe he fled to Mexico.
Two others, Ivan Chavira and Edgar Ivan Galvan, were subsequently charged in that gun recovery, along with the recovery of 20 Fast and Furious weapons on April 7, 2010, in El Paso. Those guns also were discovered by chance by local authorities, and ATF trace records show that the weapons were purchased in Phoenix two weeks before they were found in El Paso.
Chavira and Galvan pleaded guilty. Chavira received eight years in prison; Galvan is to be sentenced next month.
Los Angeles Times:
Reporting from Washington— High-powered assault weapons illegally purchased under the ATF’s Fast and Furious program in Phoenix ended up in a home belonging to the purported top Sinaloa cartel enforcer in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, whose organization was terrorizing that city with the worst violence in the Mexican drug wars.
In all, 100 assault weapons acquired under Fast and Furious were transported 350 miles from Phoenix to El Paso, making that West Texas city a central hub for gun traffickers. Forty of the weapons made it across the border and into the arsenal of Jose Antonio Torres Marrufo, a feared cartel leader in Ciudad Juarez, according to federal court records and trace documents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
The smugglers’ tactics — quickly moving the weapons far from ATF agents in southern Arizona, where it had been assumed they would circulate — vividly demonstrate that what had been viewed as a local problem was much larger. Six other Fast and Furious guns destined for El Paso were recovered in Columbus, N.M.
“These Fast and Furious guns were going to Sinaloans, and they are killing everyone down there,” said one knowledgeable U.S. government source, who asked for anonymity because of the ongoing investigations. “But that’s only how many we know came through Texas. Hundreds more had to get through.”
Torres Marrufo, also known as “the Jaguar,” has been identified by U.S. authorities as the enforcer for Sinaloa cartel chieftain Joaquin “Chapo” Guzman. The Fast and Furious weapons were found at one of Torres Marrufo’s homes April 30 when Mexican police inspected the property. It was unoccupied but “showed signs of recent activity,” they said.
The basement had been converted into a gym with a wall covered with built-in mirrors. Behind the mirrors they found a hidden room with the Fast and Furious weapons and dozens more, including an antiaircraft machine gun, a sniper rifle and a grenade launcher.
“We have seized the most important cache of weapons in the history of Ciudad Juarez,” Chihuahua state Gov. Cesar Duarte said at the time, though he did not know that many of the weapons came from the U.S. and Fast and Furious.
Torres Marrufo has been indicted in El Paso, but authorities have been unable to locate and arrest him.
In the U.S., intelligence officials consider the Sinaloa cartel the most powerful drug trafficking organization in the world. Weekly reports from U.S. intelligence authorities to the Justice Department in the summer of 2010, at the height of Fast and Furious, warned about the proliferation of guns reaching the Sinaloa cartel.
Under Fast and Furious, begun in fall 2009, the ATF allowed illegal buyers to walk away with weapons in the hope that agents in Phoenix could track the guns and arrest cartel leaders.
Three months into the program, El Paso began to emerge as a hub, perhaps the central location, for Fast and Furious weapons. On Jan. 13, 2010, El Paso police stumbled upon 40 firearms after following a suspicious dark blue Volkswagen Jetta that backed into a garage at a local residence, according to federal court records.
Alberto Sandoval told authorities he acquired the weapons three days after they were purchased from someone he knew only as “Rudy.” He said he was paid $1,000 to store the guns and “knew the firearms were going to Mexico.”
Sandoval pleaded guilty in federal court in El Paso and was sentenced to 6 1/2 years in prison. A month later, on Dec. 17, 2010, he escaped from a minimum-security prison in Tucson; officials believe he fled to Mexico.
Two others, Ivan Chavira and Edgar Ivan Galvan, were subsequently charged in that gun recovery, along with the recovery of 20 Fast and Furious weapons on April 7, 2010, in El Paso. Those guns also were discovered by chance by local authorities, and ATF trace records show that the weapons were purchased in Phoenix two weeks before they were found in El Paso.
Chavira and Galvan pleaded guilty. Chavira received eight years in prison; Galvan is to be sentenced next month.
PAULBOT-MANIA: Ron Paul Supporters Buy Victory in ‘Value Voters’ Straw Poll
Posted on | October 8, 2011
The question to be asked is not whether it is unfair for the Paul campaign to keep doing this, but why the rest of the GOP field can’t spend a few bucks to do it themselves. Dave Weigel at Slate reports:
He beat out seven other candidates and “undecided.” The full results, with 1,983 ballots cast:
Ron Paul – 36.9% (732)
Herman Cain – 22.5% (447)
Rick Santorum – 16.3% (323)
Rick Perry – 8.4% (167)
Michele Bachmann – 7.9% (157)
Mitt Romney – 4.4% (88)
Newt Gingrich – 2.7% (54)
Undecided – 0.7% (13)
Jon Huntsman – 0.1% (2)
In a post-vote press conference, FRC President Tony Perkins made sure to note that 600 people had bought tickets for Saturday only — a none-too-subtle hint that Paul’s supporters had over-represented themselves.
“Do the math,” said Perkins. “Ron Paul and his campaign are very well organized.”
What did 600 tickets cost the Paul campaign? And what would have been the publicity value if, for example, the Rick Perry campaign had paid for 1,000 of their supporters to attend the summit? Perry raised $17 million and he can’t afford to buy a straw poll? Your stupidity is not someone else’s fault. Beyond that, the story is:
A. Herman Cain continues his momentum; and
B. Santorum got twice as many votes as Bachmann.
This pretty much puts a fork into the Bachmann campaign. If she can’t beat Santorum in a straw poll at a national conference of social conservatives, Bachmann probably can’t beat Santorum in Iowa, either.
UPDATE: Jazz Shaw at Hot Air: “Ron Paul brings home the bouquet for best organizational skills at a conservative event .”
And by “organizational skills,” he means, the willingness to spend money on grassroots activism, i.e., offering free tickets for any Paul supporter who wanted to come vote for their guy.
UPDATE II: My buddy Joe Fein has shown how the Paulistas won — “stole” might be too strong a word — the California GOP straw poll.
Stipulate that the Paul campaign operates according to the “By Any Means Necessary” radical principle. Nevertheless, the point to which I wish to call the reader’s attention is this: The Paul campaign is smart to spend money on getting their supporters to events, and other campaigns are stupid in spending money to hire a bunch of staffers and consultants who don’t necessarily provide value-added to their efforts.
Suppose you are a college kid who might be willing to support a Republican presidential candidate. Now, suppose that you could actually get to meet that candidate, and get free travel to events where that candidate appears. OK, furthermore suppose that the campaign had a sort of Amway incentive deal where, if you were campus activist who could sign up a dozen of your college buddies to accept the same free-travel deal, you’d get a small commission for every warm body you delivered on the Republican candidate’s behalf.
Shouldn’t Republicans be able to understand how the Ron Paul campaign is using market incentives to build their movement?
Why, then, are most GOP presidential campaigns top-heavy affairs that spend ridiculous sums on “media consultants,” etc., rather than to use their money the way Ron Paul’s campaign uses their money?
Like I said: Your stupidity is not someone else’s fault.
The question to be asked is not whether it is unfair for the Paul campaign to keep doing this, but why the rest of the GOP field can’t spend a few bucks to do it themselves. Dave Weigel at Slate reports:
He beat out seven other candidates and “undecided.” The full results, with 1,983 ballots cast:
Ron Paul – 36.9% (732)
Herman Cain – 22.5% (447)
Rick Santorum – 16.3% (323)
Rick Perry – 8.4% (167)
Michele Bachmann – 7.9% (157)
Mitt Romney – 4.4% (88)
Newt Gingrich – 2.7% (54)
Undecided – 0.7% (13)
Jon Huntsman – 0.1% (2)
In a post-vote press conference, FRC President Tony Perkins made sure to note that 600 people had bought tickets for Saturday only — a none-too-subtle hint that Paul’s supporters had over-represented themselves.
“Do the math,” said Perkins. “Ron Paul and his campaign are very well organized.”
What did 600 tickets cost the Paul campaign? And what would have been the publicity value if, for example, the Rick Perry campaign had paid for 1,000 of their supporters to attend the summit? Perry raised $17 million and he can’t afford to buy a straw poll? Your stupidity is not someone else’s fault. Beyond that, the story is:
A. Herman Cain continues his momentum; and
B. Santorum got twice as many votes as Bachmann.
This pretty much puts a fork into the Bachmann campaign. If she can’t beat Santorum in a straw poll at a national conference of social conservatives, Bachmann probably can’t beat Santorum in Iowa, either.
UPDATE: Jazz Shaw at Hot Air: “Ron Paul brings home the bouquet for best organizational skills at a conservative event .”
And by “organizational skills,” he means, the willingness to spend money on grassroots activism, i.e., offering free tickets for any Paul supporter who wanted to come vote for their guy.
UPDATE II: My buddy Joe Fein has shown how the Paulistas won — “stole” might be too strong a word — the California GOP straw poll.
Stipulate that the Paul campaign operates according to the “By Any Means Necessary” radical principle. Nevertheless, the point to which I wish to call the reader’s attention is this: The Paul campaign is smart to spend money on getting their supporters to events, and other campaigns are stupid in spending money to hire a bunch of staffers and consultants who don’t necessarily provide value-added to their efforts.
Suppose you are a college kid who might be willing to support a Republican presidential candidate. Now, suppose that you could actually get to meet that candidate, and get free travel to events where that candidate appears. OK, furthermore suppose that the campaign had a sort of Amway incentive deal where, if you were campus activist who could sign up a dozen of your college buddies to accept the same free-travel deal, you’d get a small commission for every warm body you delivered on the Republican candidate’s behalf.
Shouldn’t Republicans be able to understand how the Ron Paul campaign is using market incentives to build their movement?
Why, then, are most GOP presidential campaigns top-heavy affairs that spend ridiculous sums on “media consultants,” etc., rather than to use their money the way Ron Paul’s campaign uses their money?
Like I said: Your stupidity is not someone else’s fault.
Portfolio: Dexia Bank's Collapse and the European Financial Crisis
The Franco-Belgian bank Dexia started collapsing Oct. 4, ushering the latest chapter of the nearly 2-year-old European financial crisis. Considering that Dexia is on the list of the top 50 global financial institutions, it is worth examining what happens during a bank bailout and shutdown process and applying that to the Dexia situation.
In minor cases, a cash infusion from a government is usually sufficient to hold the bank over until such time that normal economic growth can help the bank regenerate its finances. Growth has been middling in Belgium since 2008, and Dexia simply hasn’t been able to get out from under the problems caused by its non-performing assets.
In moderate cases, governments come in and take a percentage share of ownership of the bank, putting their own representatives on the bank’s board and forcibly restructuring it. This has already been done for Dexia, too. In the aftermath of that 2008 bailout, Dexia became majority-owned by various governments in France and Belgium.
But the restructuring procedures have not followed what we would consider to be a standard course. Normally, there are major changes at the top and policies are adjusted all throughout to make sure that the sort of indiscretions that led to the bank problems in the first place don’t happen again. Dexia, however, is not a normal consumer or business bank. Instead, much of its business comes from supplying credit to various parts of the Belgian state apparatus.
So when these entities took greater control of Dexia back in 2008, instead of encouraging Dexia to engage in more lending to private enterprise, which might actually regenerate its loan book, they instead encouraged Dexia to invest more in their dead issuances, allowing them to run larger deficits than they would’ve been able to otherwise. Somewhat ironically, the last bailout actually only reinforced the bad policies that had gotten Dexia into trouble the first place.
The final option is some sort of dissolution —typically the bank is broken up into pieces. The good pieces typically find eager buyers who are willing to pay more or less market value. The bad pieces, however, have to be bundled into some sort of bad bank where ultimately they are sold off piecemeal at pennies on the dollar. This is really the only option that is left for Dexia. But there are several problems even with this strategy.
First, any good asset sales right now in the current environment are not going to be bringing what we would consider full market value. Europe is basically in a mild recession at present — it could get a lot worse because of the financial crisis — and European banks have so far proven unwilling to lend much money to each other, much less go out and grab assets from a failed bank and one of Europe’s most debt-heavy states. Which means that the losses that the state is going to absorb when this is all resolved are going to be much higher than they would normally be.
Second, Belgium doesn’t have the money to absorb the losses of the bad bank right now anyway. Belgium already has a national debt of 100 percent of GDP and is having problems raising capital under normal circumstances — much less the sort of large infusion that would be required for a bailout of Dexia. Additionally, under normal circumstances, Belgium would turn to Dexia for financing — that’s obviously not an option anymore, which means, at least in the initial stages, the financial burden is going to be carried by France and France alone — something which will cost Belgium more in the long run.
Third, considering that Dexia is leveraged by a factor of 60-1 (for comparison, Lehman Brothers was only 30-1) and because it’s already 35-percent owned by the state, this is a bank that is going to be suffering far greater losses than normal because it’s extraordinarily damaged.
Dexia has over 500 billion euros in assets and 20 billion of those are government debts of Portugal, Italy and Greece. So let’s assume for the moment that the bailout only costs the Belgian government about 30 billion euros — which we see as fairly conservative. That alone would be sufficient to increase Belgium’s national debt load to 110 percent of GDP, putting them within easy reach of where Italy is right now.
Fourth, Dexia is a leading source of financing for the Belgian government – it’s not there anymore. Belgium is going to have to find another way to raise money on international markets — not just to cover the bailout but to cover its normal activities. That’s becoming increasingly difficult for states that have high debt and low government competency, and Belgium is certainly in that list. It’s now been over 480 days since Belgium has had a government, and last month its prime minister decided that he was going to quit. Added together, Belgium is being pushed very very close to needing a state bailout of its own.
In minor cases, a cash infusion from a government is usually sufficient to hold the bank over until such time that normal economic growth can help the bank regenerate its finances. Growth has been middling in Belgium since 2008, and Dexia simply hasn’t been able to get out from under the problems caused by its non-performing assets.
In moderate cases, governments come in and take a percentage share of ownership of the bank, putting their own representatives on the bank’s board and forcibly restructuring it. This has already been done for Dexia, too. In the aftermath of that 2008 bailout, Dexia became majority-owned by various governments in France and Belgium.
But the restructuring procedures have not followed what we would consider to be a standard course. Normally, there are major changes at the top and policies are adjusted all throughout to make sure that the sort of indiscretions that led to the bank problems in the first place don’t happen again. Dexia, however, is not a normal consumer or business bank. Instead, much of its business comes from supplying credit to various parts of the Belgian state apparatus.
So when these entities took greater control of Dexia back in 2008, instead of encouraging Dexia to engage in more lending to private enterprise, which might actually regenerate its loan book, they instead encouraged Dexia to invest more in their dead issuances, allowing them to run larger deficits than they would’ve been able to otherwise. Somewhat ironically, the last bailout actually only reinforced the bad policies that had gotten Dexia into trouble the first place.
The final option is some sort of dissolution —typically the bank is broken up into pieces. The good pieces typically find eager buyers who are willing to pay more or less market value. The bad pieces, however, have to be bundled into some sort of bad bank where ultimately they are sold off piecemeal at pennies on the dollar. This is really the only option that is left for Dexia. But there are several problems even with this strategy.
First, any good asset sales right now in the current environment are not going to be bringing what we would consider full market value. Europe is basically in a mild recession at present — it could get a lot worse because of the financial crisis — and European banks have so far proven unwilling to lend much money to each other, much less go out and grab assets from a failed bank and one of Europe’s most debt-heavy states. Which means that the losses that the state is going to absorb when this is all resolved are going to be much higher than they would normally be.
Second, Belgium doesn’t have the money to absorb the losses of the bad bank right now anyway. Belgium already has a national debt of 100 percent of GDP and is having problems raising capital under normal circumstances — much less the sort of large infusion that would be required for a bailout of Dexia. Additionally, under normal circumstances, Belgium would turn to Dexia for financing — that’s obviously not an option anymore, which means, at least in the initial stages, the financial burden is going to be carried by France and France alone — something which will cost Belgium more in the long run.
Third, considering that Dexia is leveraged by a factor of 60-1 (for comparison, Lehman Brothers was only 30-1) and because it’s already 35-percent owned by the state, this is a bank that is going to be suffering far greater losses than normal because it’s extraordinarily damaged.
Dexia has over 500 billion euros in assets and 20 billion of those are government debts of Portugal, Italy and Greece. So let’s assume for the moment that the bailout only costs the Belgian government about 30 billion euros — which we see as fairly conservative. That alone would be sufficient to increase Belgium’s national debt load to 110 percent of GDP, putting them within easy reach of where Italy is right now.
Fourth, Dexia is a leading source of financing for the Belgian government – it’s not there anymore. Belgium is going to have to find another way to raise money on international markets — not just to cover the bailout but to cover its normal activities. That’s becoming increasingly difficult for states that have high debt and low government competency, and Belgium is certainly in that list. It’s now been over 480 days since Belgium has had a government, and last month its prime minister decided that he was going to quit. Added together, Belgium is being pushed very very close to needing a state bailout of its own.
The "Occupy Wall Street" Mutant King and Queen
Derek Hunter
Columnist, Townhall.com
This week the media discovered that the smell emanating from lower Manhattan was not a broken sewer line with a hint of patchouli and marijuana but was, in fact, body odor from a left-wing protest...with a hint of patchouli and marijuana.
This movement calls itself “Occupy Wall Street,” a name that sounds like something Madison Avenue suits cooked up. This “movement” was spontaneously planned for months by an anti-consumerist/capitalist Canadian magazine called Adbusters...which just happens to be partially funded by George Soros. These people seek to lead the country to...yeah, that’s kind of where it falls apart. They’re as aimless as Wilson was in his final scene in the movie Castaway. But, damn it, they aren’t going to stop until they get there!
The media tells us this “movement” is organic and leaderless. Were that true, it would be amazing. But the only thing organic about these people is their granola and their hemp pullovers. They’re made of the typical liberal hate-groups consisting of the typical left-wing, anti-freedom mob and union goons we’ve seen take to the streets for the eight years of the Bush administration, only heavier and with longer hair.
Since they are drifting like a plastic bag in a wind storm, and interview after interview with individual protesters across the country has exposed just how clueless, paid or union-led participants are, I feel compelled to help. They have puppet masters, but what they really need are Czars. And conservatives need them to have Czars too.
Liberal progressives need someone to steer their ship of socialism away from the iceberg of reality so the Obama Administration can milk them in the 2012 election. Conservatives need the S.S. Utopia to stay afloat to keep the personification of the modern Left in the consciousness of the American people.
It is along that line that I nominate Michael Moore and Janeane Garofalo to be King and Queen of these mutants.
Michael Moore is on their team, fully. He feels their pain...though not so much he’d stop taking their $12 a head to see his movies and just release them on the Internet for free or anything. But he feels it. He knows it. Not only has Moore sent crews to film the poor, and even interviewed a couple himself, he’s read Dickens. If anyone is qualified to be their King it’s Jabba the Commie.
He’s the perfect fit. He comes with his own ready-made castle in a tony neighborhood near Traverse City, Mich., fully protected from the unwashed by gates and security fencing. And the words, “Let them eat cake” never would pass his lips...but the cake would, in the opposite direction.
No one embodies hypocrisy with the gusto of Michael Moore. To this day he tweets about “war profiteers on WallSt (sic) & in CorpAmerica (sic)” and made a whole movie about the evils of the for-profit health care system without ever mentioning the fact that he’s owned stocks in pharmaceutical companies and defense contractors, including Halliburton.
He regularly goes on TV, to in-the-tank, unchallenging networks, to express his support for the “occupiers.” I’d guess no one in the last 25 years has made more money by railing against the evils of making money than Michael Moore.
Moore’s unbridled personal embrace of everything he publicly decries fits perfectly with the progressive millionaires and billionaires behind the “occupiers.” And would make a more fitting crown than a baseball hat for whatever “everyman” sports team is in favor with any given audience? It’s really the perfect cover for a “champion of the poor” who has amassed a net worth of $50 million from them.
Every king needs a queen, right? While I never would suggest my nominees actually consummate their union – you know, do to each other what they do to the rest of us – everyone needs a partner. So, I give you my nominee for queen - Janeane Garofalo.
It’s not often a photo caption captures the essence of a person. Most people are complex creatures who can’t be summed up in a tweet-length comment on a photo. But every once in a while, an individual is so vapid, such a one-trick-pony, that 140 characters almost seems too much to describe all you need to know about them. Such is the case of Janeane Garofalo.
The picture was of her face with the caption “Says Republicans Hate Obama Only Because He’s Black. Says Republicans Like Cain Only Because He’s Black.” This “Facts be damned, full agenda ahead” attitude is what you want in an “occupier” Queen.
You might remember Janeane from a few episodes of “24,” (2009) “The Truth About Cats and Dogs” (1996) or “Reality Bites” (1994), but you probably don’t. You may have also heard her referred to as a comedian, but she stopped being funny right around the time her stellar acting career took off. To most people, Janeane is simply a thinner Michael Moore who isn’t quite as skilled at being overt with her boiling hatred.
Maybe she’s not happy anymore because she’s not fat anymore, or maybe she’s not fat anymore because she doesn’t work much anymore and can’t afford food, which makes her angry. Whatever the reason, who cares?
She spends most of her time lecturing liberals about how conservatives hate...well, everyone. We’re out to kill gays, the poor, anyone with a non-white skin tone, most people who have a white skin tone, you, me, women, men, dogs, cats, goldfish … pretty much whatever you’ve got, we’re out to kill it. I don’t know on what planet Janeane lives, but it sounds horrible and I am thankful everyday we don’t live there.
When not lounging on a futon in the whatever friend’s studio apartment she’s crashing on that week, she makes occasional appearances on Current TV’s only show not dedicated to drugs or America sucking, Countdown with Keith Olbermann.
With the demeanor of someone strapped to a chair with a tack on it, Janeane loves to lecture others on how to live. She recently took to Current TV to tell Olbermann that Republicans like Herman Cain for President because they are racist. Yes, that’s right. Donning what I have to imagine is her Sunday best “dress hoodie,” her Buddy Holly glasses and make-up from a wax museum, she ignored her prior declaration that Tea Partiers are all racists who hate black people, and turned on a dime to “they like this particular black person because they’re racists”...with the grace of a queen.
Liberals actively try to silence those who disagree with them, conservatives try to put cameras, microphones and megaphones in front of liberals when they speak. We want the world to hear them, to know what the Left really believes. Why not two recognizable faces as the mouthpieces who will satisfy both sides?
These two C.H.U.D.S. are the perfect king and queen for the “occupiers” and those of us who love liberty. The unwashed (literally) mobs who spend their days sweating in parks love and agree with Moore and Garofalo, so much so they, like dogs and their owners, even look like them. And we love it when Moore and Garofalo talk because they truly believe, regardless of the mass of contrary evidence, that the majority of Americans agree with them. That “living-in-a-bubble” mentality frees them to say some of the dumbest things to ever leave the lips of bipeds and expose progressives as the lunatics they are.
Both crowds will cheer, “Long live the King. Long live the Queen.” It’s win-win.
(Last week we kicked off my radio show with a discussion of the “Occupy Wall Street” mutants and, in the second hour, Jonah Goldberg joined in the fun. You can listen to that show by clicking here.)
Columnist, Townhall.com
This week the media discovered that the smell emanating from lower Manhattan was not a broken sewer line with a hint of patchouli and marijuana but was, in fact, body odor from a left-wing protest...with a hint of patchouli and marijuana.
This movement calls itself “Occupy Wall Street,” a name that sounds like something Madison Avenue suits cooked up. This “movement” was spontaneously planned for months by an anti-consumerist/capitalist Canadian magazine called Adbusters...which just happens to be partially funded by George Soros. These people seek to lead the country to...yeah, that’s kind of where it falls apart. They’re as aimless as Wilson was in his final scene in the movie Castaway. But, damn it, they aren’t going to stop until they get there!
The media tells us this “movement” is organic and leaderless. Were that true, it would be amazing. But the only thing organic about these people is their granola and their hemp pullovers. They’re made of the typical liberal hate-groups consisting of the typical left-wing, anti-freedom mob and union goons we’ve seen take to the streets for the eight years of the Bush administration, only heavier and with longer hair.
Since they are drifting like a plastic bag in a wind storm, and interview after interview with individual protesters across the country has exposed just how clueless, paid or union-led participants are, I feel compelled to help. They have puppet masters, but what they really need are Czars. And conservatives need them to have Czars too.
Liberal progressives need someone to steer their ship of socialism away from the iceberg of reality so the Obama Administration can milk them in the 2012 election. Conservatives need the S.S. Utopia to stay afloat to keep the personification of the modern Left in the consciousness of the American people.
It is along that line that I nominate Michael Moore and Janeane Garofalo to be King and Queen of these mutants.
Michael Moore is on their team, fully. He feels their pain...though not so much he’d stop taking their $12 a head to see his movies and just release them on the Internet for free or anything. But he feels it. He knows it. Not only has Moore sent crews to film the poor, and even interviewed a couple himself, he’s read Dickens. If anyone is qualified to be their King it’s Jabba the Commie.
He’s the perfect fit. He comes with his own ready-made castle in a tony neighborhood near Traverse City, Mich., fully protected from the unwashed by gates and security fencing. And the words, “Let them eat cake” never would pass his lips...but the cake would, in the opposite direction.
No one embodies hypocrisy with the gusto of Michael Moore. To this day he tweets about “war profiteers on WallSt (sic) & in CorpAmerica (sic)” and made a whole movie about the evils of the for-profit health care system without ever mentioning the fact that he’s owned stocks in pharmaceutical companies and defense contractors, including Halliburton.
He regularly goes on TV, to in-the-tank, unchallenging networks, to express his support for the “occupiers.” I’d guess no one in the last 25 years has made more money by railing against the evils of making money than Michael Moore.
Moore’s unbridled personal embrace of everything he publicly decries fits perfectly with the progressive millionaires and billionaires behind the “occupiers.” And would make a more fitting crown than a baseball hat for whatever “everyman” sports team is in favor with any given audience? It’s really the perfect cover for a “champion of the poor” who has amassed a net worth of $50 million from them.
Every king needs a queen, right? While I never would suggest my nominees actually consummate their union – you know, do to each other what they do to the rest of us – everyone needs a partner. So, I give you my nominee for queen - Janeane Garofalo.
It’s not often a photo caption captures the essence of a person. Most people are complex creatures who can’t be summed up in a tweet-length comment on a photo. But every once in a while, an individual is so vapid, such a one-trick-pony, that 140 characters almost seems too much to describe all you need to know about them. Such is the case of Janeane Garofalo.
The picture was of her face with the caption “Says Republicans Hate Obama Only Because He’s Black. Says Republicans Like Cain Only Because He’s Black.” This “Facts be damned, full agenda ahead” attitude is what you want in an “occupier” Queen.
You might remember Janeane from a few episodes of “24,” (2009) “The Truth About Cats and Dogs” (1996) or “Reality Bites” (1994), but you probably don’t. You may have also heard her referred to as a comedian, but she stopped being funny right around the time her stellar acting career took off. To most people, Janeane is simply a thinner Michael Moore who isn’t quite as skilled at being overt with her boiling hatred.
Maybe she’s not happy anymore because she’s not fat anymore, or maybe she’s not fat anymore because she doesn’t work much anymore and can’t afford food, which makes her angry. Whatever the reason, who cares?
She spends most of her time lecturing liberals about how conservatives hate...well, everyone. We’re out to kill gays, the poor, anyone with a non-white skin tone, most people who have a white skin tone, you, me, women, men, dogs, cats, goldfish … pretty much whatever you’ve got, we’re out to kill it. I don’t know on what planet Janeane lives, but it sounds horrible and I am thankful everyday we don’t live there.
When not lounging on a futon in the whatever friend’s studio apartment she’s crashing on that week, she makes occasional appearances on Current TV’s only show not dedicated to drugs or America sucking, Countdown with Keith Olbermann.
With the demeanor of someone strapped to a chair with a tack on it, Janeane loves to lecture others on how to live. She recently took to Current TV to tell Olbermann that Republicans like Herman Cain for President because they are racist. Yes, that’s right. Donning what I have to imagine is her Sunday best “dress hoodie,” her Buddy Holly glasses and make-up from a wax museum, she ignored her prior declaration that Tea Partiers are all racists who hate black people, and turned on a dime to “they like this particular black person because they’re racists”...with the grace of a queen.
Liberals actively try to silence those who disagree with them, conservatives try to put cameras, microphones and megaphones in front of liberals when they speak. We want the world to hear them, to know what the Left really believes. Why not two recognizable faces as the mouthpieces who will satisfy both sides?
These two C.H.U.D.S. are the perfect king and queen for the “occupiers” and those of us who love liberty. The unwashed (literally) mobs who spend their days sweating in parks love and agree with Moore and Garofalo, so much so they, like dogs and their owners, even look like them. And we love it when Moore and Garofalo talk because they truly believe, regardless of the mass of contrary evidence, that the majority of Americans agree with them. That “living-in-a-bubble” mentality frees them to say some of the dumbest things to ever leave the lips of bipeds and expose progressives as the lunatics they are.
Both crowds will cheer, “Long live the King. Long live the Queen.” It’s win-win.
(Last week we kicked off my radio show with a discussion of the “Occupy Wall Street” mutants and, in the second hour, Jonah Goldberg joined in the fun. You can listen to that show by clicking here.)
Democrats Suspend Democracy to Avoid Obama Jobs Bill
The Republicans didn't follow the predicted script and instead, wanted a vote. And the response from Democrats?
Yesterday, the President demanded once again that Congress vote on his "jobs" bill. That night, Senate Democrats did everything they could to avoid it.
Both the House and Senate are governed by parliamentary rules that allow for some semblance of egalitarian debate, regardless of party control. Over the past few years, we have seen these safeguards eroded, specifically under the Pelosi speakership when minority amendments were prohibited, bills were passed before being fully written and legislation was shunted through the process through "deeming" resolutions rather than with honest debate.
On the other side of the hill, the Senate is normally seen to be above this kind of gerrymandered rulemaking, abiding by a more reverent parliamentary process. Usually, the majority and minority come to an agreement before legislation is brought to the floor that allows the minority an equitable part of the debate and amendment opportunties. Last night, Leader Reid changed all of that.
During debate on a chinese currency bill, Leider Reid had agreed that Republicans would be allowed to offer seven amendments. Republican Leader Mitch McConnell wished to use one of their amendments to require the Senate to take up the President's jobs bill; a command the President has made daily after the release of his plan last month. Leader Reid then unilaterally changed the Senate rules to prevent the amendment, fundamentally altering the Senate's judicious debate procedure.
In effect, the Senate minority is now barred from entering the debate on a bill after cloture. This slap in the face to the democratic process demonstrates just how far Democrats are willing to go to avoid a vote on the President's jobs bill. This further illustrates the toxicity of the administration's failed economic agenda. Even Democrat Senators are unwilling to sign on to the President's massive tax hikes, job-killing regulatory agenda and fake spending restraint.
How far will the President go to continue to push a destructive "jobs" plan that even Democrats won't support? To what lengths will lawmakers go to avoid embarrasing their economically illiterate president?
Yesterday, the President demanded once again that Congress vote on his "jobs" bill. That night, Senate Democrats did everything they could to avoid it.
Both the House and Senate are governed by parliamentary rules that allow for some semblance of egalitarian debate, regardless of party control. Over the past few years, we have seen these safeguards eroded, specifically under the Pelosi speakership when minority amendments were prohibited, bills were passed before being fully written and legislation was shunted through the process through "deeming" resolutions rather than with honest debate.
On the other side of the hill, the Senate is normally seen to be above this kind of gerrymandered rulemaking, abiding by a more reverent parliamentary process. Usually, the majority and minority come to an agreement before legislation is brought to the floor that allows the minority an equitable part of the debate and amendment opportunties. Last night, Leader Reid changed all of that.
During debate on a chinese currency bill, Leider Reid had agreed that Republicans would be allowed to offer seven amendments. Republican Leader Mitch McConnell wished to use one of their amendments to require the Senate to take up the President's jobs bill; a command the President has made daily after the release of his plan last month. Leader Reid then unilaterally changed the Senate rules to prevent the amendment, fundamentally altering the Senate's judicious debate procedure.
In effect, the Senate minority is now barred from entering the debate on a bill after cloture. This slap in the face to the democratic process demonstrates just how far Democrats are willing to go to avoid a vote on the President's jobs bill. This further illustrates the toxicity of the administration's failed economic agenda. Even Democrat Senators are unwilling to sign on to the President's massive tax hikes, job-killing regulatory agenda and fake spending restraint.
How far will the President go to continue to push a destructive "jobs" plan that even Democrats won't support? To what lengths will lawmakers go to avoid embarrasing their economically illiterate president?
It's official: White House defending violent, anti-semitic, 9/11 Truther, Marxist Mobs
If you're looking for more evidence that the White House is getting desperate and sloppy, look no further than this tactical error:
The White House is criticizing House GOP Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s description of Wall Street protesters as a “mob,” saying the activists compare favorably with the tea party movement.
“I don’t understand why, you know, one man’s mob is another man’s democracy,” presidential press secretary Jay Carney said Friday.
He added that he sees “a little hypocrisy unbound” in Mr. Cantor’s comments because the GOP leader previously has described tea party activists as democracy in action.
“I think that what we’re seeing on the streets of New York is an expression of democracy,” Mr. Carney said. “I think both are expressions that are totally consistent with the American democratic tradition.”
...Mr. Obama said in a news conference Thursday the protests in New York and other cities express the frustrations many Americans feel about the financial crisis and resistance by the banking industry and Republican lawmakers to greater regulation.
“You’re still seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on abusive practices that got us into this problem in the first place,” Mr. Obama said. “The protesters are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works.”
Pure, 100% unadulterated demagoguery:
Wall Street is the wicked enemy.
Geithner is Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs is everywhere in the Obama admin.
Rise up against the evil bankers!
Pay off the evil bankers!
The evil bankers must direct our economy policy or we are doomed!
Like I said yesterday: If you’re not protesting against President Goldman Sachs, you’re not protesting against “Wall Street.” You’re just a hack. Sorry.
Exactly. Because when I think about Jay Carney's 'American democratic tradition', what immediately comes to mind are:
• Communists threatening violence against 'the rich'
• Anarchists
• Jew-haters
• Rich union bosses like Jimmy Hoffa and Dick Trumka
• And thuggish attacks on cops
No, Carney: the Tea Party didn't advocate violence, divisiveness, race hatred, class warfare and envy... with ACORN and union hacks bussed in to buttress their ranks.
In fact, the Tea Party represents Americans from all walks of life, from every race, creed, color and socioeconomic class peacefully protesting for individual liberty, respect for private property rights, the Constitution and First Principles.
And how's that class warfare in Obama's "Jobs Bill" going to help address the budget deficit?
Ten years of the Obama "Millionaire's Tax" will pay for exactly four months of Obama's budget deficits.
Once the Democrats get their hands on that money, guess who they're coming for next?
The problem isn't that millionaires -- America's job creators -- aren't paying enough taxes. It's that the federal government is so bloated, so wasteful, so corpulent and so out-of-control that it threatens to subsume the entire economy.
Believe me when I tell you that 2012 is our last chance to turn this ship around.
Why Isn’t Obama’s "Teacher Lie" National News?
Written By : Warner Todd Huston
During the latest campaign appearance disguised as a presidential press conference, President Obama uttered one straight out lie that stands out above the rest of them. To help sell his “jobs bill,” Obama claimed to have met a Boston-based teacher named Robert Baroz and intimated that Baroz had no job despite his excellent teaching credentials. The problem is, neither claim is true. Obama simply lied. So, where is the national Old Media to pin Obama to the wall over this out right lie?
During his presser, Obama introduced teacher Baroz into the national discussion of his “jobs bill.” Obama claimed to have met Mr. Baroz and lamented that Baroz was out of work.
I had a chance to meet a young man named Robert Baroz. He’s got two decades of teaching experience. He’s got a master’s degree. He’s got an outstanding track record of helping his students make huge gains in reading and writing. In the last few years, he’s received three pink slips because of budget cuts. Why wouldn’t we want to pass a bill that puts somebody like Robert back in the classroom teaching our kids?
The problem with this little tale of woe? Firstly President Obama did not meet teacher Baroz. Robert Baroz did attend a Rose Garden press conference last September with a few other teachers, but the closest he ever got to the president was Baroz’ front row seat during the event. The two never came face to face, never shook hands, never actually met. Baroz saw Obama up at the lectern and Obama may have noticed Baroz sitting in the audience. That hardly makes for a meeting.
Secondly, Baroz is not out of work. He actually does have a job in the public education system in Boston. According to the Boston Herald, Baroz, “now works as a literacy and data coach at the Curley K-8 School in Jamaica Plain, analyzing MCAS data and applying it to teachers’ everyday lessons.”
This is exactly the sort of out right lie that Old Media outlets usually love to make the issue of the day. In fact, this one is a perfect case for an exercise in if-Bush-Did-it. What if Bush was working hard to push a major initiative and uttered a bald faced lie like this one? Without a doubt today the media would be engaged in a feeding frenzy over the incident while ignoring the initiative part of the story.
Yet where is this story? Pretty much just centered in the Boston press. The rest of the Old Media establishment is ignoring this straight out lie.
Meanwhile, the press is also ignoring the fact that this whole “jobs bill” is likely just cynical Obama reelection campaign theater anyway. Neither Obama nor his Democrat Party are really interested in actually voting on this bill. Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) tried on Thursday to bring Obama’s jobs bill to a vote and the Democrats under Reid actually went to the extent to change long-standing Senate rules to prevent a vote on the bill.
It is clear that Obama and the Democrats want all the benefit of saying they have a jobs bill but not actually getting said bill passed into law. They just want something with which to beat up Republicans. In essence, this whole debate is another lie.
There is another example of this sort of cynical political game being played by Democrats and Obama that the Old Media has refused to properly report. For at least two years Obama has been chiding Congress in general and the Republicans in particular for not passing the several free trade agreements that he claimed to want. But the truth is, Obama himself was holding the agreements in his pocket not sending them to Congress for consideration.
So, while Obama was complaining that Congress was refusing to consider the free-trade agreements, the truth is Obama never gave them the agreements to even vote on. He was holding them so that he could use them for a talking point. Sadly, instead of reporting this story as a lie perpetrated by Obama on the American people, the Old Media simply repeated Obama’s scolding of Congress as if his claim was true on its face.
This president routinely employs lies, wild stories, and hyperbole in an effort to control the narrative. Unfortunately, the Old Media not only allows him to do it, but assists him in the lies.
During the latest campaign appearance disguised as a presidential press conference, President Obama uttered one straight out lie that stands out above the rest of them. To help sell his “jobs bill,” Obama claimed to have met a Boston-based teacher named Robert Baroz and intimated that Baroz had no job despite his excellent teaching credentials. The problem is, neither claim is true. Obama simply lied. So, where is the national Old Media to pin Obama to the wall over this out right lie?
During his presser, Obama introduced teacher Baroz into the national discussion of his “jobs bill.” Obama claimed to have met Mr. Baroz and lamented that Baroz was out of work.
I had a chance to meet a young man named Robert Baroz. He’s got two decades of teaching experience. He’s got a master’s degree. He’s got an outstanding track record of helping his students make huge gains in reading and writing. In the last few years, he’s received three pink slips because of budget cuts. Why wouldn’t we want to pass a bill that puts somebody like Robert back in the classroom teaching our kids?
The problem with this little tale of woe? Firstly President Obama did not meet teacher Baroz. Robert Baroz did attend a Rose Garden press conference last September with a few other teachers, but the closest he ever got to the president was Baroz’ front row seat during the event. The two never came face to face, never shook hands, never actually met. Baroz saw Obama up at the lectern and Obama may have noticed Baroz sitting in the audience. That hardly makes for a meeting.
Secondly, Baroz is not out of work. He actually does have a job in the public education system in Boston. According to the Boston Herald, Baroz, “now works as a literacy and data coach at the Curley K-8 School in Jamaica Plain, analyzing MCAS data and applying it to teachers’ everyday lessons.”
This is exactly the sort of out right lie that Old Media outlets usually love to make the issue of the day. In fact, this one is a perfect case for an exercise in if-Bush-Did-it. What if Bush was working hard to push a major initiative and uttered a bald faced lie like this one? Without a doubt today the media would be engaged in a feeding frenzy over the incident while ignoring the initiative part of the story.
Yet where is this story? Pretty much just centered in the Boston press. The rest of the Old Media establishment is ignoring this straight out lie.
Meanwhile, the press is also ignoring the fact that this whole “jobs bill” is likely just cynical Obama reelection campaign theater anyway. Neither Obama nor his Democrat Party are really interested in actually voting on this bill. Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) tried on Thursday to bring Obama’s jobs bill to a vote and the Democrats under Reid actually went to the extent to change long-standing Senate rules to prevent a vote on the bill.
It is clear that Obama and the Democrats want all the benefit of saying they have a jobs bill but not actually getting said bill passed into law. They just want something with which to beat up Republicans. In essence, this whole debate is another lie.
There is another example of this sort of cynical political game being played by Democrats and Obama that the Old Media has refused to properly report. For at least two years Obama has been chiding Congress in general and the Republicans in particular for not passing the several free trade agreements that he claimed to want. But the truth is, Obama himself was holding the agreements in his pocket not sending them to Congress for consideration.
So, while Obama was complaining that Congress was refusing to consider the free-trade agreements, the truth is Obama never gave them the agreements to even vote on. He was holding them so that he could use them for a talking point. Sadly, instead of reporting this story as a lie perpetrated by Obama on the American people, the Old Media simply repeated Obama’s scolding of Congress as if his claim was true on its face.
This president routinely employs lies, wild stories, and hyperbole in an effort to control the narrative. Unfortunately, the Old Media not only allows him to do it, but assists him in the lies.
Incomes are Created, Not “Distributed”
by Don Boudreaux on October 7, 2011
Regarding the recent rash of the anti-social sentiment called “envy,” one point to keep in mind is that the common use of the term “income distribution” (or “wealth distribution”) stacks the deck in favor of those people who are prone to envy – and in favor also of those politicians and pundits and community organizers agitators who are prone to feather their own nests by exploiting the propensity of many people to succumb to envy and to suppose that envy is a sound basis for government policy.
In market economies (which America’s still largely is), incomes and wealth are not “distributed”; they are created – and, hence, earned by their creators.
If the semantic convention were to refer, not to “income distribution,” but to “income creation,” then we’d have headlines (Or would we?) such as the following “Last year, the Top 10 Percent of Income Creators Created Even More Income than the Year Before.”
Such a headline is far less likely to conjure in readers’ minds images of prime-time-soap-opera demons who craftily steal money from the pockets of unsuspecting innocents. But such a headline would be far more accurate than one that uses the term “distribution” in place of the more-correct term “creation.”
….
The above point is hardly original to me. It’s been made many times in the past by many sensible people. But it bears repeating.
Regarding the recent rash of the anti-social sentiment called “envy,” one point to keep in mind is that the common use of the term “income distribution” (or “wealth distribution”) stacks the deck in favor of those people who are prone to envy – and in favor also of those politicians and pundits and community organizers agitators who are prone to feather their own nests by exploiting the propensity of many people to succumb to envy and to suppose that envy is a sound basis for government policy.
In market economies (which America’s still largely is), incomes and wealth are not “distributed”; they are created – and, hence, earned by their creators.
If the semantic convention were to refer, not to “income distribution,” but to “income creation,” then we’d have headlines (Or would we?) such as the following “Last year, the Top 10 Percent of Income Creators Created Even More Income than the Year Before.”
Such a headline is far less likely to conjure in readers’ minds images of prime-time-soap-opera demons who craftily steal money from the pockets of unsuspecting innocents. But such a headline would be far more accurate than one that uses the term “distribution” in place of the more-correct term “creation.”
….
The above point is hardly original to me. It’s been made many times in the past by many sensible people. But it bears repeating.
Did Foreigners Bail Out The US Stock Market... By Dumping $56 Billion In Treasurys?
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 10/08/2011 23:17 -0400
Something curious happened recently: for the first time in over a decade, perhaps ever, the US saw a record $25 billion worth of Treasury bond outflows from the Treasury's custodial account in the week ended September 28. Just as curious is that in the past 5 weeks we have seen relentless selling of Treasurys from the same custodial account which, with Treasury International Capital data 3 months delayed, and largely incorrect until its annual revision, is the only real source of recent (and somewhat accurate) foreign activity in US bonds. In fact, starting with the week ended September 7, through last Thursday, foreigners appear to have dumped a massive $56 billion worth of Treasurys (don't take our word for it - check it here, courtesy of the Fed). This is quite disturbing for two reasons. One explanation for this move would be to look back to the Quant crash in early August 2007, which preceded the market's secular (and all time) high, when various quant funds blew up for reasons still not completely known. The reason why this date is important is that it was the catalyst for the next biggest concerted dump of Treasurys, when in a subsequent span of 4 weeks, foreigners sold $47 billion in Treasurys... but at least the market's precipitous move lower was prevented, if only for a few brief months. Also curious is that the recent move is in direct contrast to the Custodial Account reaction to the Lehman implosion in 2008 when 20 weeks of consecutive UST inflows, beginning September 10, saw $300 billion in "safe haven" purchases. So while the market plunge back then was accompanied by a shift into Treasurys, this time around, the biggest market volatility since Lehman has seen a record sequential exodus out of bonds. Which begs the question: did Tim Geithner make a few phone calls, and tell foreigners to dump Treasurys (knowing full well Op Twist was coming and the Fed would backstop the entire curve), and to buy stocks instead in order to prevent the next relapse of the Great Financial Crisis?
Of course, there is a far simpler explanation: the dreaded D-day in which foreign official and private investors finally start offloading their $2.7 trillion in Treasurys with impunity (although not with the element of surprise - China has made it abundantly clear it will sell its Treasury holdings, the only question is when), has finally arrived.
Either way, if this is merely a function of money's fungibility (according to , as is all too well known, capital simply shifts from one asset allocation to another), and money was forcefully "funged" from bonds into stocks (with or without the prodding of one Tim Geithner) to create a "natural" bid into the bidless market, expect to see even more bond liquidations should stocks continue sliding lower. That may be a big reason to panic as it means that finally the US has tipped its hand that its survival (read: that of the Russell 2000, thank you Ben Bernanke), is dependent on the generosity of our trade surplus partners.
If, on the other hand, the sell off is completely uncorrelated to any moves in the stock market, then the reason to panic is far, far greater, as it means that the international community no longer perceives US paper as a flight to safety...and has taken the first step to defect in the most important Nash equilibrium in modern history.
Source: H.4.1
Something curious happened recently: for the first time in over a decade, perhaps ever, the US saw a record $25 billion worth of Treasury bond outflows from the Treasury's custodial account in the week ended September 28. Just as curious is that in the past 5 weeks we have seen relentless selling of Treasurys from the same custodial account which, with Treasury International Capital data 3 months delayed, and largely incorrect until its annual revision, is the only real source of recent (and somewhat accurate) foreign activity in US bonds. In fact, starting with the week ended September 7, through last Thursday, foreigners appear to have dumped a massive $56 billion worth of Treasurys (don't take our word for it - check it here, courtesy of the Fed). This is quite disturbing for two reasons. One explanation for this move would be to look back to the Quant crash in early August 2007, which preceded the market's secular (and all time) high, when various quant funds blew up for reasons still not completely known. The reason why this date is important is that it was the catalyst for the next biggest concerted dump of Treasurys, when in a subsequent span of 4 weeks, foreigners sold $47 billion in Treasurys... but at least the market's precipitous move lower was prevented, if only for a few brief months. Also curious is that the recent move is in direct contrast to the Custodial Account reaction to the Lehman implosion in 2008 when 20 weeks of consecutive UST inflows, beginning September 10, saw $300 billion in "safe haven" purchases. So while the market plunge back then was accompanied by a shift into Treasurys, this time around, the biggest market volatility since Lehman has seen a record sequential exodus out of bonds. Which begs the question: did Tim Geithner make a few phone calls, and tell foreigners to dump Treasurys (knowing full well Op Twist was coming and the Fed would backstop the entire curve), and to buy stocks instead in order to prevent the next relapse of the Great Financial Crisis?
Of course, there is a far simpler explanation: the dreaded D-day in which foreign official and private investors finally start offloading their $2.7 trillion in Treasurys with impunity (although not with the element of surprise - China has made it abundantly clear it will sell its Treasury holdings, the only question is when), has finally arrived.
Either way, if this is merely a function of money's fungibility (according to , as is all too well known, capital simply shifts from one asset allocation to another), and money was forcefully "funged" from bonds into stocks (with or without the prodding of one Tim Geithner) to create a "natural" bid into the bidless market, expect to see even more bond liquidations should stocks continue sliding lower. That may be a big reason to panic as it means that finally the US has tipped its hand that its survival (read: that of the Russell 2000, thank you Ben Bernanke), is dependent on the generosity of our trade surplus partners.
If, on the other hand, the sell off is completely uncorrelated to any moves in the stock market, then the reason to panic is far, far greater, as it means that the international community no longer perceives US paper as a flight to safety...and has taken the first step to defect in the most important Nash equilibrium in modern history.
Sorting Out the "Extremists"
The difference between Wall Street protestors and the Tea Party
By Jonah Goldberg | National Review Online
Friday, October 7, 2011
Tea partiers are scarier because they’re effective and because they challenge the preconceived notions of what American protest is supposed to look like.
Brian Phillips is the head of communications for the NYC General Assembly, the group primarily responsible for occupying Wall Street. I learned about him while listening to National Public Radio's Morning Edition. According to NPR, Phillips is "an ex-Marine with a bachelor's in computer science. Today he is wearing a sock on his head."
"My political goal,"Phillips says, "is to overthrow the government."
Note: That's not some random nut job pulled from his Lyndon LaRouche desk or tricked-out refrigerator box/time machine. That's the communications director for the whole shebang, and his goal is to overthrow the government.
Now, he's not advocating violence or dictatorship. No, he just wants the government to work on the same non-hierarchical, consensus-based, extremely deliberative form of direct democracy that they're using down in Liberty Plaza. How that would work for some 300 million Americans remains a bit of a mystery.
An even bigger mystery is what these people want. There are many demands floating around, but the only official list isn't of demands at all but of wide-ranging grievances. Grievances about the "system,"if not about carbon-based life itself, are the one unifying sentiment to this movement.
Some of those grievances are entirely valid, even bipartisan. Conservatives have been complaining about bailouts for "too big to fail"institutions for several years now. It's how to remedy those grievances where the debate lies.
For instance, among the more popular demands is debt forgiveness — for everything from student loans to, well, everything.
A widely circulated "proposed list of demands"calls for "immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the 'Books.'"
Even if you break the crazy pill in half and simply talk about forgiving all mortgages and consumer credit, we're still probably talking about the utter destruction of the global financial system. U.S. mortgage debt alone is roughly equal to our entire GDP.
The reason I bring this up is that I think this is extreme.
"Extreme"is a funny word these days. It's often used by mainstream news outlets to describe the tea parties and the tea-party-friendly caucus in the GOP.
For instance, when those hotheads in tricorn hats were trying to get the government to borrow slightly less than 40 cents for every dollar Washington spends, the conventional wisdom among enlightened liberals, the Obama administration, and the other usual suspects was that they were "extremists."
Senate majority leader Harry Reid blasted said extremists as "heartless"for daring to suggest that the exploding federal debt might require cutting subsidies for "cowboy poets."
Meanwhile, the sock-headed spokesman for the protesters wants to "overthrow the government."
And yet, if you peruse LexisNexis, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone calling him or his more radical confreres "extremists."
You also won't hear them being called racists, even though the Occupy Wall Street movement is mostly white. Personally, I don't think the racial composition of the "99 percenters"is relevant, but the fact that the tea partiers are mostly white has been cited time and again as evidence of nascent racism. After all, what other explanation could there be for a mass movement opposed to the first black president's policies? (Never mind that the most popular tea-party politician these days is Herman Cain, who, in case you hadn't noticed, is black.)
The Wall Street protesters are opposed to bailouts for banks — but it seems to be news to them that they, too, are opposing policies pushed by the first black president.
Another criticism of the tea parties has been that they are an "astroturf" organization funded by the nefarious Koch Brothers and other right-wing groups. And there’s some truth to that. Conservative groups — opposed to Wall Street bailouts, mind you — did join the tea-party cause after it was up and running.
We are now seeing the same thing with Big Labor and the progressive wing of the Democratic party. They’re backing the protesters in ever larger numbers. But don’t expect cries of astroturfing any time soon.
Why the double standard? The short answer is that what counts as the political center in this country still leans considerably to the left. These young, scruffy, utopian, urban protesters are what rebels are supposed to look and sound like.
The tea partiers, meanwhile, are scarier because they’re effective and because they challenge the preconceived notions of what American protest is supposed to look like. I mean, what’s with those tricorn hats for Pete’s sake?
If only Thomas Paine wore a sock on his head.
Jonah Goldberg is a visiting fellow at AEI.
By Jonah Goldberg | National Review Online
Friday, October 7, 2011
Tea partiers are scarier because they’re effective and because they challenge the preconceived notions of what American protest is supposed to look like.
Brian Phillips is the head of communications for the NYC General Assembly, the group primarily responsible for occupying Wall Street. I learned about him while listening to National Public Radio's Morning Edition. According to NPR, Phillips is "an ex-Marine with a bachelor's in computer science. Today he is wearing a sock on his head."
"My political goal,"Phillips says, "is to overthrow the government."
Note: That's not some random nut job pulled from his Lyndon LaRouche desk or tricked-out refrigerator box/time machine. That's the communications director for the whole shebang, and his goal is to overthrow the government.
Now, he's not advocating violence or dictatorship. No, he just wants the government to work on the same non-hierarchical, consensus-based, extremely deliberative form of direct democracy that they're using down in Liberty Plaza. How that would work for some 300 million Americans remains a bit of a mystery.
An even bigger mystery is what these people want. There are many demands floating around, but the only official list isn't of demands at all but of wide-ranging grievances. Grievances about the "system,"if not about carbon-based life itself, are the one unifying sentiment to this movement.
Some of those grievances are entirely valid, even bipartisan. Conservatives have been complaining about bailouts for "too big to fail"institutions for several years now. It's how to remedy those grievances where the debate lies.
For instance, among the more popular demands is debt forgiveness — for everything from student loans to, well, everything.
A widely circulated "proposed list of demands"calls for "immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the 'Books.'"
Even if you break the crazy pill in half and simply talk about forgiving all mortgages and consumer credit, we're still probably talking about the utter destruction of the global financial system. U.S. mortgage debt alone is roughly equal to our entire GDP.
The reason I bring this up is that I think this is extreme.
"Extreme"is a funny word these days. It's often used by mainstream news outlets to describe the tea parties and the tea-party-friendly caucus in the GOP.
For instance, when those hotheads in tricorn hats were trying to get the government to borrow slightly less than 40 cents for every dollar Washington spends, the conventional wisdom among enlightened liberals, the Obama administration, and the other usual suspects was that they were "extremists."
Senate majority leader Harry Reid blasted said extremists as "heartless"for daring to suggest that the exploding federal debt might require cutting subsidies for "cowboy poets."
Meanwhile, the sock-headed spokesman for the protesters wants to "overthrow the government."
And yet, if you peruse LexisNexis, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone calling him or his more radical confreres "extremists."
You also won't hear them being called racists, even though the Occupy Wall Street movement is mostly white. Personally, I don't think the racial composition of the "99 percenters"is relevant, but the fact that the tea partiers are mostly white has been cited time and again as evidence of nascent racism. After all, what other explanation could there be for a mass movement opposed to the first black president's policies? (Never mind that the most popular tea-party politician these days is Herman Cain, who, in case you hadn't noticed, is black.)
The Wall Street protesters are opposed to bailouts for banks — but it seems to be news to them that they, too, are opposing policies pushed by the first black president.
Another criticism of the tea parties has been that they are an "astroturf" organization funded by the nefarious Koch Brothers and other right-wing groups. And there’s some truth to that. Conservative groups — opposed to Wall Street bailouts, mind you — did join the tea-party cause after it was up and running.
We are now seeing the same thing with Big Labor and the progressive wing of the Democratic party. They’re backing the protesters in ever larger numbers. But don’t expect cries of astroturfing any time soon.
Why the double standard? The short answer is that what counts as the political center in this country still leans considerably to the left. These young, scruffy, utopian, urban protesters are what rebels are supposed to look and sound like.
The tea partiers, meanwhile, are scarier because they’re effective and because they challenge the preconceived notions of what American protest is supposed to look like. I mean, what’s with those tricorn hats for Pete’s sake?
If only Thomas Paine wore a sock on his head.
Jonah Goldberg is a visiting fellow at AEI.
Stealth Jihad: FBI chief Mueller says the truth about Islam is "inappropriate and offensive"
Sunday, October 09, 2011
s move to whitewash anti-terror training at the FBI is a huge victory for the stealth jihad in America.
What planet are these clowns on? If it's not jihad, then what is it? Such cowardice is without parallel.
FBI chief Mueller says the truth about Islam is "inappropriate and offensive" Jihadwatch
Under pressure from Hamas-linked CAIR and other Islamic supremacists, the FBI retreats further into a dhimmi fantasy-based analysis of Islam that leaves us all more threatened. "Islam content spurs FBI review of anti-terror training," by Shaun Waterman for The Washington Times, October 6:
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III told a congressional hearing on Thursday that the bureau is conducting a review of training programs after disclosure of materials that equated devout Muslims with a greater propensity for violent extremism.
Mr. Mueller said that one part of the training program disclosed in a press account was "inappropriate and offensive," but that the session was a "one-off" and not likely to be repeated.
"We have undertaken a review from top to bottom of our counterterrorism training," Mr. Mueller said. "I think these are isolated incidents, and in the course of that review, we've had outreach to academicians and others to assist us in reviewing the materials and assuring that that offensive content does not appear."
The comments came in response to questions from Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky, Illinois Democrat, during a hearing before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, about leaked training materials from an FBI training session at its institute in Quantico, Va., in March.
The exchange prompted charges that Mr. Mueller was knuckling under to political correctness aimed at muzzling critics of Islam.
The materials, Mrs. Schakowsky said, stated of Muslims that "the more religious they get, the more violent they are And I understand that there's been training [sessions] where the Prophet Muhammad has actually been called a cult leader and [where] the Islamic practice of giving to charity [has been described as] no more than, quote, 'a funding mechanism for combat.'"
The FBI materials were first reported and posted online by 'Wired' Magazine's Danger Room blog.
"In this particular instance," said Mr. Mueller, "reports of what had been in that training came up from the students, and we took action to assure that that inappropriate, offensive content was not provided to others."
He added that there had been "other instances [of training] that may include what would be perceived as offensive content."
The exchange highlights a long-running dispute, both about the counterterrorism training provided by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, but more deeply about the nature of the threat posed by the ideology of Islamic terrorism.
Mr. Mueller "is saying that this correlation [between piety and violence] is offensive because Islamic supremacist groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) tell him that it offends them," said Robert Spencer, a writer on Islam.
Shaun Waterman left out two key parts of what I said to him. What I actually said was this: "Mueller is saying that this correlation is offensive because Islamic supremacist groups like the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations tells him that it offends them. But they bring him no evidence that it is false, and cannot, because it is true."
Waterman left out the "Hamas-linked" Homeric epithet for CAIR, and instead repeats CAIR's denial of "any link to terrorism" below, without bothering to tell readers that CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case, or that several of its officials have convicted of terror-related crimes, etc.
He also left out my assertion that there is a correlation between Islamic piety and involvement in terror. The correlation is not that every devout Muslim will engage in jihad terror, but that all jihad terrorists are devout Muslims who invoke Islamic texts and teachings as their inspiration and justification.
Mr. Spencer is one of those whose training presentations for law enforcement - including for the FBI - have been criticized as anti-Muslim. CAIR describes itself as a civil rights organization and denies any link to terrorism.
"Mueller and the FBI have departed from a pursuit of the truth and are following a politically correct agenda that makes us all less safe," Mr. Spencer told the Times.
John Guandolo, a former FBI agent and another counterterrorism trainer, called it "outrageous" that "almost the only people our leaders in national security and law enforcement are looking to for guidance about Islam" are representatives of groups like CAIR, which he said is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, a global political network that promotes Islamic law and a political view of Islam as not just a personal faith, but a code for the whole of society.
"The FBI director's job is not to be the politically correct police, but to look at facts and evidence," Mr. Guandolo said. "The fact is, the major threat does not come from terrorist attacks. It comes from the Muslim Brotherhood."...
Exactly.
s move to whitewash anti-terror training at the FBI is a huge victory for the stealth jihad in America.
What planet are these clowns on? If it's not jihad, then what is it? Such cowardice is without parallel.
FBI chief Mueller says the truth about Islam is "inappropriate and offensive" Jihadwatch
Under pressure from Hamas-linked CAIR and other Islamic supremacists, the FBI retreats further into a dhimmi fantasy-based analysis of Islam that leaves us all more threatened. "Islam content spurs FBI review of anti-terror training," by Shaun Waterman for The Washington Times, October 6:
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III told a congressional hearing on Thursday that the bureau is conducting a review of training programs after disclosure of materials that equated devout Muslims with a greater propensity for violent extremism.
Mr. Mueller said that one part of the training program disclosed in a press account was "inappropriate and offensive," but that the session was a "one-off" and not likely to be repeated.
"We have undertaken a review from top to bottom of our counterterrorism training," Mr. Mueller said. "I think these are isolated incidents, and in the course of that review, we've had outreach to academicians and others to assist us in reviewing the materials and assuring that that offensive content does not appear."
The comments came in response to questions from Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky, Illinois Democrat, during a hearing before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, about leaked training materials from an FBI training session at its institute in Quantico, Va., in March.
The exchange prompted charges that Mr. Mueller was knuckling under to political correctness aimed at muzzling critics of Islam.
The materials, Mrs. Schakowsky said, stated of Muslims that "the more religious they get, the more violent they are And I understand that there's been training [sessions] where the Prophet Muhammad has actually been called a cult leader and [where] the Islamic practice of giving to charity [has been described as] no more than, quote, 'a funding mechanism for combat.'"
The FBI materials were first reported and posted online by 'Wired' Magazine's Danger Room blog.
"In this particular instance," said Mr. Mueller, "reports of what had been in that training came up from the students, and we took action to assure that that inappropriate, offensive content was not provided to others."
He added that there had been "other instances [of training] that may include what would be perceived as offensive content."
The exchange highlights a long-running dispute, both about the counterterrorism training provided by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, but more deeply about the nature of the threat posed by the ideology of Islamic terrorism.
Mr. Mueller "is saying that this correlation [between piety and violence] is offensive because Islamic supremacist groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) tell him that it offends them," said Robert Spencer, a writer on Islam.
Shaun Waterman left out two key parts of what I said to him. What I actually said was this: "Mueller is saying that this correlation is offensive because Islamic supremacist groups like the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations tells him that it offends them. But they bring him no evidence that it is false, and cannot, because it is true."
Waterman left out the "Hamas-linked" Homeric epithet for CAIR, and instead repeats CAIR's denial of "any link to terrorism" below, without bothering to tell readers that CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case, or that several of its officials have convicted of terror-related crimes, etc.
He also left out my assertion that there is a correlation between Islamic piety and involvement in terror. The correlation is not that every devout Muslim will engage in jihad terror, but that all jihad terrorists are devout Muslims who invoke Islamic texts and teachings as their inspiration and justification.
Mr. Spencer is one of those whose training presentations for law enforcement - including for the FBI - have been criticized as anti-Muslim. CAIR describes itself as a civil rights organization and denies any link to terrorism.
"Mueller and the FBI have departed from a pursuit of the truth and are following a politically correct agenda that makes us all less safe," Mr. Spencer told the Times.
John Guandolo, a former FBI agent and another counterterrorism trainer, called it "outrageous" that "almost the only people our leaders in national security and law enforcement are looking to for guidance about Islam" are representatives of groups like CAIR, which he said is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, a global political network that promotes Islamic law and a political view of Islam as not just a personal faith, but a code for the whole of society.
"The FBI director's job is not to be the politically correct police, but to look at facts and evidence," Mr. Guandolo said. "The fact is, the major threat does not come from terrorist attacks. It comes from the Muslim Brotherhood."...
Exactly.
Occupy Wall Street: “What do we want?" {VIDEO}
Saturday Night Funny Video: Making Fun of ‘Occupy Wall Street’
By Brent Baker October 09, 2011 00:25
It’s been a month, but here's another entry in my semi-regular series of Saturday night humor postings for NewsBusters drawn from the clips Bret Baier runs at the end of FNC’s Special Report which he and his staff usually select from video montages picked up off the late night comedy shows.
Tonight, from this past week’s Tuesday night program, a brief comedy bit produced by ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live which answers the question of “what do we want?” posed by leaders of the far-left “Occupy Wall Street” protests. The reply is both accurate and humorous.
Earlier entries in this “Saturday Night Funny Videos” series, including “Exasperated TV Anchors Upset at Missing Bridge Implosion,” “Dog Says ‘It’s Time for Deodorant,’” “Putin Bags a Tiger While Obama Bags....a Pie,” “Putting the Wrong Guest Expert on Air” and “Colbert Ridicules Reid Who Mused Over His Pomegranate Trees.”
Billboard in Atlanta
By Neal Boortz
We talked about this billboard on the air today but you really have to see it to believe it, don't you. Here it is!
The More the Hippies Protest Wall Street, the Lower Obama's Numbers Get:
by AWR Hawkins
So the hippies are still hunkered down by Wall Street. Like their hero Bill Ayers (aka, President Obama’s terrorist buddy), they are admitted anti-capitalists who want more government-sponsored wealth redistribution, education recognized as a human right, and cradle-to-grave healthcare at no cost to the one receiving the healthcare.
That’s right, regardless of the claims to “Occupy Wall Street” in order to protest alleged financial wrong-doing (which is just leftist jargon for “shame on you for making a profit”), the real impetus because the gathering of these dirty hippies is union-sponsored socialism.
And President Obama is encouraging it.
That’s right, our sitting president is cheering the hippies on as they shut down traffic, drag their tarps from corner to corner, defecate who knows where, and dance in the streets with signs about the supposed wonders of socialism.
Not so ironically, the president’s already low poll numbers have fallen even further with these fine, upstanding citizens occupying our streets. (I guess they’re citizens, but to honest, the way Soros and Obama work, who knows?)
For example, the Gallup poll released on Friday, October 7, showed his approval rating at a miserable 38% and the disapproval numbers at an overwhelming 58%. (I could be wrong, but I think even Jimmy Carter laughed at those numbers.)
Nevertheless, on the same day that the Gallup poll was released, President Obama stood behind a podium at the White House and told Americans: “I think [Occupy Wall Street] expresses the frustrations that the American people feel. …People are frustrated and the protesters are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works.”
Note to President Obama: It’s not working.
We went to Bill Ayers webpage and read the declaration by “the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square” (aka, the dirty hippies blocking traffic), and we know this is not about problems with our financial system. Rather, it’s about generations upon generations who have been conditioned to stretch out an empty hand and have government put a check in it.
I personally hope the hippies keep protesting and that Obama keeps publicly encouraging them do so. For if they do, and if he does, the American people will vote against socialism and hippies by voting against Obama in droves come 2012.
So the hippies are still hunkered down by Wall Street. Like their hero Bill Ayers (aka, President Obama’s terrorist buddy), they are admitted anti-capitalists who want more government-sponsored wealth redistribution, education recognized as a human right, and cradle-to-grave healthcare at no cost to the one receiving the healthcare.
That’s right, regardless of the claims to “Occupy Wall Street” in order to protest alleged financial wrong-doing (which is just leftist jargon for “shame on you for making a profit”), the real impetus because the gathering of these dirty hippies is union-sponsored socialism.
And President Obama is encouraging it.
That’s right, our sitting president is cheering the hippies on as they shut down traffic, drag their tarps from corner to corner, defecate who knows where, and dance in the streets with signs about the supposed wonders of socialism.
Not so ironically, the president’s already low poll numbers have fallen even further with these fine, upstanding citizens occupying our streets. (I guess they’re citizens, but to honest, the way Soros and Obama work, who knows?)
For example, the Gallup poll released on Friday, October 7, showed his approval rating at a miserable 38% and the disapproval numbers at an overwhelming 58%. (I could be wrong, but I think even Jimmy Carter laughed at those numbers.)
Nevertheless, on the same day that the Gallup poll was released, President Obama stood behind a podium at the White House and told Americans: “I think [Occupy Wall Street] expresses the frustrations that the American people feel. …People are frustrated and the protesters are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works.”
Note to President Obama: It’s not working.
We went to Bill Ayers webpage and read the declaration by “the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square” (aka, the dirty hippies blocking traffic), and we know this is not about problems with our financial system. Rather, it’s about generations upon generations who have been conditioned to stretch out an empty hand and have government put a check in it.
I personally hope the hippies keep protesting and that Obama keeps publicly encouraging them do so. For if they do, and if he does, the American people will vote against socialism and hippies by voting against Obama in droves come 2012.
Counterterrorism: Why President Obama Loves Travel Data As Much As He Love Drones
Stewart Baker • October 8, 2011 4:06 pm
Anyone who’s read Skating on Stilts knows I am a big believer in using travel data for counterterrorism purposes. What’s more interesting is that the Obama administration has been just as enthusiastic. Some of the reasons for its enthusiasm showed up in testimony to the House Homeland Security Committee last week, when the Department of Homeland Security released stories about its
use of travel data that I had not seen before.
Remember Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber who was pulled off a plane at JFK as it was preparing to leave the country? It turns out that travel data was his nemesis, helping DHS and the FBI track him at every turn:
Early in this investigation, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) learned of Shahzad‘s cell phone number from a report shared by DHS. The FBI ran the phone number in their ACS system and was able to connect it to the DHS report. Through good interagency cooperation, the FBI asked DHS if it had encountered any individual who reported this phone number during border crossings. DHS searched its PNR database for the phone number, identified Shahzad, and learned other information he had provided to DHS. DHS then provided the additional data to the FBI. Later, Shahzad attempted to flee the United States, but DHS‘s analysis of departing passenger data identified him before departure and DHS removed him from the aircraft.
Najibullah Zazi was the guy who rented a truck and drove cross country to set off explosives in the New York City subway. It turns out we used travel data to identify the scope of the conspiracy and to interrogate him. According Indian news sources, Tom Bush, testifying for Customs and Border Protection, revealed that:
“Using PNR data, DHS and CBP worked closely with the FBI to crosswalk the names of his co-travelers against open counter-terrorism cases inside the United States and determined his co-travelers were being trained during the same trips to Pakistan in the same training camps. Zazi was arrested on September 19th, 2009, and the information from his PNR records were used in his questioning and his indictment. Zazi pled guilty in February 2010.”
Particularly impressive was the use of travel data to identify David Headley, the American who did reconnaissance work for the Mumbai attacks
“Law enforcement intelligence information implicated a specific person in the plotting of a 2008 Mumbai attack, as well as the possible attacks against a Danish newspaper office. … Starting with a very common first name, David, a partial travel itinerary and a very vague travel timeframe, CBP was able to review its PNR data in connection with other DHS databases…. Within 24 hours, CBP was able to provide the FBI with the person’s full name, address, passport number, travel history and other information useful to law enforcement pursuing him. You may know that person as David Headley, who pled guilty in March 2010.”
In short, travel data has been crucial in keeping Americans alive during the ten years since 9/11. And during the same decade, the European Union has been doing everything it can to cripple our use of travel data. It’s forced four rounds of negotiation on privacy standards for travel data and then has blown up every deal it’s reached, always threatening to cut off the flow of data if the US doesn’t keep talking.
With that record, you’d be forgiven for wondering whether Europe’s elite actually thinks it’s a good thing to keep Americans alive.
In fact, with that record, you’d probably be forgiven if you stopped wondering.
Anyone who’s read Skating on Stilts knows I am a big believer in using travel data for counterterrorism purposes. What’s more interesting is that the Obama administration has been just as enthusiastic. Some of the reasons for its enthusiasm showed up in testimony to the House Homeland Security Committee last week, when the Department of Homeland Security released stories about its
use of travel data that I had not seen before.
Remember Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber who was pulled off a plane at JFK as it was preparing to leave the country? It turns out that travel data was his nemesis, helping DHS and the FBI track him at every turn:
Early in this investigation, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) learned of Shahzad‘s cell phone number from a report shared by DHS. The FBI ran the phone number in their ACS system and was able to connect it to the DHS report. Through good interagency cooperation, the FBI asked DHS if it had encountered any individual who reported this phone number during border crossings. DHS searched its PNR database for the phone number, identified Shahzad, and learned other information he had provided to DHS. DHS then provided the additional data to the FBI. Later, Shahzad attempted to flee the United States, but DHS‘s analysis of departing passenger data identified him before departure and DHS removed him from the aircraft.
Najibullah Zazi was the guy who rented a truck and drove cross country to set off explosives in the New York City subway. It turns out we used travel data to identify the scope of the conspiracy and to interrogate him. According Indian news sources, Tom Bush, testifying for Customs and Border Protection, revealed that:
“Using PNR data, DHS and CBP worked closely with the FBI to crosswalk the names of his co-travelers against open counter-terrorism cases inside the United States and determined his co-travelers were being trained during the same trips to Pakistan in the same training camps. Zazi was arrested on September 19th, 2009, and the information from his PNR records were used in his questioning and his indictment. Zazi pled guilty in February 2010.”
Particularly impressive was the use of travel data to identify David Headley, the American who did reconnaissance work for the Mumbai attacks
“Law enforcement intelligence information implicated a specific person in the plotting of a 2008 Mumbai attack, as well as the possible attacks against a Danish newspaper office. … Starting with a very common first name, David, a partial travel itinerary and a very vague travel timeframe, CBP was able to review its PNR data in connection with other DHS databases…. Within 24 hours, CBP was able to provide the FBI with the person’s full name, address, passport number, travel history and other information useful to law enforcement pursuing him. You may know that person as David Headley, who pled guilty in March 2010.”
In short, travel data has been crucial in keeping Americans alive during the ten years since 9/11. And during the same decade, the European Union has been doing everything it can to cripple our use of travel data. It’s forced four rounds of negotiation on privacy standards for travel data and then has blown up every deal it’s reached, always threatening to cut off the flow of data if the US doesn’t keep talking.
With that record, you’d be forgiven for wondering whether Europe’s elite actually thinks it’s a good thing to keep Americans alive.
In fact, with that record, you’d probably be forgiven if you stopped wondering.
Down With Evil Corporations!
Posted on October 7, 2011 by John Hinderaker
This graphic is making the rounds on Facebook. It ties in with something I’ve always wondered: where do people who don’t like corporations work? Do they seriously want to turn the clock back by centuries–it would take some research to figure to how many–to a world in which the only forms of business organization are sole proprietorships and partnerships? And who do they think designs, manufactures and distributes the products they use? Elves? Liberals denounced Mitt Romney for saying “corporations are people,” and I think they even made a video about it. But of course Romney was right. A corporation consists of its owners (people who are shareholders) and its employees (people who work for the company). It is an elementary rule of law that a corporation can act only through people–its employees and agents. So how do liberals think they can hurt corporations without hurting people? The sheer stupidity of such thinking is enough to give you a headache.
Anyway, here is the graphic:
This graphic is making the rounds on Facebook. It ties in with something I’ve always wondered: where do people who don’t like corporations work? Do they seriously want to turn the clock back by centuries–it would take some research to figure to how many–to a world in which the only forms of business organization are sole proprietorships and partnerships? And who do they think designs, manufactures and distributes the products they use? Elves? Liberals denounced Mitt Romney for saying “corporations are people,” and I think they even made a video about it. But of course Romney was right. A corporation consists of its owners (people who are shareholders) and its employees (people who work for the company). It is an elementary rule of law that a corporation can act only through people–its employees and agents. So how do liberals think they can hurt corporations without hurting people? The sheer stupidity of such thinking is enough to give you a headache.
Anyway, here is the graphic:
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Conservative Home USA news of the day
Newslinks for Saturday October 8, 2011
Obama fundraiser actively worked to support the loan to Solyndra,
documents say
Perry supporter creates a stir by denouncing Romney’s Mormonism
as a “cult”
Herman Cain electrifies the audience at D.C.’s Values Voters
conference, Gingrich tries hitching to his wagon
Moral Values rank low on voters’ priorities for the 2012 presidential election and below economic issues
Herman Cain continues his surge to the top of the polls ahead of the
New Hampshire debate, Perry finds himself fifth
GOP, conservatives close ranks against the Occupy Wall Streeters,
say they are not a genuine movement
AG Eric Holder fires back against suggestions he lied to Congress
during his May testimony
Obama fundraiser actively worked to support the loan to Solyndra,
documents say
Perry supporter creates a stir by denouncing Romney’s Mormonism
as a “cult”
Herman Cain electrifies the audience at D.C.’s Values Voters
conference, Gingrich tries hitching to his wagon
Moral Values rank low on voters’ priorities for the 2012 presidential election and below economic issues
Herman Cain continues his surge to the top of the polls ahead of the
New Hampshire debate, Perry finds himself fifth
GOP, conservatives close ranks against the Occupy Wall Streeters,
say they are not a genuine movement
AG Eric Holder fires back against suggestions he lied to Congress
during his May testimony
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)