Damon W. Root | October 10, 2011
Justice Clarence Thomas has not asked a question during Supreme Court oral arguments in over five years. At The Huffington Post, Mike Sacks looks at one of the cases where Thomas did have something to say from the bench, Virginia v. Black (2002), which considered the constitutionality of Virginia’s ban on cross burning. As Sacks observes, while the rest of the justices were focused on the Court’s First Amendment precedents, Thomas became interested in whether or not the act of cross burning should qualify as an illegal threat of violence:
Supreme Court justices don't ask questions only to learn from the advocates before them. Often, a justice will use the advocate as a conduit to teach the rest of the Court what that justice already knows. By asking [Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Michael] Dreeben if he was "understating the effects of the burning cross," Thomas was trying to amplify Dreeben's unheeded argument that the "signal of violence" conveyed by a burning cross is "like a sword of Damocles hanging over the person whose head has been threatened."
"Threatened," for Thomas, was too light of a term. He reminded his colleagues, through Dreeben, that the cross-burning ban, passed in 1952, was meant to address "almost 100 years of lynching and activity in the South" by the KKK and other hate groups that even the then-still-segregated state of Virginia found repugnant.
"This was a reign of terror," Thomas told Dreeben, "and the cross was a symbol of that reign of terror."
Sacks calls Virginia v. Black “surely the most powerful” of the cases “in which Justice Thomas made his voice heard,” and it’s hard to disagree with that description. But the case is also notable for the light it shines on Thomas’ deep interest in America’s ugly history of racism and racial violence, an aspect of his jurisprudence that is not always given its due.
For example, as I noted in August, liberal legal writer Jeffrey Toobin asserted in a recent New Yorker story that “Thomas finds a racial angle on a broad array of issues, including those which appear to be scarcely related to traditional civil rights, like campaign finance or gun control.” Had Toobin bothered to open a history book before writing that unfortunate sentence, he could have learned that the same cross-burning terrorists that Thomas denounced in Virginia v. Black also benefitted from racist Southern gun laws that kept firearms out of the hands of African Americans—which is one of the reasons why Thomas stressed African American history in his McDonald v. Chicago concurrence applying the Second Amendment to the states.
Justice Thomas may keep quiet during oral arguments, but that doesn’t mean he has nothing to say.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Not a Single Christian Church Left in Afghanistan, Says State Department
By Edwin Mora
October 10, 2011
(CNSNews.com) -- There is not a single, public Christian church left in Afghanistan, according to the U.S. State Department.
This reflects the state of religious freedom in that country ten years after the United States first invaded it and overthrew its Islamist Taliban regime.
In the intervening decade, U.S. taxpayers have spent $440 billion to support Afghanistan's new government and more than 1,700 U.S. military personnel have died serving in that country.
The last public Christian church in Afghanistan was razed in March 2010, according to the Statet Department's latest International Religious Freedom Report. The report, which was released last month and covers the period of July 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010, also states that “there were no Christian schools in the country.”
“There is no longer a public Christian church; the courts have not upheld the church's claim to its 99-year lease, and the landowner destroyed the building in March [2010],” reads the State Department report on religious freedom. “[Private] chapels and churches for the international community of various faiths are located on several military bases, PRTs [Provincial Reconstruction Teams], and at the Italian embassy. Some citizens who converted to Christianity as refugees have returned.”
In recent times, freedom of religion has declined in Afghanistan, according to the State Department.
“The government’s level of respect for religious freedom in law and in practice declined during the reporting period, particularly for Christian groups and individuals,” reads the State Department report.
“Negative societal opinions and suspicion of Christian activities led to targeting of Christian groups and individuals, including Muslim converts to Christianity," said the report. "The lack of government responsiveness and protection for these groups and individuals contributed to the deterioration of religious freedom.”
Most Christians in the country refuse to “state their beliefs or gather openly to worship,” said the State Department.
More than 1,700 U.S. military personnel have died serving in the decade-old Afghanistan war, according to CNSNews.com’s database of all U.S. casualties in Afghanistan. A September audit released jointly by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction and the State Department’s Office of Inspector General, found that the U.S. government will spend at least $1.7 billion to support the civilian effort from 2009-2011.
According to that report, the $1.7 billion excludes additional security costs, which the report says the State Department priced at about $491 million.
A March 2011 report by the Congressional Research Service showed that overall the United States has spent more than $440 billion in the Afghanistan war. Christian aid from the international community has also gone to aid the Afghan government.
Nevertheless, according to the State Department, the lack of non-Muslim religious centers in Afghanistan can be blamed in part on a “strapped government budget,” which is primarily fueled by the U.S. aid.
“There were no explicit restrictions for religious minority groups to establish places of worship and training of clergy to serve their communities,” says the report, “however, very few public places of worship exist for minorities due to a strapped government budget.”
The report acknowledged that Afghanistan’s post-Taliban constitution, which was ratified with the help of U.S. mediation in 2004, can be contradictory when it comes to the free exercise of religion.
While the new constitution states that Islam is the “religion of the state” and that “no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam,” it also proclaims that “followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of the law.”
However, “the right to change one’s religion was not respected either in law or in practice,” according to the State Department.
“Muslims who converted away from Islam risked losing their marriages, rejection from their families and villages, and loss of jobs,” according to the report. “Legal aid for imprisoned converts away from Islam remains difficult due to the personal objection of Afghan lawyers to defend apostates.”
The report does note that “in recent years neither the national nor local authorities have imposed criminal penalties on coverts from Islam.” The report says that “conversion from Islam is considered apostasy and is punishable by death under some interpretations of Islamic rule in the country.”
Also, in recent years, the death punishment for blasphemy “has not been carried out,” according to the State Department.
According to the State Department report, the United States continues to promote religious freedom in Afghanistan--even though the country no longer has even one Christian church.
“The U.S. government regularly discusses religious freedom with government officials as part of its overall policy to promote human rights,” according to the report.
According to the State Department report, more than 99 percent of the population, estimated between 24 and 33 million people, is either Sunni (80 percent) or Shia (19 percent) Muslim. Non-Muslim religious groups, including the estimated 500 to 8,000 strong Christian community in the country, make up less than 1 percent of the population. Other non-Muslim groups in the country are Sikhs, Bahais, and Hindus.
October 10, 2011
(CNSNews.com) -- There is not a single, public Christian church left in Afghanistan, according to the U.S. State Department.
This reflects the state of religious freedom in that country ten years after the United States first invaded it and overthrew its Islamist Taliban regime.
In the intervening decade, U.S. taxpayers have spent $440 billion to support Afghanistan's new government and more than 1,700 U.S. military personnel have died serving in that country.
The last public Christian church in Afghanistan was razed in March 2010, according to the Statet Department's latest International Religious Freedom Report. The report, which was released last month and covers the period of July 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010, also states that “there were no Christian schools in the country.”
“There is no longer a public Christian church; the courts have not upheld the church's claim to its 99-year lease, and the landowner destroyed the building in March [2010],” reads the State Department report on religious freedom. “[Private] chapels and churches for the international community of various faiths are located on several military bases, PRTs [Provincial Reconstruction Teams], and at the Italian embassy. Some citizens who converted to Christianity as refugees have returned.”
In recent times, freedom of religion has declined in Afghanistan, according to the State Department.
“The government’s level of respect for religious freedom in law and in practice declined during the reporting period, particularly for Christian groups and individuals,” reads the State Department report.
“Negative societal opinions and suspicion of Christian activities led to targeting of Christian groups and individuals, including Muslim converts to Christianity," said the report. "The lack of government responsiveness and protection for these groups and individuals contributed to the deterioration of religious freedom.”
Most Christians in the country refuse to “state their beliefs or gather openly to worship,” said the State Department.
More than 1,700 U.S. military personnel have died serving in the decade-old Afghanistan war, according to CNSNews.com’s database of all U.S. casualties in Afghanistan. A September audit released jointly by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction and the State Department’s Office of Inspector General, found that the U.S. government will spend at least $1.7 billion to support the civilian effort from 2009-2011.
According to that report, the $1.7 billion excludes additional security costs, which the report says the State Department priced at about $491 million.
A March 2011 report by the Congressional Research Service showed that overall the United States has spent more than $440 billion in the Afghanistan war. Christian aid from the international community has also gone to aid the Afghan government.
Nevertheless, according to the State Department, the lack of non-Muslim religious centers in Afghanistan can be blamed in part on a “strapped government budget,” which is primarily fueled by the U.S. aid.
“There were no explicit restrictions for religious minority groups to establish places of worship and training of clergy to serve their communities,” says the report, “however, very few public places of worship exist for minorities due to a strapped government budget.”
The report acknowledged that Afghanistan’s post-Taliban constitution, which was ratified with the help of U.S. mediation in 2004, can be contradictory when it comes to the free exercise of religion.
While the new constitution states that Islam is the “religion of the state” and that “no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam,” it also proclaims that “followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of the law.”
However, “the right to change one’s religion was not respected either in law or in practice,” according to the State Department.
“Muslims who converted away from Islam risked losing their marriages, rejection from their families and villages, and loss of jobs,” according to the report. “Legal aid for imprisoned converts away from Islam remains difficult due to the personal objection of Afghan lawyers to defend apostates.”
The report does note that “in recent years neither the national nor local authorities have imposed criminal penalties on coverts from Islam.” The report says that “conversion from Islam is considered apostasy and is punishable by death under some interpretations of Islamic rule in the country.”
Also, in recent years, the death punishment for blasphemy “has not been carried out,” according to the State Department.
According to the State Department report, the United States continues to promote religious freedom in Afghanistan--even though the country no longer has even one Christian church.
“The U.S. government regularly discusses religious freedom with government officials as part of its overall policy to promote human rights,” according to the report.
According to the State Department report, more than 99 percent of the population, estimated between 24 and 33 million people, is either Sunni (80 percent) or Shia (19 percent) Muslim. Non-Muslim religious groups, including the estimated 500 to 8,000 strong Christian community in the country, make up less than 1 percent of the population. Other non-Muslim groups in the country are Sikhs, Bahais, and Hindus.
Governor Brown Vetoes Bill on Searching Cell Phones Incident to Arrest
Orin Kerr • October 10, 2011 2:29 am
The U.S. Supreme Court denied cert last week in Diaz v. California, a Fourth Amendment case from California’s Supreme Court which held that a cell phone can be searched incident to arrest. Meanwhile, over the summer, California state legislators passed SB 914, a bill limiting searches incident to arrest in California. Just today, however, California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the bill and released the following statement:
This measure would overturn a California Supreme Court decision that held that police officers can lawfully search the cell phones of people who they arrest. Courts are better suited to resolve the complex and case specific issues relating to constitutional search-and-seizures protections.
I think Governor Brown has it exactly backwards. It is very difficult for courts to decide Fourth Amendment cases involving developing technologies like cell phones. Changing technology is a moving target, and courts move slowly: They are at a major institutional disadvantage in striking the balance properly when technology is in flux for the reasons I developed in this article. In contrast, legislatures have a major institutional advantage over courts in this setting. They can better assess facts, more easily amend the law to reflect the latest technology, are not stuck following precedents, can adopt more creative regulatory solutions, and can act without a case or controversy. For these reasons, legislatures are much better equipped than courts to strike the balance between security and privacy when technology is in flux.
Perhaps the major disadvantage of legislatively-made search and seizure rules is that the head of the executive branch that oversees law enforcement also generally has the veto power over the legislature’s efforts. The head of the executive branch can therefore block limits on the executive’s own power, at least in some circumstances. I don’t follow California politics much, but I would guess this reality, not institutional advantages of courts and legislature, is what really led to Governor Brown’s veto.
The U.S. Supreme Court denied cert last week in Diaz v. California, a Fourth Amendment case from California’s Supreme Court which held that a cell phone can be searched incident to arrest. Meanwhile, over the summer, California state legislators passed SB 914, a bill limiting searches incident to arrest in California. Just today, however, California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the bill and released the following statement:
This measure would overturn a California Supreme Court decision that held that police officers can lawfully search the cell phones of people who they arrest. Courts are better suited to resolve the complex and case specific issues relating to constitutional search-and-seizures protections.
I think Governor Brown has it exactly backwards. It is very difficult for courts to decide Fourth Amendment cases involving developing technologies like cell phones. Changing technology is a moving target, and courts move slowly: They are at a major institutional disadvantage in striking the balance properly when technology is in flux for the reasons I developed in this article. In contrast, legislatures have a major institutional advantage over courts in this setting. They can better assess facts, more easily amend the law to reflect the latest technology, are not stuck following precedents, can adopt more creative regulatory solutions, and can act without a case or controversy. For these reasons, legislatures are much better equipped than courts to strike the balance between security and privacy when technology is in flux.
Perhaps the major disadvantage of legislatively-made search and seizure rules is that the head of the executive branch that oversees law enforcement also generally has the veto power over the legislature’s efforts. The head of the executive branch can therefore block limits on the executive’s own power, at least in some circumstances. I don’t follow California politics much, but I would guess this reality, not institutional advantages of courts and legislature, is what really led to Governor Brown’s veto.
Victory through Useful Idiots and Weak Enemies
Motto: "WANT IS WEALTH
POVERTY IS PROSPERITY
SQUALOR IS LUXURY"
Tovarisches, I wanted to share the obvious with you, in keeping with my handle, particularly since it seems the Occupussies are in need of remedial indoctrination reeducation. Below are listed some of the tools of our success. Feel free to add and expound as your creativity directs.
Protests and riots, with which to instill fear into the hearts of RethugliKKKans and Tearrorists with violent, meandering, purposeless destruction. Simultaneously encourage (it comes naturally to them anyway) Dimocrat politicos and union thugs leaders to speak on the valuable show of Democracy and patriotism said violence is proof of. Hey, it worked for the Arab Spring.
Dead People Voting – ever a reliable way of securing the success of our electorate.
Our useful Media Idiots – they know we can do no wrong. They are merely an extension of ourselves, trained by us to know their place.
Educational Institutions – training up generations of drones, whether in the Media, on Wall Street, or in our own ranks.
The Constitution - trash, trample, denigrate, and mutilate at every opportunity.
Balkanization – denounce dissenters as racist terrorist America- and Constitution hating idiots. In other words, project who you are and what you believe on everyone who disagrees with you.
Gangsta Politics – keep twisting arms of dissenting politicos out of their sockets until they comply.
Continue populating bureaucracies with bureaucretins who are tasked with churning out freedom- and productivity-crushing regulations at super-committee top-government speed and efficiency. Ditto courts.
Rule Against The Will of The People – those who disagree with us are merely Tearrorists and RethugliKKKans anyway. They are the problem, not us. That is why their doom is assured.
Continue to fund and ram down the peoples’ throats policies that RethugliKKKans and Tearrorists don’t want while pouring trillions of taxpayer funds into the black hole of red green energy projects that are sure to fail.
Continue redistribution of wealth from successful hard-working people to lazy slugs who will vote for you if youcontinue to steal from the producers give them more stuff from your stash.
And if all else fails - suspend elections if required – thus showing how you truly believe in our Representative Republic.
How can I so confidently predict that these tried-and-true techniques will continue to serve us in achieving the final goal: the realization of The Progressive World of Nest Tuesday™?
The answer is simple.
The enemy is afraid.
~
For decades we have been infiltrating their culture, their media, their schools, their businesses, their governments. They have never fought back. We draw a line in the sand, they yield. They accuse us of using emotions to set policy. But they fail to see that they are being controlled by their own emotions. We have trained them not to fight. Not to stand up for themselves, because to do so is mean-spirited, bigoted, racist, terrorist, homophobic. We were successful with the hard men of the nineteen-thirties and -forties, the “greatest generation”, and we succeed even more easily now with this linguini-spined, lilly-livered, modern conservative movement. If they dare protest our beneficence in destroying them, we will use our proles, our media, our institutions, and our regulations to attack their families and their God, as well as their liberties and businesses, with redoubled intensity. Their weak, cowering “champions” have not fought back, and they will not fight back as we march and rally and riot and shout and burn their bourgeois toys and bury in regulations what meager business they still manage to conduct and contract their beloved liberty until it is less than a memory. They have watched and will continue to watch helplessly as we sweep them away with our grand socialist visions and dreams of utopia, as we continue to proclaim audacious hope and change.
We will win because we have people whom we have trained and brought up from before they were weaned; our people whom we indoctrinate to be life-long children, whom we lovingly call Useful Idiots; our proles, our chattel. They are cheap and demand little from us, while demanding much from those on whose necks our boots are fixed. Proles are easily duped into thinking skyrocketing medical costs and diminishing medicines, supplies, and care are a result of Evil KKKapitOlism, not brought on by our suffocating programs, bills, regulations and impossible labyrinthine demands. Proles will not blame us for policies, spending, redistribution, and devaluation that are righteously bringing the Evil U.S. of KKK to its knees and finally bringing it into parity with the remainder of the third world. Proles know that when we tell them they are actually better off not wanting to expend their own effort and therefore have no opportunity, and certainly no liberty in any case, to attain adequate health care, quality inexpensive clothing and shoes, unprecedented abundance and varieties of high-quality, inexpensive, nutritious food, comfortable, inexpensive housing and furnishings of their own, cheap energy, indoor plumbing, affordable, clean, efficient heating and cooling systems, inexpensive, reliable private transportation, entertaining, affordable high-tech gadgets and distractions, we would not lie to them, foroppression government by us is good, moral, and we’re for the little people. So when Evil KKKapitOlists are no longer able to produce those things the proles feel entitled to because we have regulated those Evil ones out of existence and priced their products into the stratosphere by currency devaluation and an inability to compete, the proles will cheer us, and blame those who once produced and drove the Evil KKKapitOlist economy. If the proles dare protest our beneficent rule, we will righteously call them greedy and turn them against one another. The 0ne is practiced in the art, and we taught him well.
The proles will perform whatever tasks we desire, obeying without question. We know they are disposable, and all our communications with them will underscore this unspoken threat fact. We have attained the moral high ground. We are the good, the providers; we are those who give life, pain, and delight. When we work them to death, it is of no concern to us – there will always be more workers. They will continue to love us for the crumbs we generously provide them. In return, we merely require the proles give us all their adoration, all their labors, their very lives. It is a small price to pay, a small gift to earn the favor of their gods.
We will continue to break up, overturn, and burn all the Evil KKKapitOlists’ stuff while demanding they give us all their stuff for free. We will take the products created from the success they attained from their freedom to succeed and ensure they are enslaved. We who have earned nothing will take everything from those who unfairly used their efforts and time to succeed, build, and produce, because all their efforts, all their time, their very lives belong to us. We will succeed in the final twists of the screw that is turning their culture into ruinous rubble. When their toys fall apart and no one can fix them, when air conditioning, gasoline engines, electricity, running water, and indoor plumbing are distant memories and, as we shall easily convince the starving masses, perhaps never existed at all, we will still be the ones who live in relative luxury. We will be the ones with the hand-crafted horse-drawn carriages. We will be the ones with the stone castles. We will be the ones whose servants dispose of our garbage while the proles wallow in theirs, unable to rid themselves of it because to do so taints the environment. We will have all the toys – so what if iPads, smart phones, computers, television, motorized vehicles, cheap energy, central heating, cooling, refrigeration, plumbing, inexpensive, wholesome food, and luxurious private housing are things of the past? As long as we have power, even over a decayed, dumb, dispirited populous, and as long as we have the best of what is available, no matter how shoddy or ramshackle, who cares? It’s the power, stupid. And it must all be ours.
They are sheep. We are wolves. We shall continue as we have been, as we shall ever be – devouring all who stand in our way and spitting out their cowardly bones to mark the grave of their shame and failure.
POVERTY IS PROSPERITY
SQUALOR IS LUXURY"
Tovarisches, I wanted to share the obvious with you, in keeping with my handle, particularly since it seems the Occupussies are in need of remedial indoctrination reeducation. Below are listed some of the tools of our success. Feel free to add and expound as your creativity directs.
Protests and riots, with which to instill fear into the hearts of RethugliKKKans and Tearrorists with violent, meandering, purposeless destruction. Simultaneously encourage (it comes naturally to them anyway) Dimocrat politicos and union thugs leaders to speak on the valuable show of Democracy and patriotism said violence is proof of. Hey, it worked for the Arab Spring.
Dead People Voting – ever a reliable way of securing the success of our electorate.
Our useful Media Idiots – they know we can do no wrong. They are merely an extension of ourselves, trained by us to know their place.
Educational Institutions – training up generations of drones, whether in the Media, on Wall Street, or in our own ranks.
The Constitution - trash, trample, denigrate, and mutilate at every opportunity.
Balkanization – denounce dissenters as racist terrorist America- and Constitution hating idiots. In other words, project who you are and what you believe on everyone who disagrees with you.
Gangsta Politics – keep twisting arms of dissenting politicos out of their sockets until they comply.
Continue populating bureaucracies with bureaucretins who are tasked with churning out freedom- and productivity-crushing regulations at super-committee top-government speed and efficiency. Ditto courts.
Rule Against The Will of The People – those who disagree with us are merely Tearrorists and RethugliKKKans anyway. They are the problem, not us. That is why their doom is assured.
Continue to fund and ram down the peoples’ throats policies that RethugliKKKans and Tearrorists don’t want while pouring trillions of taxpayer funds into the black hole of red green energy projects that are sure to fail.
Continue redistribution of wealth from successful hard-working people to lazy slugs who will vote for you if you
And if all else fails - suspend elections if required – thus showing how you truly believe in our Representative Republic.
How can I so confidently predict that these tried-and-true techniques will continue to serve us in achieving the final goal: the realization of The Progressive World of Nest Tuesday™?
The answer is simple.
The enemy is afraid.
~
For decades we have been infiltrating their culture, their media, their schools, their businesses, their governments. They have never fought back. We draw a line in the sand, they yield. They accuse us of using emotions to set policy. But they fail to see that they are being controlled by their own emotions. We have trained them not to fight. Not to stand up for themselves, because to do so is mean-spirited, bigoted, racist, terrorist, homophobic. We were successful with the hard men of the nineteen-thirties and -forties, the “greatest generation”, and we succeed even more easily now with this linguini-spined, lilly-livered, modern conservative movement. If they dare protest our beneficence in destroying them, we will use our proles, our media, our institutions, and our regulations to attack their families and their God, as well as their liberties and businesses, with redoubled intensity. Their weak, cowering “champions” have not fought back, and they will not fight back as we march and rally and riot and shout and burn their bourgeois toys and bury in regulations what meager business they still manage to conduct and contract their beloved liberty until it is less than a memory. They have watched and will continue to watch helplessly as we sweep them away with our grand socialist visions and dreams of utopia, as we continue to proclaim audacious hope and change.
We will win because we have people whom we have trained and brought up from before they were weaned; our people whom we indoctrinate to be life-long children, whom we lovingly call Useful Idiots; our proles, our chattel. They are cheap and demand little from us, while demanding much from those on whose necks our boots are fixed. Proles are easily duped into thinking skyrocketing medical costs and diminishing medicines, supplies, and care are a result of Evil KKKapitOlism, not brought on by our suffocating programs, bills, regulations and impossible labyrinthine demands. Proles will not blame us for policies, spending, redistribution, and devaluation that are righteously bringing the Evil U.S. of KKK to its knees and finally bringing it into parity with the remainder of the third world. Proles know that when we tell them they are actually better off not wanting to expend their own effort and therefore have no opportunity, and certainly no liberty in any case, to attain adequate health care, quality inexpensive clothing and shoes, unprecedented abundance and varieties of high-quality, inexpensive, nutritious food, comfortable, inexpensive housing and furnishings of their own, cheap energy, indoor plumbing, affordable, clean, efficient heating and cooling systems, inexpensive, reliable private transportation, entertaining, affordable high-tech gadgets and distractions, we would not lie to them, for
The proles will perform whatever tasks we desire, obeying without question. We know they are disposable, and all our communications with them will underscore this unspoken threat fact. We have attained the moral high ground. We are the good, the providers; we are those who give life, pain, and delight. When we work them to death, it is of no concern to us – there will always be more workers. They will continue to love us for the crumbs we generously provide them. In return, we merely require the proles give us all their adoration, all their labors, their very lives. It is a small price to pay, a small gift to earn the favor of their gods.
We will continue to break up, overturn, and burn all the Evil KKKapitOlists’ stuff while demanding they give us all their stuff for free. We will take the products created from the success they attained from their freedom to succeed and ensure they are enslaved. We who have earned nothing will take everything from those who unfairly used their efforts and time to succeed, build, and produce, because all their efforts, all their time, their very lives belong to us. We will succeed in the final twists of the screw that is turning their culture into ruinous rubble. When their toys fall apart and no one can fix them, when air conditioning, gasoline engines, electricity, running water, and indoor plumbing are distant memories and, as we shall easily convince the starving masses, perhaps never existed at all, we will still be the ones who live in relative luxury. We will be the ones with the hand-crafted horse-drawn carriages. We will be the ones with the stone castles. We will be the ones whose servants dispose of our garbage while the proles wallow in theirs, unable to rid themselves of it because to do so taints the environment. We will have all the toys – so what if iPads, smart phones, computers, television, motorized vehicles, cheap energy, central heating, cooling, refrigeration, plumbing, inexpensive, wholesome food, and luxurious private housing are things of the past? As long as we have power, even over a decayed, dumb, dispirited populous, and as long as we have the best of what is available, no matter how shoddy or ramshackle, who cares? It’s the power, stupid. And it must all be ours.
They are sheep. We are wolves. We shall continue as we have been, as we shall ever be – devouring all who stand in our way and spitting out their cowardly bones to mark the grave of their shame and failure.
Charities, Businesses Lead Recovery Efforts After Pennsylvania Flooding
Rob Bluey and Josh Peterson
October 10, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee may have ravaged northeastern Pennsylvania with floodwaters, but displaced people have found aid and comfort in the relief provided by private charities and businesses.
A recent New York Times story described affected people’s disillusionment with the federal government’s ability to dispense disaster relief aid through FEMA. “Uprooted and desolate, hard-working people in this part of the country expect a bit more from their government,” the Times reported.
The story failed to mention the outpouring of food, furniture and housing repair assistance provided by charities and companies. It also neglected the immediate help offered by neighbors and community organizations, which were on the scene before FEMA.
According to Connie Pheiff, CEO of the Wyoming County United Way, she’s received more than 2,000 applications for housing assistance. The United Way will provide vouchers to replace damaged home items like refrigerators, washers and dryers, appliances, sheetrock, gravel for driveways and sand for basement repair.
Local energy companies such as Chief Oil and Gas and Tug Hill Inc. stepped up to the plate and made a joint commitment of $250,000 to aid families and communities ravaged by the flooding.
“So many people in Northeast Pennsylvania have been affected by this terrible flooding, including Chief employees and landowners, as well as our friends and neighbors,” said Kristi Gittins, vice president of industry and public affairs for Chief. “We felt it was important to come together as a community and provide assistance wherever we could.”
The companies also aided helped with fuel costs, debris removal and food and shelter items, in addition to making donations to local fire departments and other disaster relief organizations.
“These were the same companies that were doing the hydrofracking. They called me at 4 a.m. and asked me if I needed anything,” said Pheiff, praising their efforts. “I told them, ‘Right now we need manpower, we need heavy equipment machinery, and we need dumpsters.’ They had the men and women on the street within hours.
“I was able to organize it within different points of the county, and every point in the county had somebody there from the gas company and also Procter & Gamble,” Pheiff continued. “What the gas company did was they actually shut down operations for I believe four days to allow their people to get out and help those that were affected by the disaster.”
Chesapeake Energy, another company working in the area, also provided critical aid to emergency responders.
“We worked closely with local emergency responders and nonprofits to identify and help meet needs for materials, services and financial support,” the company said in a statement. “All told, Chesapeake, its employees and contractors provided thousands of hours of volunteer assistance, the use of dozens of heavy vehicles and equipment to efficiently clean up and clear debris, $35,000 in emergency assistance funds to local charities, cleaning supplies and water throughout the region over approximately a two-week period.”
Other groups, such as the Weinberg Northeast Regional Food Bank, coordinated food aid relief.
“We received donations of 233,863 pounds and have already distributed over 176,759 pounds,” said Gene Brady, the food bank’s executive director. Brady noted that donations were provided by Community Food Bank of New Jersey, Procter & Gamble, Wegmans Food Market, Nature’s Way and Vermont Emergency Management. Brady said the food bank transports the goods to disaster recovery locations by way of mobile pantries.
“As people go back to their homes,” said Brady, “many of them are going to be without food that they had before that they’re going to be forced to throw away — they’ve probably already done that if it was in a refrigerator. Canned goods, and dry goods, for many of them are all lost.”
The outpouring of support has been overwhelming. Pheiff noted, for example, that she was looking for a warehouse in nearby Scranton to hold the donations until families were ready for them.
“We have people still living in shelters, still living in tents. Winter is right around the corner, and this isn’t a quick fix. … We have people who have nothing,” Pheiff said. “The more money we raise, the more money will give right back to the community.”
October 10, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee may have ravaged northeastern Pennsylvania with floodwaters, but displaced people have found aid and comfort in the relief provided by private charities and businesses.
A recent New York Times story described affected people’s disillusionment with the federal government’s ability to dispense disaster relief aid through FEMA. “Uprooted and desolate, hard-working people in this part of the country expect a bit more from their government,” the Times reported.
The story failed to mention the outpouring of food, furniture and housing repair assistance provided by charities and companies. It also neglected the immediate help offered by neighbors and community organizations, which were on the scene before FEMA.
According to Connie Pheiff, CEO of the Wyoming County United Way, she’s received more than 2,000 applications for housing assistance. The United Way will provide vouchers to replace damaged home items like refrigerators, washers and dryers, appliances, sheetrock, gravel for driveways and sand for basement repair.
Local energy companies such as Chief Oil and Gas and Tug Hill Inc. stepped up to the plate and made a joint commitment of $250,000 to aid families and communities ravaged by the flooding.
“So many people in Northeast Pennsylvania have been affected by this terrible flooding, including Chief employees and landowners, as well as our friends and neighbors,” said Kristi Gittins, vice president of industry and public affairs for Chief. “We felt it was important to come together as a community and provide assistance wherever we could.”
The companies also aided helped with fuel costs, debris removal and food and shelter items, in addition to making donations to local fire departments and other disaster relief organizations.
“These were the same companies that were doing the hydrofracking. They called me at 4 a.m. and asked me if I needed anything,” said Pheiff, praising their efforts. “I told them, ‘Right now we need manpower, we need heavy equipment machinery, and we need dumpsters.’ They had the men and women on the street within hours.
“I was able to organize it within different points of the county, and every point in the county had somebody there from the gas company and also Procter & Gamble,” Pheiff continued. “What the gas company did was they actually shut down operations for I believe four days to allow their people to get out and help those that were affected by the disaster.”
Chesapeake Energy, another company working in the area, also provided critical aid to emergency responders.
“We worked closely with local emergency responders and nonprofits to identify and help meet needs for materials, services and financial support,” the company said in a statement. “All told, Chesapeake, its employees and contractors provided thousands of hours of volunteer assistance, the use of dozens of heavy vehicles and equipment to efficiently clean up and clear debris, $35,000 in emergency assistance funds to local charities, cleaning supplies and water throughout the region over approximately a two-week period.”
Other groups, such as the Weinberg Northeast Regional Food Bank, coordinated food aid relief.
“We received donations of 233,863 pounds and have already distributed over 176,759 pounds,” said Gene Brady, the food bank’s executive director. Brady noted that donations were provided by Community Food Bank of New Jersey, Procter & Gamble, Wegmans Food Market, Nature’s Way and Vermont Emergency Management. Brady said the food bank transports the goods to disaster recovery locations by way of mobile pantries.
“As people go back to their homes,” said Brady, “many of them are going to be without food that they had before that they’re going to be forced to throw away — they’ve probably already done that if it was in a refrigerator. Canned goods, and dry goods, for many of them are all lost.”
The outpouring of support has been overwhelming. Pheiff noted, for example, that she was looking for a warehouse in nearby Scranton to hold the donations until families were ready for them.
“We have people still living in shelters, still living in tents. Winter is right around the corner, and this isn’t a quick fix. … We have people who have nothing,” Pheiff said. “The more money we raise, the more money will give right back to the community.”
Justice Scalia: “Learn to love the gridlock.”
It is a shame that Reuters was about the only media outlet to report on this part of this week’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing:
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Wednesday rejected concerns by Americans of a dysfunctional government because of disagreements and difficulty in getting legislation through Congress.
Such complaints escalated earlier this year when Congress squabbled over the debt ceiling while President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats in the Senate battled with Republican lawmakers, especially in the House of Representatives.
Scalia’s remarks, which you can watch (for the time being) at roughly the 37-minute mark of the Senate’s archived webcast, are worth reading in full. Scalia begins by noting how little Americans know of their Constitution, even when he speaks to law students who presumably have an interest in it:
I ask them, “Why do you think America is such a free country? What is it in our Constitution that makes us what we are?” And I guarantee you that the response I will get — and you will get this from almost any American *** the answer would be: freedom of speech; freedom of the press; no unreasonable searches and seizures; no quartering of troops in homes… those marvelous provisions of the Bill of Rights.
But then I tell them, “If you think a bill of rights is what sets us apart, you’re crazy.” Every banana republic in the world has a bill of rights. Every president for life has a bill of rights. The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours. I mean it. Literally, it was much better. We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!
Of course, it’s just words on paper, what our Framers would have called a “parchment guarantee.” And the reason is that the real constitution of the Soviet Union — you think of the word “constitution” — it doesn’t mean “bill” it means “structure”: [when] you say a person has a good constitution you mean a sound structure. The real constitution of the Soviet Union *** that constitution did not prevent the centralization of power in one person or in one party. And when that happens, the game is over, the Bill of Rights is just what our Framers would call a “parchment guarantee.”
So, the real key to the distinctiveness of America is the structure of our govenment. One part of it, of course, is the independence of the judiciary, but there’s a lot more. There are very few countries in the world, for example, that have a bicameral legislature. England has a House of Lords, for the time being, but the House of Lords has no substantial power; they can just make the [House of] Commons pass a bill a second time. France has a senate; it’s honorific. Italy has a senate; it’s honorific. Very few countries have two separate bodies in the legislature equally powerful. That’s a lot of trouble, as you gentlemen doubtless know, to get the same language through two different bodies elected in a different fashion.
Very few countries in the world have a separately elected chief executive. Sometimes, I go to Europe to talk about separation of powers, and when I get there I find that all I’m talking about is independence of the judiciary because the Europeans don’t even try to divide the two political powers, the two political branches, the legislature and the chief executive. In all of the parliamentary countries the chief executive is the creature of the legislature. There’s never any disagreement between them and the prime minister, as there is sometimes between you and the president. When there’s a disagreement, they just kick him out! They have a no confidence vote, a new election, and they get a prime minister who agrees with the legislature.
The Europeans look at this system and say “It passes one house, it doesn’t pass the other house, sometimes the other house is in the control of a different party. it passes both, and this president, who has a veto power, vetoes it,” and they look at this, and they say (adopting an accent) “Ach, it is gridlock.” I hear Americans saying this nowadays, and there’s a lot of it going around. They talk about a disfunctional government because there’s disagreement… and the Framers would have said, “Yes! That’s exactly the way we set it up. We wanted this to be power contradicting power because the main ill besetting us — as Hamilton said in The Federalist when he talked about a separate Senate: “Yes, it seems inconvenient, inasmuch as the main ill that besets us is an excess of legislation, it won’t be so bad.” This is 1787; he didn’t know what an excess of legislation was.
Unless Americans can appreciate that and learn to love the separation of powers, which means learning to love the gridlock which the Framers believed would be the main protector of minorities, [we lose] the main protection. If a bill is about to pass that really comes down hard on some minority [and] they think it’s terribly unfair, it doesn’t take much to throw a monkey wrench into this complex system. Americans should appreciate that; they should learn to love the gridlock. It’s there so the legislation that does get out is good legislation.
These days, the complaints come mostly from progressive elitists in the ruling and chattering classes — Gov. Bev Purdue, fmr Obama budget director Peter Orszag, Jeffrey Sachs, Ezra Klein, Fareed Zakaria, and so on. When they don’t get their way (usually some version of Euro-socialism), their solution is to radically alter our system of government, rather than to make better arguments or listen to their fellow citizens. Even Alexander Hamilton would shudder.
–Karl
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Wednesday rejected concerns by Americans of a dysfunctional government because of disagreements and difficulty in getting legislation through Congress.
Such complaints escalated earlier this year when Congress squabbled over the debt ceiling while President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats in the Senate battled with Republican lawmakers, especially in the House of Representatives.
Scalia’s remarks, which you can watch (for the time being) at roughly the 37-minute mark of the Senate’s archived webcast, are worth reading in full. Scalia begins by noting how little Americans know of their Constitution, even when he speaks to law students who presumably have an interest in it:
I ask them, “Why do you think America is such a free country? What is it in our Constitution that makes us what we are?” And I guarantee you that the response I will get — and you will get this from almost any American *** the answer would be: freedom of speech; freedom of the press; no unreasonable searches and seizures; no quartering of troops in homes… those marvelous provisions of the Bill of Rights.
But then I tell them, “If you think a bill of rights is what sets us apart, you’re crazy.” Every banana republic in the world has a bill of rights. Every president for life has a bill of rights. The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours. I mean it. Literally, it was much better. We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!
Of course, it’s just words on paper, what our Framers would have called a “parchment guarantee.” And the reason is that the real constitution of the Soviet Union — you think of the word “constitution” — it doesn’t mean “bill” it means “structure”: [when] you say a person has a good constitution you mean a sound structure. The real constitution of the Soviet Union *** that constitution did not prevent the centralization of power in one person or in one party. And when that happens, the game is over, the Bill of Rights is just what our Framers would call a “parchment guarantee.”
So, the real key to the distinctiveness of America is the structure of our govenment. One part of it, of course, is the independence of the judiciary, but there’s a lot more. There are very few countries in the world, for example, that have a bicameral legislature. England has a House of Lords, for the time being, but the House of Lords has no substantial power; they can just make the [House of] Commons pass a bill a second time. France has a senate; it’s honorific. Italy has a senate; it’s honorific. Very few countries have two separate bodies in the legislature equally powerful. That’s a lot of trouble, as you gentlemen doubtless know, to get the same language through two different bodies elected in a different fashion.
Very few countries in the world have a separately elected chief executive. Sometimes, I go to Europe to talk about separation of powers, and when I get there I find that all I’m talking about is independence of the judiciary because the Europeans don’t even try to divide the two political powers, the two political branches, the legislature and the chief executive. In all of the parliamentary countries the chief executive is the creature of the legislature. There’s never any disagreement between them and the prime minister, as there is sometimes between you and the president. When there’s a disagreement, they just kick him out! They have a no confidence vote, a new election, and they get a prime minister who agrees with the legislature.
The Europeans look at this system and say “It passes one house, it doesn’t pass the other house, sometimes the other house is in the control of a different party. it passes both, and this president, who has a veto power, vetoes it,” and they look at this, and they say (adopting an accent) “Ach, it is gridlock.” I hear Americans saying this nowadays, and there’s a lot of it going around. They talk about a disfunctional government because there’s disagreement… and the Framers would have said, “Yes! That’s exactly the way we set it up. We wanted this to be power contradicting power because the main ill besetting us — as Hamilton said in The Federalist when he talked about a separate Senate: “Yes, it seems inconvenient, inasmuch as the main ill that besets us is an excess of legislation, it won’t be so bad.” This is 1787; he didn’t know what an excess of legislation was.
Unless Americans can appreciate that and learn to love the separation of powers, which means learning to love the gridlock which the Framers believed would be the main protector of minorities, [we lose] the main protection. If a bill is about to pass that really comes down hard on some minority [and] they think it’s terribly unfair, it doesn’t take much to throw a monkey wrench into this complex system. Americans should appreciate that; they should learn to love the gridlock. It’s there so the legislation that does get out is good legislation.
These days, the complaints come mostly from progressive elitists in the ruling and chattering classes — Gov. Bev Purdue, fmr Obama budget director Peter Orszag, Jeffrey Sachs, Ezra Klein, Fareed Zakaria, and so on. When they don’t get their way (usually some version of Euro-socialism), their solution is to radically alter our system of government, rather than to make better arguments or listen to their fellow citizens. Even Alexander Hamilton would shudder.
–Karl
Monday, October 10, 2011
Misplaced Rage of Occupy Wall Street
Jeff Carter
I have written how I don’t caucus with the Occupy Wall Street Crowd. They are a fraud.
The knee jerk reaction is that if I don’t concur with Occupy Wall Street and their assault on capitalism, that I must be a greedy capitalist and think the bankers are great guys that should be left alone.
If you are a regular reader of this blog, you will find that’s not true. Banks weren’t the root cause of the massive financial crisis we had, but they certainly were maidens to the disaster.
Banks responded to incentives that were put in place by regulators and government agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Today, banks are being castigated for not lending to Main Street. But, you can’t blame them. The Federal Reserve is creating a situation where banks can just surf the yield curve and make a lot of money. They don’t need to work hard and take a larger risk to make a profit.
What’s really clear to me is that Washington DC really doesn’t know what to do about banks. Dodd-Frank is a miserable failure and already has raised the cost of doing business and hurt consumers. People in the CFTC and SEC are clueless to changes in the industry and what to do about them.
Bankers have become one of Obama’s favorite whipping boys in public. Behind the scenes he enjoys cashing their checks.
Occupy Wall Street is the right outrage, but it’s in the wrong place. It’s not capitalism that is killing us. It’s the people that try to control capitalism for their own means that are killing us.
UPDATE
Every good protest needs a whiny song. This is fantastic.
I have written how I don’t caucus with the Occupy Wall Street Crowd. They are a fraud.
The knee jerk reaction is that if I don’t concur with Occupy Wall Street and their assault on capitalism, that I must be a greedy capitalist and think the bankers are great guys that should be left alone.
If you are a regular reader of this blog, you will find that’s not true. Banks weren’t the root cause of the massive financial crisis we had, but they certainly were maidens to the disaster.
Banks responded to incentives that were put in place by regulators and government agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Today, banks are being castigated for not lending to Main Street. But, you can’t blame them. The Federal Reserve is creating a situation where banks can just surf the yield curve and make a lot of money. They don’t need to work hard and take a larger risk to make a profit.
What’s really clear to me is that Washington DC really doesn’t know what to do about banks. Dodd-Frank is a miserable failure and already has raised the cost of doing business and hurt consumers. People in the CFTC and SEC are clueless to changes in the industry and what to do about them.
Bankers have become one of Obama’s favorite whipping boys in public. Behind the scenes he enjoys cashing their checks.
Occupy Wall Street is the right outrage, but it’s in the wrong place. It’s not capitalism that is killing us. It’s the people that try to control capitalism for their own means that are killing us.
UPDATE
Every good protest needs a whiny song. This is fantastic.
Ron Paul Joins George Soros In Supporting “Occupy Wall Street” Protests
October 3rd, 2011
Posted By Pat Dollard
The Hill:
Texas Rep. Ron Paul (R) offered support for some of the Occupy Wall Street protests that have built up in lower Manhattan over the weekend in an interview Friday with Reason magazine, where he also denounced the “militarization of our police forces.”
“If they were demonstrating peacefully, and making a point, and arguing our case, and drawing attention to the Fed — I would say, good!” Paul said following a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire.
Paul has long been an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve, which he says manipulates American currency and is excessively secretive.
Paul was asked by Reason about a report from last weekend in which an NYPD officer was caught on camera pepper-spraying protesters.
“I hadn’t heard that, since I have to admit I didn’t keep up on all the details of it,” Paul said. “I didn’t read the stories about it. But that means government doesn’t like to be receiving any criticism at all. And my argument is, government should be in the open — the people’s privacy ought to be protected. So I don’t like it.”
During the town hall, Paul denounced the “militarization” of police forces, specifically reports that the NYPD had obtained a weapon that would allow them to shoot down an airplane involved in a terrorist attack.
“Yeah, I have concern about that,” Paul said. “That’s not exactly your friendly policeman on the block to go to when you’re in trouble. The militarization of our police force — the SWAT teams and all — I think it’s a bad sign.”
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Billionaire financier George Soros says he sympathizes with protesters speaking out against corporate greed in ongoing protests on Wall Street.
Soros answered a question about the protests During a Monday news conference at U.N. headquarters about his participation in a large-scale development project in rural Africa.
Soros says he understands the frustrations of small business owners, for instance those who have seen credit card charges soar during the current crisis.
Soros founded the Open Society Foundations. He and Earth Institute at Columbia University director Jeffrey Sachs are announcing the newest phase of the Millennium Villages Project, which works closely with several U.N. agencies.
Posted By Pat Dollard
The Hill:
Texas Rep. Ron Paul (R) offered support for some of the Occupy Wall Street protests that have built up in lower Manhattan over the weekend in an interview Friday with Reason magazine, where he also denounced the “militarization of our police forces.”
“If they were demonstrating peacefully, and making a point, and arguing our case, and drawing attention to the Fed — I would say, good!” Paul said following a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire.
Paul has long been an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve, which he says manipulates American currency and is excessively secretive.
Paul was asked by Reason about a report from last weekend in which an NYPD officer was caught on camera pepper-spraying protesters.
“I hadn’t heard that, since I have to admit I didn’t keep up on all the details of it,” Paul said. “I didn’t read the stories about it. But that means government doesn’t like to be receiving any criticism at all. And my argument is, government should be in the open — the people’s privacy ought to be protected. So I don’t like it.”
During the town hall, Paul denounced the “militarization” of police forces, specifically reports that the NYPD had obtained a weapon that would allow them to shoot down an airplane involved in a terrorist attack.
“Yeah, I have concern about that,” Paul said. “That’s not exactly your friendly policeman on the block to go to when you’re in trouble. The militarization of our police force — the SWAT teams and all — I think it’s a bad sign.”
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Billionaire financier George Soros says he sympathizes with protesters speaking out against corporate greed in ongoing protests on Wall Street.
Soros answered a question about the protests During a Monday news conference at U.N. headquarters about his participation in a large-scale development project in rural Africa.
Soros says he understands the frustrations of small business owners, for instance those who have seen credit card charges soar during the current crisis.
Soros founded the Open Society Foundations. He and Earth Institute at Columbia University director Jeffrey Sachs are announcing the newest phase of the Millennium Villages Project, which works closely with several U.N. agencies.
Judicial Watch Releases Comprehensive Special Report on President Obama's 45 Czars
New Czars Exercise Unprecedented Control over Government Policies and Programs While Operating Under a “Veil of Secrecy”
Contact Information:
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305
Washington, DC -- October 10, 2011
Judicial Watch, the public interest organization that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released “President Obama’s Czars“,” a special report on the President’s appointing of “policy advisors,” many of whom enjoy positions of power and authority in the administration and yet have not been subjected to vetting and confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Judicial Watch’s extensive investigation exhaustively documents these czar appointments and details the control these czars exercise over government operations.
From the report’s introduction:
“This Judicial Watch Special Report analyzes the proliferation of so-called ‘czars’ in the Obama administration. President Barack Obama has installed personal advisors in czar positions in the White House and has created new czar positions elsewhere in the Executive Branch. As of the date of this report, the number of czars that have been appointed by the President, or by others in his administration, appears to total 45. In addition, there are as many as 18 other unfilled or planned czar positions.
“Many of these ‘czars’ are unconfirmed by the Senate and are largely unaccountable to Congress. Further, their activities are often outside the reach of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), creating a veil of secrecy about their precise role in the administration.”
The new report is available at Judicial Watch’s website
Czars appointees have seized unprecedented control over major aspects of government policy and programs. In some instances, unconfirmed czars have authority, in seeming violation of the U.S. Constitution, over certain Senate-confirmed officers.
A number of the czars have been linked to scandals, thefts and kickbacks, flagrant and offensive statements, conflicts of interest, and radical leftist political ideologies and policies.
“Barack Obama’s unconstitutional use of czars to help run his administration is at odds with republican, limited, and accountable government. Obama has simply installed his radical leftist allies in various positions of power while thumbing his nose at Congress and the American people. As we document in this report, too many of these czars have proven to be corrupt or radicals (or sometimes both). No wonder the Obama administration fights tooth and nail to allow these czars to operate in secret. Nevertheless, Judicial Watch managed to develop this comprehensive list of czars as part of efforts to ensure government accountability.”
Contact Information:
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305
Washington, DC -- October 10, 2011
Judicial Watch, the public interest organization that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released “President Obama’s Czars“,” a special report on the President’s appointing of “policy advisors,” many of whom enjoy positions of power and authority in the administration and yet have not been subjected to vetting and confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Judicial Watch’s extensive investigation exhaustively documents these czar appointments and details the control these czars exercise over government operations.
From the report’s introduction:
“This Judicial Watch Special Report analyzes the proliferation of so-called ‘czars’ in the Obama administration. President Barack Obama has installed personal advisors in czar positions in the White House and has created new czar positions elsewhere in the Executive Branch. As of the date of this report, the number of czars that have been appointed by the President, or by others in his administration, appears to total 45. In addition, there are as many as 18 other unfilled or planned czar positions.
“Many of these ‘czars’ are unconfirmed by the Senate and are largely unaccountable to Congress. Further, their activities are often outside the reach of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), creating a veil of secrecy about their precise role in the administration.”
The new report is available at Judicial Watch’s website
Czars appointees have seized unprecedented control over major aspects of government policy and programs. In some instances, unconfirmed czars have authority, in seeming violation of the U.S. Constitution, over certain Senate-confirmed officers.
A number of the czars have been linked to scandals, thefts and kickbacks, flagrant and offensive statements, conflicts of interest, and radical leftist political ideologies and policies.
“Barack Obama’s unconstitutional use of czars to help run his administration is at odds with republican, limited, and accountable government. Obama has simply installed his radical leftist allies in various positions of power while thumbing his nose at Congress and the American people. As we document in this report, too many of these czars have proven to be corrupt or radicals (or sometimes both). No wonder the Obama administration fights tooth and nail to allow these czars to operate in secret. Nevertheless, Judicial Watch managed to develop this comprehensive list of czars as part of efforts to ensure government accountability.”
The Funniest Video Of The Occupy Wall Street Protests You’ll See All Day
Rob Port • October 9, 2011
A light-hearted look at the “occupiers” on Wal…er…Cedar Street from stand-up comedian (and former Libertarian candidate for Congress) Travis Irvine.
My favorite part? When the guy who works for the government demands to know if he has permission to walk around and ask questions, then takes his press ID away from him to call some lawyers. Because that’s how free speech works I guess. You can’t ask questions unless you’ve filled out the right paperwork.
Meanwhile, the folks at Reason put together a protest song for the occupiers, though I’m not sure how much they’re going to like it:
A light-hearted look at the “occupiers” on Wal…er…Cedar Street from stand-up comedian (and former Libertarian candidate for Congress) Travis Irvine.
My favorite part? When the guy who works for the government demands to know if he has permission to walk around and ask questions, then takes his press ID away from him to call some lawyers. Because that’s how free speech works I guess. You can’t ask questions unless you’ve filled out the right paperwork.
Meanwhile, the folks at Reason put together a protest song for the occupiers, though I’m not sure how much they’re going to like it:
SHOCK VIDEO: Egyptian Army Vehicles Run Over Coptic Protesters in Cairo
Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, October 10, 2011, 4:46 AM
From the Al Arabia TV Channel: Egyptian army vehicles ran over Coptic Christian protesters in Cairo yesterday.
The Copts were protesting violence against Christians.
The Associated Press reported on this incident yesterday.
The Christian protesters said their demonstration began as a peaceful attempt to sit in at the television building. But then, they said they came under attack by thugs in plainclothes who rained stones down on them and fired pellets.
“The protest was peaceful. We wanted to hold a sit-in, as usual,” said Essam Khalili, a protester wearing a white shirt with a cross drawn on it. “Thugs attacked us and a military vehicle jumped over a sidewalk and ran over at least 10 people. I saw them.”
Wael Roufail, another protester, corroborated the account.
From the Al Arabia TV Channel: Egyptian army vehicles ran over Coptic Christian protesters in Cairo yesterday.
The Copts were protesting violence against Christians.
The Associated Press reported on this incident yesterday.
The Christian protesters said their demonstration began as a peaceful attempt to sit in at the television building. But then, they said they came under attack by thugs in plainclothes who rained stones down on them and fired pellets.
“The protest was peaceful. We wanted to hold a sit-in, as usual,” said Essam Khalili, a protester wearing a white shirt with a cross drawn on it. “Thugs attacked us and a military vehicle jumped over a sidewalk and ran over at least 10 people. I saw them.”
Wael Roufail, another protester, corroborated the account.
Act Now! Make Money From Global Warming!
Posted on October 9, 2011 by Willis Eschenbach
Over at the National Institutes of Health, they have announced that there are funds available for research into the effects of climate on human health (NIH announces climate change and health funding). I guess it’s like they said in the movie “Field of Dreams”, their famous line that “If you pay for it, they will come.” Or something like that, I have a feeling that’s not exactly what they said in the movie, but you get the idea.
The NIH “Report Outlining Research Needs” (PDF)
I thought I’d spread this opportunity around a bit, in case any WUWT readers needed extra income. For example, there’s money for studying the effects of climate change on mental health, which they describe as (emphasis mine):
Mental Health and Stress-Related Disorders—By causing or contributing to extreme weather events, climate change may result in geographic displacement of populations, damage to property, loss of loved ones, and chronic stress, all of which can negatively affect mental health. Research needs include identifying key mental health effects and vulnerable populations, and developing migration monitoring networks to help ensure the availability of appropriate health care support.
You likely weren’t even aware that the loss of loved ones can negatively affect mental health, but don’t let that hold you back! Because there’s more to this exciting funding opportunity than just monitoring migrations and being negative about mental health. Click the “Continue reading …” button below on your screen right this minute to find out about more money-making chances in the exciting new field of human climate health science! Press the button now to secure your future, this opportunity won’t last!
You cared enough about your future to push the button, so here is the information that only industry insiders ever get about this funding. For exmple, it’s not widely known but one of our “hottest” fields is the effect of climate on our nerves. You’ve noticed how people get nervous just talking about the climate, but you probably didn’t know you could profit from it. Here’s how you can enter this smoking hot new field (emphasis mine):
Neurological Diseases and Disorders—Climate change, as well as attempts to mitigate and adapt to it, may increase the number of neurological diseases and disorders in humans. Research in this area should focus on identifying vulnerable populations and understanding the mechanisms and effects of human exposure to neurological hazards such as biotoxins (from harmful algal blooms), metals (found in new battery technologies and compact fluorescent lights), and pesticides (used in response to changes in agriculture), as well as the potentially exacerbating effects of malnutrition and stress.
You can’t make this stuff up, folks, this is the real deal, money-making opportunities being spawned right and left by climate change. But don’t think they’re leaving other diseases out of the picture. Take, cancer, for example. The nattering nabobs of negativity might point out that we mostly don’t know what causes cancer, and mostly we can’t cure it or prevent it. But don’t listen to those nay-sayers! There’s still real cash to be made in studying climate change and cancer. Consider this:
Cancer—Many potential direct effects of climate change on cancer risk, such as increased duration and intensity of ultraviolet (UV) radiation, are well understood; however the potential impact of changes in climate on exposure pathways for chemicals and toxins requires further study. Science should investigate the effects of mitigation and adaptation measures on cancer incidence so that the best strategies can be developed and implemented; for example, research to inform understanding of the benefits of alternative fuels, new battery and voltaic cells, and other technologies, as well as any potential adverse risks from exposure to their components and wastes.
Well, OK, maybe the climate change isn’t causing cancer, but the way that we mitigate and adapt to it is. Or it sure might be, who knows, so when you see those kinds of claims, you shouldn’t bother pointing out the blatant logical inconsistencies. Instead, when you follow this revolutionary NIH program, soon you’ll be stepping right over those ugly scientific potholes and thinking “Wow, who cares if it’s warming, there’s real climate dollars to be made here!”
Here’s the bottom line—the votes are in, folks, and the debate is over. Despite the best efforts of the oil industry shills to deny the obvious facts, the chain of causation is crystal clear. Climate change causes things like alternative fuels, voltaic cells, compact fluorescent lights, and new battery technologies, and these inevitably lead to cancer and neurological diseases and negative mental health outcomes.
And that undeniable basic science is gold for people such as yourselves, my friends, pure gold. The future is now, pick up the phone immediately and call the NIH to find more about your stellar opportunities to make big money in the exciting new field of green climate health change analysis …
w.
OBLIGATORY FINE PRINT:The author certifies that he has no economic, fiscal, personal, or for that matter, really even the slightest interest of any kind in the NIH program. All warranties, expressed or implied, are hereby neither expressed nor implied. Prior results are no guarantee of future performance. Please recycle or otherwise dispose of your old emails and unused web sites in an ecologically responsible manner. All funds provided courtesy of the US Taxpayer. No electrons were harmed in the preparation of this post. All characters are imaginary and, in common with much of climate science, none are based on real individuals or observations. In some instances names have been changed to protect the guilty. Any resemblance between this NIH funding program and vital medical research is purely coincidental. Offer void where prohibited or taxed. Not valid in Washington, DC.
Over at the National Institutes of Health, they have announced that there are funds available for research into the effects of climate on human health (NIH announces climate change and health funding). I guess it’s like they said in the movie “Field of Dreams”, their famous line that “If you pay for it, they will come.” Or something like that, I have a feeling that’s not exactly what they said in the movie, but you get the idea.
The NIH “Report Outlining Research Needs” (PDF)
I thought I’d spread this opportunity around a bit, in case any WUWT readers needed extra income. For example, there’s money for studying the effects of climate change on mental health, which they describe as (emphasis mine):
Mental Health and Stress-Related Disorders—By causing or contributing to extreme weather events, climate change may result in geographic displacement of populations, damage to property, loss of loved ones, and chronic stress, all of which can negatively affect mental health. Research needs include identifying key mental health effects and vulnerable populations, and developing migration monitoring networks to help ensure the availability of appropriate health care support.
You likely weren’t even aware that the loss of loved ones can negatively affect mental health, but don’t let that hold you back! Because there’s more to this exciting funding opportunity than just monitoring migrations and being negative about mental health. Click the “Continue reading …” button below on your screen right this minute to find out about more money-making chances in the exciting new field of human climate health science! Press the button now to secure your future, this opportunity won’t last!
You cared enough about your future to push the button, so here is the information that only industry insiders ever get about this funding. For exmple, it’s not widely known but one of our “hottest” fields is the effect of climate on our nerves. You’ve noticed how people get nervous just talking about the climate, but you probably didn’t know you could profit from it. Here’s how you can enter this smoking hot new field (emphasis mine):
Neurological Diseases and Disorders—Climate change, as well as attempts to mitigate and adapt to it, may increase the number of neurological diseases and disorders in humans. Research in this area should focus on identifying vulnerable populations and understanding the mechanisms and effects of human exposure to neurological hazards such as biotoxins (from harmful algal blooms), metals (found in new battery technologies and compact fluorescent lights), and pesticides (used in response to changes in agriculture), as well as the potentially exacerbating effects of malnutrition and stress.
You can’t make this stuff up, folks, this is the real deal, money-making opportunities being spawned right and left by climate change. But don’t think they’re leaving other diseases out of the picture. Take, cancer, for example. The nattering nabobs of negativity might point out that we mostly don’t know what causes cancer, and mostly we can’t cure it or prevent it. But don’t listen to those nay-sayers! There’s still real cash to be made in studying climate change and cancer. Consider this:
Cancer—Many potential direct effects of climate change on cancer risk, such as increased duration and intensity of ultraviolet (UV) radiation, are well understood; however the potential impact of changes in climate on exposure pathways for chemicals and toxins requires further study. Science should investigate the effects of mitigation and adaptation measures on cancer incidence so that the best strategies can be developed and implemented; for example, research to inform understanding of the benefits of alternative fuels, new battery and voltaic cells, and other technologies, as well as any potential adverse risks from exposure to their components and wastes.
Well, OK, maybe the climate change isn’t causing cancer, but the way that we mitigate and adapt to it is. Or it sure might be, who knows, so when you see those kinds of claims, you shouldn’t bother pointing out the blatant logical inconsistencies. Instead, when you follow this revolutionary NIH program, soon you’ll be stepping right over those ugly scientific potholes and thinking “Wow, who cares if it’s warming, there’s real climate dollars to be made here!”
Here’s the bottom line—the votes are in, folks, and the debate is over. Despite the best efforts of the oil industry shills to deny the obvious facts, the chain of causation is crystal clear. Climate change causes things like alternative fuels, voltaic cells, compact fluorescent lights, and new battery technologies, and these inevitably lead to cancer and neurological diseases and negative mental health outcomes.
And that undeniable basic science is gold for people such as yourselves, my friends, pure gold. The future is now, pick up the phone immediately and call the NIH to find more about your stellar opportunities to make big money in the exciting new field of green climate health change analysis …
w.
OBLIGATORY FINE PRINT:
Did Elizabeth Warren Predict Occupy Wall Street? 2009 Interview Goes Viral
by Alex Alvarez | 9:17 am, October 10th, 2011
“The more things change, the more they stay the same” is a refrain that’s comforting to turn to, because it tells us that there’s a pattern and a precedent to all things; there exists some sort of blueprint for us if only we take a moment to look at history. That’s an idea Elizabeth Warren, who served as Special Adviser to the Secretary of the Treasury for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, seemed to echo when speaking to Dan Rather back in 2009. Now, her words take on additional relevance as the Occupy Wall Street protests continue to spread across different U.S. cities.
Here’s what Warren had to say about “panics” and how we’ve dealt with such economic depressions in the recent past:
About every 15 to 20 years we have another crisis. We call them panics. We have different names for them. [...] Depression. But they happen about every 15 to 20 years for 140 years. The pattern is just unmistakable. Then we hit the Great Depression.
And coming out of the Great Depression we put three new regulations in place: Glass-Stiegel, which divides our community banks basically from the Wall Street investment banks, FDIC insurance, put money in the bank and know that it’s safe and some SEC regulations so you can invest on Wall Street and they can’t cheat you too directly. That’s what we put in place. For 50 years we have no bank failures, no major crises. It works.
Now, there’s innovation. There’s change. It’s time to change regulations.
Have a look at Warren’s comments:
h/t Elephant Journal
“The more things change, the more they stay the same” is a refrain that’s comforting to turn to, because it tells us that there’s a pattern and a precedent to all things; there exists some sort of blueprint for us if only we take a moment to look at history. That’s an idea Elizabeth Warren, who served as Special Adviser to the Secretary of the Treasury for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, seemed to echo when speaking to Dan Rather back in 2009. Now, her words take on additional relevance as the Occupy Wall Street protests continue to spread across different U.S. cities.
Here’s what Warren had to say about “panics” and how we’ve dealt with such economic depressions in the recent past:
About every 15 to 20 years we have another crisis. We call them panics. We have different names for them. [...] Depression. But they happen about every 15 to 20 years for 140 years. The pattern is just unmistakable. Then we hit the Great Depression.
And coming out of the Great Depression we put three new regulations in place: Glass-Stiegel, which divides our community banks basically from the Wall Street investment banks, FDIC insurance, put money in the bank and know that it’s safe and some SEC regulations so you can invest on Wall Street and they can’t cheat you too directly. That’s what we put in place. For 50 years we have no bank failures, no major crises. It works.
Now, there’s innovation. There’s change. It’s time to change regulations.
Have a look at Warren’s comments:
h/t Elephant Journal
Hugo Chavez to Seize Private Homes and Hotels to Give Vacations to the Masses
October 7, 2011
By Lonely Conservative
Hugo Chavez has another election coming up. He’s got to do something to increase his approval ratings, so he’s planning to seize privately owned homes and hotels so he can offer vacations in paradise to the masses.
Venezuela president Hugo Chavez’s policy of nationalising strategic private businesses has taken a new twist with his announcement that his government will expropriate hotels and holiday homes at an upmarket Caribbean resort.
The president plans to turn Los Roques, an idyllic archipelago of deserted beaches of perfect white sand with swaying palms and dazzling coral reefs, into a state-run getaway for his country’s urban poor.
Speaking on national television, he said that yachts and speedboats confiscated from fugitive bankers would be used to transport holidaymakers from the mainland. “There are some houses there that were illegally built. We are going to expropriate them.” (Read More)
Illegally built, with permits granted by local authorities.
I wonder how long it takes before paradise is lost on Los Roques?
By Lonely Conservative
Hugo Chavez has another election coming up. He’s got to do something to increase his approval ratings, so he’s planning to seize privately owned homes and hotels so he can offer vacations in paradise to the masses.
Venezuela president Hugo Chavez’s policy of nationalising strategic private businesses has taken a new twist with his announcement that his government will expropriate hotels and holiday homes at an upmarket Caribbean resort.
The president plans to turn Los Roques, an idyllic archipelago of deserted beaches of perfect white sand with swaying palms and dazzling coral reefs, into a state-run getaway for his country’s urban poor.
Speaking on national television, he said that yachts and speedboats confiscated from fugitive bankers would be used to transport holidaymakers from the mainland. “There are some houses there that were illegally built. We are going to expropriate them.” (Read More)
Illegally built, with permits granted by local authorities.
I wonder how long it takes before paradise is lost on Los Roques?
Obama the Divider
Peter Wehner
10.07.2011 - 1:45 PM
A Washington Post story from earlier this week reports, “There is a noticeably more aggressive, confrontational President Obama roaming the country these days, selling his jobs plan and attacking Republicans for standing in the way of progress by standing up only for the rich.” That report, if anything, understates things a bit. Obama has essentially given up on his governing responsibilities (at which he has shown himself to be terribly inept) in lieu of a fierce and near constant attack on his political opponents. I have my doubts as to whether that strategy will work. But the point I want to make is a different one, which is that Obama has become the most intentionally divisive president we’ve seen in quite some time.
It’s not unusual, of course, for the policies of presidents to divide the nation. And politicians running for re-election often highlight differences. But Obama now belongs in a separate category. Each day, it seems, he and/or his supporters are seeking to divide us. The rhetoric employed by the president and his allies is meant to fan the flames of resentment, to turn Americans against one another, and to stoke up feelings of envy, grievances, and rage.
This is not healthy for our country or good for our political culture. And while we all contribute to what constitutes public discourse, there is one officeholder, the president, who bears the greatest responsibility for creating a sense of common purpose and for reminding us that we are, in the words of the Pledge of Allegiance, “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Yet the president is trying, with almost every speech, to pry us apart. It’s a strategy he clearly believes is necessary for him to win re-election. But that doesn’t make what he’s doing any less shameful or any less hypocritical.
It was Obama, after all, who – more than any political figure in our lifetime – promised to heal the breach. That was at the very core of his message, and his appeal, during the last presidential election.
For example, in his announcement speech on February 10, 2007, it was Obama who complained, “We’re distracted from our real failures and told to blame the other party…” He would not sink to such depths, he promised us.
It was Obama who said in his 2007 Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa, “I don’t want to pit Red America against Blue America – I want to be the president
of the United States of America.” It was Obama, in his March 18, 2008 speech in Philadelphia (addressing the controversy over the Reverend Jeremiah Wright) who said, “We have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division and conflict and cynicism… That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, ‘Not this time….’” It was Obama who told Jann Wenner of Rolling Stone, “I want us to rediscover our bonds to each other and to get out of this constant petty bickering that’s come to characterize our politics.” It was Obama who said during his acceptance speech on August 28, 2008, “If you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint
your opponent as someone people should run from.” And it was Obama who said on the night of his election, on a stage in Grant Park, “I will listen to you,
especially when we disagree… Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics
for too long.”
What he has done is the antithesis of what he said. Barack Obama has succumbed to virtually every partisan temptation, reached for every stale tactic, and bred division and conflict and cynicism across our land. He has resorted to petty bickering and pitted Red America against Blue America. He has even characterized his political opponents as “enemies.”
I suppose there are worse things a president can do, but this is bad enough. He is purposefully causing wounds that will be hard to heal – and he’s only just begun. Things will get uglier before they get better. Eventually, and thankfully, we will rediscover our bonds of affection. But it will require removing Obama from office before we do.
10.07.2011 - 1:45 PM
A Washington Post story from earlier this week reports, “There is a noticeably more aggressive, confrontational President Obama roaming the country these days, selling his jobs plan and attacking Republicans for standing in the way of progress by standing up only for the rich.” That report, if anything, understates things a bit. Obama has essentially given up on his governing responsibilities (at which he has shown himself to be terribly inept) in lieu of a fierce and near constant attack on his political opponents. I have my doubts as to whether that strategy will work. But the point I want to make is a different one, which is that Obama has become the most intentionally divisive president we’ve seen in quite some time.
It’s not unusual, of course, for the policies of presidents to divide the nation. And politicians running for re-election often highlight differences. But Obama now belongs in a separate category. Each day, it seems, he and/or his supporters are seeking to divide us. The rhetoric employed by the president and his allies is meant to fan the flames of resentment, to turn Americans against one another, and to stoke up feelings of envy, grievances, and rage.
This is not healthy for our country or good for our political culture. And while we all contribute to what constitutes public discourse, there is one officeholder, the president, who bears the greatest responsibility for creating a sense of common purpose and for reminding us that we are, in the words of the Pledge of Allegiance, “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Yet the president is trying, with almost every speech, to pry us apart. It’s a strategy he clearly believes is necessary for him to win re-election. But that doesn’t make what he’s doing any less shameful or any less hypocritical.
It was Obama, after all, who – more than any political figure in our lifetime – promised to heal the breach. That was at the very core of his message, and his appeal, during the last presidential election.
For example, in his announcement speech on February 10, 2007, it was Obama who complained, “We’re distracted from our real failures and told to blame the other party…” He would not sink to such depths, he promised us.
It was Obama who said in his 2007 Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa, “I don’t want to pit Red America against Blue America – I want to be the president
of the United States of America.” It was Obama, in his March 18, 2008 speech in Philadelphia (addressing the controversy over the Reverend Jeremiah Wright) who said, “We have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division and conflict and cynicism… That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, ‘Not this time….’” It was Obama who told Jann Wenner of Rolling Stone, “I want us to rediscover our bonds to each other and to get out of this constant petty bickering that’s come to characterize our politics.” It was Obama who said during his acceptance speech on August 28, 2008, “If you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint
your opponent as someone people should run from.” And it was Obama who said on the night of his election, on a stage in Grant Park, “I will listen to you,
especially when we disagree… Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics
for too long.”
What he has done is the antithesis of what he said. Barack Obama has succumbed to virtually every partisan temptation, reached for every stale tactic, and bred division and conflict and cynicism across our land. He has resorted to petty bickering and pitted Red America against Blue America. He has even characterized his political opponents as “enemies.”
I suppose there are worse things a president can do, but this is bad enough. He is purposefully causing wounds that will be hard to heal – and he’s only just begun. Things will get uglier before they get better. Eventually, and thankfully, we will rediscover our bonds of affection. But it will require removing Obama from office before we do.
A Stunning Realization
Kevin Eder
While arguing with leftists this evening on Twitter about the 'occupy' movement, I had a realization: leftists don't actually care about 'money in politics' or 'corporate personhood' at all. If they did, they would be protesting loudly against Barack Obama, the largest recipient of corporate cash in history, and the guy who famously refused public financing for his 2008 campaign. No, the 'Occupy' movement, when stripped of all the clever rhetoric and sloganeering, is nothing more than a temper tantrum. A temper tantrum that's happening because everything these people believe about government, the welfare state, and what they've been told to expect out of life has come crashing down all around them. Normal Americans are coming to take their country back from the far left, and these people are losing their composure in the face of being stripped of their hold over our government.
I say it's about time!
While arguing with leftists this evening on Twitter about the 'occupy' movement, I had a realization: leftists don't actually care about 'money in politics' or 'corporate personhood' at all. If they did, they would be protesting loudly against Barack Obama, the largest recipient of corporate cash in history, and the guy who famously refused public financing for his 2008 campaign. No, the 'Occupy' movement, when stripped of all the clever rhetoric and sloganeering, is nothing more than a temper tantrum. A temper tantrum that's happening because everything these people believe about government, the welfare state, and what they've been told to expect out of life has come crashing down all around them. Normal Americans are coming to take their country back from the far left, and these people are losing their composure in the face of being stripped of their hold over our government.
I say it's about time!
The Government Has Issued Secret Court Orders Targeting WikiLeaks Email
Robert Johnson Oct. 10, 2011, 8:41 AM
In its pursuit of WikiLeaks, the U.S. government issued secret court orders requiring Google and Sonic.net Inc. to hand over information on the email accounts of WikiLeaks volunteer Jacob Appelbaum.
Appelbaum, 28, is a computer scientist employed by the University of Washington and though he was dubbed 'The Most Dangerous Man in Cyberspace' by Rolling Stone in 2010, he has yet to be charged with any crime and his records were demanded without his knowledge.
The Wall Street Journal has reviewed a series of court documents that show the government acquired email addresses of everyone Appelbaum corresponded with over the last two years.
The Attorney General's office obtained the records without a search warrant, and while Google and Sonic fought to inform Appelbaum of the investigation, the court ruled against them. The entire process calls into question the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
The Electronics Communications Privacy Act which allowed the government to achieve its request was passed three years before the birth on the Internet in 1986 and was designed to protect electronic correspondence as well as physical mail.
With new technology, however, law enforcement needs now show only "reasonable grounds" that material will be "relevant and material" to the pursuit of a suspect and it can obtain email far more easily than traditional mail.
Most alarmingly the government is no longer legally compelled to provide copies of search warrants. Today, the warrants are sealed and the full investigation proceeds without the suspects knowledge.
Because the government's process is so secretive it's unknown how often the methods are employed, but Google began disclosing the number of requests it receives in December 2009.
In the last six months of 2010 the Internet giant received more than 4,600 requests, search warrants, and subpoenas complying with them 94 percent of the time.
Read the extensive story at The Wall Street Journal.
In its pursuit of WikiLeaks, the U.S. government issued secret court orders requiring Google and Sonic.net Inc. to hand over information on the email accounts of WikiLeaks volunteer Jacob Appelbaum.
Appelbaum, 28, is a computer scientist employed by the University of Washington and though he was dubbed 'The Most Dangerous Man in Cyberspace' by Rolling Stone in 2010, he has yet to be charged with any crime and his records were demanded without his knowledge.
The Wall Street Journal has reviewed a series of court documents that show the government acquired email addresses of everyone Appelbaum corresponded with over the last two years.
The Attorney General's office obtained the records without a search warrant, and while Google and Sonic fought to inform Appelbaum of the investigation, the court ruled against them. The entire process calls into question the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
The Electronics Communications Privacy Act which allowed the government to achieve its request was passed three years before the birth on the Internet in 1986 and was designed to protect electronic correspondence as well as physical mail.
With new technology, however, law enforcement needs now show only "reasonable grounds" that material will be "relevant and material" to the pursuit of a suspect and it can obtain email far more easily than traditional mail.
Most alarmingly the government is no longer legally compelled to provide copies of search warrants. Today, the warrants are sealed and the full investigation proceeds without the suspects knowledge.
Because the government's process is so secretive it's unknown how often the methods are employed, but Google began disclosing the number of requests it receives in December 2009.
In the last six months of 2010 the Internet giant received more than 4,600 requests, search warrants, and subpoenas complying with them 94 percent of the time.
Read the extensive story at The Wall Street Journal.
Video: Radio Host Mike Malloy Incites October2011 Crowd to Call for Bush’s Execution
John on October 8, 2011 at 10:06 pm
There are two simultaneous protests taking place in Washington right now, Occupy DC and October2011. Here’s liberal radio host Mike Malloy speaking to the October2011 crowd.
Malloy starts by comparing the invasion of Afghanistan by the “Bush crime family” to Nazi war crimes. He then adds that the Nuremberg trials resulted in hanging for senior leaders found guilty. At this point someone in the crowd yells “Let’s do it again!” and Malloy responds “Yeah!” Several more people in the crowd join in apparent agreement:
Malloy’s full remarks are here. Some of this is NSFW.
Addendum: ABC wrote up the “booing” of a soldier at the last GOP debate:
First it was Gov. Rick Perry and the death penalty. Then it was Rep. Ron Paul and health insurance. Now it is former Sen. Rick Santorum and openly gay and lesbian troops serving in the military. But instead of cheers, it is a loud boo drawing attention.
ABC wasn’t alone. The Washington Post went hog wild with this story. Here’s Greg Sargent noting it. Admittedly Sargent runs a liberal blog, but here’s Sarah Hughes at the Post. And here’s another article from the Post. And here’s Alexander Petri at the Post, she included the video. Oh, and Jonathan Capehart too. But why stop now, here’s Susan Thistlewaite on the same story. In all, the Post mentioned this at least a dozen times.
How about MSNBC, did they cover it? Yup. And on and on it went for several days of reaction stories. The President himself got into the act, condemning this. (He’s not the speech police except when he is.)
Will ABC, the Post, MSNBC or any of the others mention Malloy’s comments and the audience response to them the next time they report on October2011? If not I’d love to hear their excuse for ignoring it.
There are two simultaneous protests taking place in Washington right now, Occupy DC and October2011. Here’s liberal radio host Mike Malloy speaking to the October2011 crowd.
Malloy starts by comparing the invasion of Afghanistan by the “Bush crime family” to Nazi war crimes. He then adds that the Nuremberg trials resulted in hanging for senior leaders found guilty. At this point someone in the crowd yells “Let’s do it again!” and Malloy responds “Yeah!” Several more people in the crowd join in apparent agreement:
Malloy’s full remarks are here. Some of this is NSFW.
Addendum: ABC wrote up the “booing” of a soldier at the last GOP debate:
First it was Gov. Rick Perry and the death penalty. Then it was Rep. Ron Paul and health insurance. Now it is former Sen. Rick Santorum and openly gay and lesbian troops serving in the military. But instead of cheers, it is a loud boo drawing attention.
ABC wasn’t alone. The Washington Post went hog wild with this story. Here’s Greg Sargent noting it. Admittedly Sargent runs a liberal blog, but here’s Sarah Hughes at the Post. And here’s another article from the Post. And here’s Alexander Petri at the Post, she included the video. Oh, and Jonathan Capehart too. But why stop now, here’s Susan Thistlewaite on the same story. In all, the Post mentioned this at least a dozen times.
How about MSNBC, did they cover it? Yup. And on and on it went for several days of reaction stories. The President himself got into the act, condemning this. (He’s not the speech police except when he is.)
Will ABC, the Post, MSNBC or any of the others mention Malloy’s comments and the audience response to them the next time they report on October2011? If not I’d love to hear their excuse for ignoring it.
CDS Rerack: Spot The Odd One Out
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 10/10/2011 08:08 -0400
Spot the odd 5 Year CDS out (hints included)
5Y
PIIGS:
PORTUGAL 1095/1135 -20
GREECE 59/63 0
ITALY 430/440 -14
SPAIN 365/375 0
IRELAND 670/710 -10
CORE:
BELGIUM 286/296 +4
FRANCE 174/178 -1
AUSTRIA 154/164 -4
UK 91/95 0
GERMANY 97/101 +0.5
INDEX:
SOVX 330/334 -1
Spot the odd 5 Year CDS out (hints included)
5Y
PIIGS:
PORTUGAL 1095/1135 -20
GREECE 59/63 0
ITALY 430/440 -14
SPAIN 365/375 0
IRELAND 670/710 -10
CORE:
BELGIUM 286/296 +4
FRANCE 174/178 -1
AUSTRIA 154/164 -4
UK 91/95 0
GERMANY 97/101 +0.5
INDEX:
SOVX 330/334 -1
Van Jones Leads Crazy Chant to Zombie Crowd at Occupy Wall Street (Video)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Sunday, October 9, 2011, 7:44 PM
It wouldn’t be a far left movement without the SEIU and Van Jones now would it?
The former Obama Green czar led a crazy chant at Occupy Wall Street this weekend.
“We’re here to give everything from the people from whom you stole everything.”
Huh?
That really was an awful chant. He needs to work some on his grammar.
Of course, the young leftists in the crowd lapped it up like it was something deep and brilliant.
It wouldn’t be a far left movement without the SEIU and Van Jones now would it?
The former Obama Green czar led a crazy chant at Occupy Wall Street this weekend.
“We’re here to give everything from the people from whom you stole everything.”
Huh?
That really was an awful chant. He needs to work some on his grammar.
Of course, the young leftists in the crowd lapped it up like it was something deep and brilliant.
Russia had only 30 czars -- Obama has 45
By: David Freddoso | 10/09/11 10:28 PM
From the time the Russian title of "Czar" (or Caesar) was first used in the 16th Century to describe the Emperors of Russia, through the communist revolution of 1917, Russia had only about thirty czars. President Obama's administration has 45, according to a new report from the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.
President Obama was not the first to have "czars," nor have all the positions that go by that informal name fallen within the lines of this report. But Obama's use of policy advisors who "enjoy positions of power and authority in the administration and yet have not been subjected to vetting and confirmation by the U.S. Senate" is unprecedented in several ways, the report suggests:
President Barack Obama has installed personal advisors in czar positions in the White House and has created new czar positions elsewhere in the Executive Branch. As of the date of this report, the number of czars that have been appointed by the President, or by others in his administration, appears to total 45. In addition, there are as many as 18 other unfilled or planned czar positions.
Many of these ‘czars’ are unconfirmed by the Senate and are largely unaccountable to Congress. Further, their activities are often outside the reach of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), creating a veil of secrecy about their precise role in the administration.”
I find this the most intriguing assertion within the release announcing the report:
Czars appointees have seized unprecedented control over major aspects of government policy and programs. In some instances, unconfirmed czars have authority, in seeming violation of the U.S. Constitution, over certain Senate-confirmed officers.
There's something for your Columbus Day reading -- it's available at www.judicialwatch.org.
From the time the Russian title of "Czar" (or Caesar) was first used in the 16th Century to describe the Emperors of Russia, through the communist revolution of 1917, Russia had only about thirty czars. President Obama's administration has 45, according to a new report from the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.
President Obama was not the first to have "czars," nor have all the positions that go by that informal name fallen within the lines of this report. But Obama's use of policy advisors who "enjoy positions of power and authority in the administration and yet have not been subjected to vetting and confirmation by the U.S. Senate" is unprecedented in several ways, the report suggests:
President Barack Obama has installed personal advisors in czar positions in the White House and has created new czar positions elsewhere in the Executive Branch. As of the date of this report, the number of czars that have been appointed by the President, or by others in his administration, appears to total 45. In addition, there are as many as 18 other unfilled or planned czar positions.
Many of these ‘czars’ are unconfirmed by the Senate and are largely unaccountable to Congress. Further, their activities are often outside the reach of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), creating a veil of secrecy about their precise role in the administration.”
I find this the most intriguing assertion within the release announcing the report:
Czars appointees have seized unprecedented control over major aspects of government policy and programs. In some instances, unconfirmed czars have authority, in seeming violation of the U.S. Constitution, over certain Senate-confirmed officers.
There's something for your Columbus Day reading -- it's available at www.judicialwatch.org.
The Media Notices that Barack Obama is sort of Full of Crap
Posted by Leon H. Wolf
Friday, October 7th at 10:30AM EDT
If I were President Obama’s political team, the only hope I would harbor right now for Obama’s re-election would center on the President being able to hold the line with his base – which is to say, the national media. Based on the questions asked in yesterday’s press conference, it may be time for administration officials to start polishing their CVs for employment in the private sector. Obama fielded, by my count, three hostile questions on Solyndra, and one on the Fast and the Furious. Through it all, Obama continually attempted to return the conversation to his jobs bill which has literally zero hope of passing either house, and in fact is so doomed that it probably won’t even be brought to the floor, barring a major change in the political climate. Even this tactic failed to faze the press, who seemed to actually taunt the President over his inability to get anyone to care about his worthless jobs bill:
Q. And secondly, on your jobs bill, the American people are sick of games — and you mentioned games in your comments. They want results. Wouldn’t it be more productive to work with Republicans on a plan that you know could pass Congress as opposed to going around the country talking about your bill and singling out — calling out Republicans by name?
Q. My question has to do with your powers of persuasion. During the debt ceiling debate, you asked for the American public to call members of Congress and switchboards got jammed. You have done a similar thing while going around the country doing this. Talking to members of Congress, there’s not the same reaction; you’re not seeing — hearing about phones being jammed. Talking to one member of Congress, he told me there’s a disillusionment he’s concerned about with the public that maybe they just don’t believe anything can get done anyway. Are you worried about your own powers of persuasion, and maybe that the American public is not listening to you anymore?
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Anybody on Capitol Hill will say that there’s no chance that the American Jobs Act, in its current state, passes either House. And you’ve been out on the campaign trail banging away at them saying, pass this bill. And it begins, sir, to look like you’re campaigning, and like you’re following the Harry Truman model against the do-nothing Congress instead of negotiating.
Both the tone and the substance of these questions should be worrisome to the White House. More worrisome, to some extent, should be the follow-up coverage from the press. It is one thing to notice that Obama is completely disconnected from the country at large and has no effective political power – it is quite another for the media to actually call out Obama on his favorite tactic of attacking strawmen instead of actual Republicans. In this Associated Press piece (via The Transom) the AP took the unusual step, in a piece dripping with sarcasm, of calling out Obama for lying about Republicans in Congress, opening the bidding by noting that “In challening Republicans to get behind his jobs bill Thursday. . . The rhetoric in the president’s quick-moving press conference dodged some facts and left some evidence in the dust.”
In less than three short years, Obama has gone from the President most beloved of the American media since JFK into an object of scorn for the very same media. If he’s lost his last natural constituency this thoroughly, his re-election chances look very dim indeed.
Sponsored Content
Friday, October 7th at 10:30AM EDT
If I were President Obama’s political team, the only hope I would harbor right now for Obama’s re-election would center on the President being able to hold the line with his base – which is to say, the national media. Based on the questions asked in yesterday’s press conference, it may be time for administration officials to start polishing their CVs for employment in the private sector. Obama fielded, by my count, three hostile questions on Solyndra, and one on the Fast and the Furious. Through it all, Obama continually attempted to return the conversation to his jobs bill which has literally zero hope of passing either house, and in fact is so doomed that it probably won’t even be brought to the floor, barring a major change in the political climate. Even this tactic failed to faze the press, who seemed to actually taunt the President over his inability to get anyone to care about his worthless jobs bill:
Q. And secondly, on your jobs bill, the American people are sick of games — and you mentioned games in your comments. They want results. Wouldn’t it be more productive to work with Republicans on a plan that you know could pass Congress as opposed to going around the country talking about your bill and singling out — calling out Republicans by name?
Q. My question has to do with your powers of persuasion. During the debt ceiling debate, you asked for the American public to call members of Congress and switchboards got jammed. You have done a similar thing while going around the country doing this. Talking to members of Congress, there’s not the same reaction; you’re not seeing — hearing about phones being jammed. Talking to one member of Congress, he told me there’s a disillusionment he’s concerned about with the public that maybe they just don’t believe anything can get done anyway. Are you worried about your own powers of persuasion, and maybe that the American public is not listening to you anymore?
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Anybody on Capitol Hill will say that there’s no chance that the American Jobs Act, in its current state, passes either House. And you’ve been out on the campaign trail banging away at them saying, pass this bill. And it begins, sir, to look like you’re campaigning, and like you’re following the Harry Truman model against the do-nothing Congress instead of negotiating.
Both the tone and the substance of these questions should be worrisome to the White House. More worrisome, to some extent, should be the follow-up coverage from the press. It is one thing to notice that Obama is completely disconnected from the country at large and has no effective political power – it is quite another for the media to actually call out Obama on his favorite tactic of attacking strawmen instead of actual Republicans. In this Associated Press piece (via The Transom) the AP took the unusual step, in a piece dripping with sarcasm, of calling out Obama for lying about Republicans in Congress, opening the bidding by noting that “In challening Republicans to get behind his jobs bill Thursday. . . The rhetoric in the president’s quick-moving press conference dodged some facts and left some evidence in the dust.”
In less than three short years, Obama has gone from the President most beloved of the American media since JFK into an object of scorn for the very same media. If he’s lost his last natural constituency this thoroughly, his re-election chances look very dim indeed.
Sponsored Content
Ostracize Wall Street [OWS]
Posted by TobyToons
Monday, October 10th at 7:00AM EDT
Cross-Posted: TobyToons.com (Conservative Political Cartoons)
Monday, October 10th at 7:00AM EDT
Cross-Posted: TobyToons.com (Conservative Political Cartoons)
Al Gore kicked out of the Global Warming Club
October 9, 2011 by Don Surber
As the world turns away from the hysterics of the global warming crowd, the True Believers are looking for a scapegoat for their turn in fortunes. To blame Michael Mann or Phil Jones would be to admit that Climategate proved once and for all the fallacy of their “science” — that it was based on the manipulation of data and outright forgery.
Looking for dead weight in this sinking ship, Myles Allen of the Guardian has decided to toss Al Gore overboard: “Al Gore is doing a disservice to science by overplaying the link between climate change and weather. To claim that we are causing meteorological events that would not have occurred without human influence is just plain wrong.”
Now only to a true believer would there be no link between weather and climate. Myles Allen is not quite there, but he seems to recognize the problem 20 years of linking odd weather to global warming has turned into a farce. If everything proved global warming, then nothing really does.
His dump on Al Gore is refreshing: “When Al Gore said last week that scientists now have ‘clear proof that climate change is directly responsible for the extreme and devastating floods, storms and droughts that displaced millions of people this year,’ my heart sank. Having suggested the idea of “event attribution” back in 2003, and co-authored a study published earlier this year on the origins of the UK floods in autumn 2000, I suspect I may be one of the scientists being talked about.”
Yes, how dare Al Gore quote him.
The problem is not Al Gore. The problem is this ridiculous theory that mankind through its modern conveniences is creating too much carbon dioxide and this will eventually turn the world into a ball of fire. It’s rather Old Testament, conjuring up images of the demise of Sodom and Gomorrah. The problem is you cannot prove it. As Allen Myles lamented: “This illustrates an important point: human influence on climate is making some events more likely, and some less likely, and it is a challenging scientific question to work out which are which.”
So the science is not there yet. And without the science, we really have no logical reason to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which by the way is measured by whom? Is anyone double-checking the measurements? Measure twice, cut once.
And so Al Gore gets tossed overboard. Yesterday’s hero. More proof that like recycling, this is a fad — a fancy way for certain kids to feel superior to their parents.
Meanwhile, the London Daily Mail reported: “Britain is just weeks away from being in the grip of temperatures as low as -20C, forecasters have predicted. Parts of Britain already saw snow this week, with two inches falling in the Cairngorms in Scotland. The rest of Britain is being warned to brace itself for wintry conditions and falling snow from the beginning of November.”
So I can see why these “scientists” who have never spoken out for 20 years against using weather to burnish the global warming claims now wish to divorce themselves from that.
As the world turns away from the hysterics of the global warming crowd, the True Believers are looking for a scapegoat for their turn in fortunes. To blame Michael Mann or Phil Jones would be to admit that Climategate proved once and for all the fallacy of their “science” — that it was based on the manipulation of data and outright forgery.
Looking for dead weight in this sinking ship, Myles Allen of the Guardian has decided to toss Al Gore overboard: “Al Gore is doing a disservice to science by overplaying the link between climate change and weather. To claim that we are causing meteorological events that would not have occurred without human influence is just plain wrong.”
Now only to a true believer would there be no link between weather and climate. Myles Allen is not quite there, but he seems to recognize the problem 20 years of linking odd weather to global warming has turned into a farce. If everything proved global warming, then nothing really does.
His dump on Al Gore is refreshing: “When Al Gore said last week that scientists now have ‘clear proof that climate change is directly responsible for the extreme and devastating floods, storms and droughts that displaced millions of people this year,’ my heart sank. Having suggested the idea of “event attribution” back in 2003, and co-authored a study published earlier this year on the origins of the UK floods in autumn 2000, I suspect I may be one of the scientists being talked about.”
Yes, how dare Al Gore quote him.
The problem is not Al Gore. The problem is this ridiculous theory that mankind through its modern conveniences is creating too much carbon dioxide and this will eventually turn the world into a ball of fire. It’s rather Old Testament, conjuring up images of the demise of Sodom and Gomorrah. The problem is you cannot prove it. As Allen Myles lamented: “This illustrates an important point: human influence on climate is making some events more likely, and some less likely, and it is a challenging scientific question to work out which are which.”
So the science is not there yet. And without the science, we really have no logical reason to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which by the way is measured by whom? Is anyone double-checking the measurements? Measure twice, cut once.
And so Al Gore gets tossed overboard. Yesterday’s hero. More proof that like recycling, this is a fad — a fancy way for certain kids to feel superior to their parents.
Meanwhile, the London Daily Mail reported: “Britain is just weeks away from being in the grip of temperatures as low as -20C, forecasters have predicted. Parts of Britain already saw snow this week, with two inches falling in the Cairngorms in Scotland. The rest of Britain is being warned to brace itself for wintry conditions and falling snow from the beginning of November.”
So I can see why these “scientists” who have never spoken out for 20 years against using weather to burnish the global warming claims now wish to divorce themselves from that.
Obama attacks banks while raking in Wall Street dough
Published: 12:39 AM 10/10/2011 | Updated: 7:56 AM 10/10/2011
By John Rossomando
Despite his rhetorical attacks on Wall Street, a study by the Sunlight Foundation’s Influence Project shows that President Barack Obama has received more money from Wall Street than any other politician over the past 20 years, including former President George W. Bush.
In 2008, Wall Street’s largesse accounted for 20 percent of Obama’s total take, according to Reuters.
When asked by The Daily Caller to comment about President Obama’s credibility when it comes to criticizing Wall Street, the White House declined to reply.
Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer says the distance between the president’s rhetoric and actions makes him look hypocritical.
“It’s almost as if President Obama won’t cross across a Wall Street picket line except to get inside with [his] hand out, so he can raise money,” Fleischer told TheDC, referring to the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators who the president has been encouraging over the past week. “That sort of support causes him to look hypocritical.”
Fleischer continued by saying that President Obama and Democrats, such as New York Sen. Charles Schumer, who has received approximately $8.7 million from Wall Street since 1989, should stop taking campaign donations from Wall Street banks if they are so offended by their actions.
“They can’t say we hate Wall Street, but we love their money,” Fleischer said.
Being Wall Street’s campaign cash king is hardly the image President Obama has been trying to project in public, where he has been setting himself up as the champion of the progressive Occupy Wall Street movement and as the avenger of jilted Bank of America customers.
“Banks can make money,” Obama said last week, responding to questions during an interview with ABC News about Bank of America’s decision to levy a $5 monthly fee on debit card users. “They can succeed, the old-fashioned way, by earning it.”
In fact, the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan watchdog group that tracks lobbyist spending and influence in both parties, found that President Obama has received more money from Bank of America than any other candidate dating back to 1991.
An examination of the numbers shows that Obama took in $421,242 in campaign contributions in 2008 from Bank of America’s executives, PACs and employees, which exceeded its prior record contribution of $329,761 to President George W. Bush in 2004.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Wall Street firms also contributed more to Obama’s 2008 campaign than they gave to Republican nominee John McCain.
“The securities and investment industry is Obama’s second largest source of bundlers, after lawyers, at least 56 individuals have raised at least $8.9 million for his campaign,” Massie Ritsch wrote in a Sept. 18, 2008 entry on the Center for Responsive Politics’s OpenSecrets blog.
By the end of Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, executives and others connected with Wall Street firms, such as Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup, UBS AG, JPMorgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley, poured nearly $15.8 million into his coffers.
By John Rossomando
Despite his rhetorical attacks on Wall Street, a study by the Sunlight Foundation’s Influence Project shows that President Barack Obama has received more money from Wall Street than any other politician over the past 20 years, including former President George W. Bush.
In 2008, Wall Street’s largesse accounted for 20 percent of Obama’s total take, according to Reuters.
When asked by The Daily Caller to comment about President Obama’s credibility when it comes to criticizing Wall Street, the White House declined to reply.
Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer says the distance between the president’s rhetoric and actions makes him look hypocritical.
“It’s almost as if President Obama won’t cross across a Wall Street picket line except to get inside with [his] hand out, so he can raise money,” Fleischer told TheDC, referring to the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators who the president has been encouraging over the past week. “That sort of support causes him to look hypocritical.”
Fleischer continued by saying that President Obama and Democrats, such as New York Sen. Charles Schumer, who has received approximately $8.7 million from Wall Street since 1989, should stop taking campaign donations from Wall Street banks if they are so offended by their actions.
“They can’t say we hate Wall Street, but we love their money,” Fleischer said.
Being Wall Street’s campaign cash king is hardly the image President Obama has been trying to project in public, where he has been setting himself up as the champion of the progressive Occupy Wall Street movement and as the avenger of jilted Bank of America customers.
“Banks can make money,” Obama said last week, responding to questions during an interview with ABC News about Bank of America’s decision to levy a $5 monthly fee on debit card users. “They can succeed, the old-fashioned way, by earning it.”
In fact, the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan watchdog group that tracks lobbyist spending and influence in both parties, found that President Obama has received more money from Bank of America than any other candidate dating back to 1991.
An examination of the numbers shows that Obama took in $421,242 in campaign contributions in 2008 from Bank of America’s executives, PACs and employees, which exceeded its prior record contribution of $329,761 to President George W. Bush in 2004.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Wall Street firms also contributed more to Obama’s 2008 campaign than they gave to Republican nominee John McCain.
“The securities and investment industry is Obama’s second largest source of bundlers, after lawyers, at least 56 individuals have raised at least $8.9 million for his campaign,” Massie Ritsch wrote in a Sept. 18, 2008 entry on the Center for Responsive Politics’s OpenSecrets blog.
By the end of Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, executives and others connected with Wall Street firms, such as Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup, UBS AG, JPMorgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley, poured nearly $15.8 million into his coffers.
#OccupyWallSt’s Neo-Communist System of “Collaboratism” Revealed
...And Witness Its Abysmal Failure.
Posted by LaborUnionReport
Sunday, October 9th at 2:45PM EDT
Over the last three weeks, as the world has watched the spectacle of the Zuccotti Park protesters in lower Manhattan, some have been inspired and, in many cases, repulsed at the protesters occupying the park. Since the protests have now garnered the backing from the professional protesters from the AFL-CIO‘s 56 unions and the SEIU, as well as implicit and explicit support from the Obama Administration and Democrats, there is more relevance to examining not just what the protesters are protesting but what they are promoting.
Meet “the Collaborators” [aka Baklava [sic] Boy and his friend]. It was a chance encounter (the taking of this picture and the subsequent conversation) on Day One of #OccupyWallSt that gave some insight into the minds of the Neo-Communists protesting across the country.
Since most observers know that the #OccupyWallSt protesters are protesting capitalism and free-markets (generally), as well as banks and “corporatism” (specifically), other than a general destruction of America’s economic system, there has been a lot of questions as to what protesters’ end goals are.
As the #OccupyWallSt protests have been designed and populated by a hybrid of hard-core Marxists, from the leftist unions, to socialists and actual Communists, there have the stated goals ranging from the seizure of workplaces, schools and the “de-privatization of everything,” to the AFL-CIO’s more “moderate” goal of a worldwide tax on financial transactions. Then, there is also the unofficial proposed list of demands that has drawn a good deal of ridicule.
Despite all of this, however, it was ‘The Collaborators” who gave insight as to how the Neo-Coms plan to reorganize society—and that is through the system they call “collaboratism.”
What is Collaboratism?
Collaboratism is, according to Baklava [sic] Boy, the dividing of society into smaller groups and making decisions unanimously.
If you’re laughing right now, you’re not alone. However, you should know, the #OccupyWallSt protesters have apparently already begun rolling out their “collaboratism” system in their protests—and we’re already see its failure.
Via a variety of videos on the internet, as well as blog posts, there have been numerous references to “People’s Assemblies” and “General Assemblies.”
We call for the organization of people’s assemblies in every city, every public square, every township.
For those outside of the protests, this has caused some confusion as to what these “assemblies” are. In sum, this is democratic collectivism taken to its ultimate form—the body politic without authority.
Here is “Collaboratism” (ala a “general assembly” in Atlanta) in action (via Drudge). While Civil Rights icon John Lewis is the subject of this video, watch the full video because this is the vision of the #OccupyWallSt protesters would impose upon the rest of society.
Note the frustration and anger of the collectivist organizer near the end when he realizes that Collaboratism isn’t turning out exactly as he thought it might. Note also the “Teamster Thug” who is Lewis’ escort and clearly not happy with the outcome of the assembly.
Democrats and union bosses who are wholeheartedly embracing the #OccupyWallSt protests should take heed: Under the system being espoused here, there is no place for you. You will be out of office, out of power, a part of the collective hive…a hive without a king or queen.
Tread carefully, Democrats and union bosses, for this is the movement you are promoting and giving legitimacy. You may embrace the call for toppling the capitalist system. Just know, however, you are part of that system and when it crumbles, so too will you.
Posted by LaborUnionReport
Sunday, October 9th at 2:45PM EDT
Over the last three weeks, as the world has watched the spectacle of the Zuccotti Park protesters in lower Manhattan, some have been inspired and, in many cases, repulsed at the protesters occupying the park. Since the protests have now garnered the backing from the professional protesters from the AFL-CIO‘s 56 unions and the SEIU, as well as implicit and explicit support from the Obama Administration and Democrats, there is more relevance to examining not just what the protesters are protesting but what they are promoting.
Meet “the Collaborators” [aka Baklava [sic] Boy and his friend]. It was a chance encounter (the taking of this picture and the subsequent conversation) on Day One of #OccupyWallSt that gave some insight into the minds of the Neo-Communists protesting across the country.
Since most observers know that the #OccupyWallSt protesters are protesting capitalism and free-markets (generally), as well as banks and “corporatism” (specifically), other than a general destruction of America’s economic system, there has been a lot of questions as to what protesters’ end goals are.
As the #OccupyWallSt protests have been designed and populated by a hybrid of hard-core Marxists, from the leftist unions, to socialists and actual Communists, there have the stated goals ranging from the seizure of workplaces, schools and the “de-privatization of everything,” to the AFL-CIO’s more “moderate” goal of a worldwide tax on financial transactions. Then, there is also the unofficial proposed list of demands that has drawn a good deal of ridicule.
Despite all of this, however, it was ‘The Collaborators” who gave insight as to how the Neo-Coms plan to reorganize society—and that is through the system they call “collaboratism.”
What is Collaboratism?
Collaboratism is, according to Baklava [sic] Boy, the dividing of society into smaller groups and making decisions unanimously.
If you’re laughing right now, you’re not alone. However, you should know, the #OccupyWallSt protesters have apparently already begun rolling out their “collaboratism” system in their protests—and we’re already see its failure.
Via a variety of videos on the internet, as well as blog posts, there have been numerous references to “People’s Assemblies” and “General Assemblies.”
We call for the organization of people’s assemblies in every city, every public square, every township.
For those outside of the protests, this has caused some confusion as to what these “assemblies” are. In sum, this is democratic collectivism taken to its ultimate form—the body politic without authority.
Here is “Collaboratism” (ala a “general assembly” in Atlanta) in action (via Drudge). While Civil Rights icon John Lewis is the subject of this video, watch the full video because this is the vision of the #OccupyWallSt protesters would impose upon the rest of society.
Note the frustration and anger of the collectivist organizer near the end when he realizes that Collaboratism isn’t turning out exactly as he thought it might. Note also the “Teamster Thug” who is Lewis’ escort and clearly not happy with the outcome of the assembly.
Democrats and union bosses who are wholeheartedly embracing the #OccupyWallSt protests should take heed: Under the system being espoused here, there is no place for you. You will be out of office, out of power, a part of the collective hive…a hive without a king or queen.
Tread carefully, Democrats and union bosses, for this is the movement you are promoting and giving legitimacy. You may embrace the call for toppling the capitalist system. Just know, however, you are part of that system and when it crumbles, so too will you.
Raider Nation: An Oppressed Nation
Since the death of long time Oakland Raider owner Al Davis, I have realized the similarities between the so called “Raider Nation” and countries like North Korea and Zimbabwe. Many a fan is abuzz with the belief that the team will now be able to succeed because of the death of it’s Authoritarian dictatorship. However, anyone familiar with world politics knows full well that the oppressed screw up badly when freed. Due to years of sheephood those who find sudden power with no knowledge of how to use it, either abuse it or lose control. With all due respect for the dead, Raider fans will likely expect an instant change. I am here to tell you it will all new leadership from top to bottom. Yes, this is the equivelent to death of a life long one-income family breadwinner leaving a helpless spouse behind. I will stop here out of respect for the mourners.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Crazy people make better bloggers
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Things that make you go hmm...
Via Forbes:
Crazy people make better bloggers.
Heather Armstrong parlayed postpartum depression and a stint in a mental institution into a cash cow blog.
Penelope Trunk grew her blog to over 750,000 page views last month as someone willing to write about stabbing herself in the head, smashing herself in the head with a lamp, and having a miscarriage during a board meeting while dispensing career advice.
James Altucher shares with his blog readers a history of suicidal ideation, depression, and going broke with a manic frenzy that inspires others to buy his books.
In the Forever Recession, we are all entrepreneurs, and everybody knows the best entrepreneurs are crazy.
Read more here.
Things that make you go hmm...
Via Forbes:
Crazy people make better bloggers.
Heather Armstrong parlayed postpartum depression and a stint in a mental institution into a cash cow blog.
Penelope Trunk grew her blog to over 750,000 page views last month as someone willing to write about stabbing herself in the head, smashing herself in the head with a lamp, and having a miscarriage during a board meeting while dispensing career advice.
James Altucher shares with his blog readers a history of suicidal ideation, depression, and going broke with a manic frenzy that inspires others to buy his books.
In the Forever Recession, we are all entrepreneurs, and everybody knows the best entrepreneurs are crazy.
Read more here.
Huffington Post High School? Huh?
Wonderful idea: Opening up the Huffington Post to a bunch of kids. Well, actually it might be an improvement. Then again, the pro-Obama kids aren't too bright.
Bill Clinton stated America’s foremost interest correctly: it’s the economy, stupid. Americans vote with their checkbooks and the leadership of a cogent and experienced team is vital in these times of economic turbulence. The recession revealed that America lacks the basic industry to provide stable employment for many in our working class. Obama responded. His American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 allocated hundreds of billions of dollars to investments that renewed confidence and prevented another surge of unemployment.
The unemployment rate in February 2009, when the stimulus scam passed, was 7.6%. Obama would do anything for it to be back to that.
Back to school, kid.
Posted by JammieWearingFool at 5:37 PM
Bill Clinton stated America’s foremost interest correctly: it’s the economy, stupid. Americans vote with their checkbooks and the leadership of a cogent and experienced team is vital in these times of economic turbulence. The recession revealed that America lacks the basic industry to provide stable employment for many in our working class. Obama responded. His American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 allocated hundreds of billions of dollars to investments that renewed confidence and prevented another surge of unemployment.
The unemployment rate in February 2009, when the stimulus scam passed, was 7.6%. Obama would do anything for it to be back to that.
Back to school, kid.
Posted by JammieWearingFool at 5:37 PM
Out of the mouths of babes: Letter from a thirteen year-old sets the Wall Street occupiers straight!
Perhaps these 60's style radicals that the mainstream media seems to love to love should read the letters below from some of America's other young people!
Truly none of us really knows exactly who and what groups comprise these malcontents who seem to want to bring down capitalism and replace it with some other system (or maybe just plain socialism) that they view as somehow being far better than good old-fashion hard work and free enterprise.
They seem to abhor the type of system that rewards those who take risks, who innovate, who have drive and ambition and who want to succeed on their own.
One can only surmise that there are some sincere people in the mix who are frustrated and unhappy (as are we all) over the state of the US economy and their prospects for the future.
One can also surmise that there are others inside the mix along with their puppet masters on the outside who are stirring the mix with a much more specific and focused agenda.
We have the labor unions wanting the Obama jobs bill passed to fill their coffers with more money while the $400 billion the President wants will likely do little to improve the overall US economy.
We know this because we saw that very outcome when the original $1 trillion stimulus package was passed.
It has been an absolute failure as evidenced by an unemployment rate that is stubbornly hanging above 9%.
Then we have those protesters who just don't like the system of capitalism and free markets, who want cradle to grave support from the government. Let's call them socialists and communists.
The crowd also includes some plain old run of the mill anarchists who want to foster civil unrest, and the political partisans who want to use these protests to reinforce some Democrat agenda leading into the 2012 elections.
And if all of that isn't enough, we have the mainstream media and some Democrat leaders (including President Obama and Nancy Pelosi) who are in love with these protests and protestors although these same people were dead set against any demonstrations by the Tea Party.
The difference that must be noted, however, between Tea Party protests and the current Wall Street occupiers is the violence, anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, civil disobedience overall filth and extremely high count of arrests with these so-called "Wall Street occupiers" that NEVER accompanied Tea Party rallies.
Go figure!
Must read letters from some of the rational 99%!
LETTER SOURCE
#OccupyFraud
Posted by William A. Jacobson Sunday, October 9, 2011 at 6:33pm
I’ve warned you not to take at face value the depictions of the protesters at the Occupy Wall Street rallies.
Andrew Cole, the focus of a sympathetic New York Times article, turned out to be a pretty hard core solicialist (by his own description) and former operative for a progressive organization, facts not revealed in The Times article.
This video of a law student decrying the loss of his parents home to Chase Bank also made the rounds in late September..
There’s just one problem. The story he tells is a fraud, as an investigation by The Blaze revealed. His parents $500,000 home was not taken by the bank, is not in foreclosure, and the whole thing was street theater:
Phone inquiries into the county property records & taxpayer services office reveal that the Stephens family home is not and never has been in foreclosure, that property taxes had been paid in full this year and the remaining balance on their mortgage for the half-million dollar home is less than one year’s worth of tuition+fees at their son’s law school.
The nail in this empty protest‘s coffin is a delightful phone conversation I just had with Robert’s mother, Marquita, where she admitted Chase Bank indeed was not “taking” their home from them. Instead, due to a recent “reduction in income,” they’ve decided to hold a “short sale.”
I’ve warned you not to take at face value the depictions of the protesters at the Occupy Wall Street rallies.
Andrew Cole, the focus of a sympathetic New York Times article, turned out to be a pretty hard core solicialist (by his own description) and former operative for a progressive organization, facts not revealed in The Times article.
This video of a law student decrying the loss of his parents home to Chase Bank also made the rounds in late September..
There’s just one problem. The story he tells is a fraud, as an investigation by The Blaze revealed. His parents $500,000 home was not taken by the bank, is not in foreclosure, and the whole thing was street theater:
Phone inquiries into the county property records & taxpayer services office reveal that the Stephens family home is not and never has been in foreclosure, that property taxes had been paid in full this year and the remaining balance on their mortgage for the half-million dollar home is less than one year’s worth of tuition+fees at their son’s law school.
The nail in this empty protest‘s coffin is a delightful phone conversation I just had with Robert’s mother, Marquita, where she admitted Chase Bank indeed was not “taking” their home from them. Instead, due to a recent “reduction in income,” they’ve decided to hold a “short sale.”
Cairo riots leave 19 dead
Military police blamed for using excessive force as protest march by Christians over church attack erupts into violence
Barry Neild and agencies
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 9 October 2011
"At least 19 people have been killed and scores injured in Cairo after a protest over an attack on a church erupted into the worst violence since the 18-day uprising that ousted Hosni Mubarak as president of Egypt in February.
Christians battled with military police, throwing rocks and petrol bombs and torching vehicles during clashes which saw the deployment of more than 1,000 security force personnel.
State television put the number injured in the violence at 150, saying that three of those killed were soldiers. Witnesses quoted by news agencies claimed several protesters had died when they were run over by a military vehicle [See video posted below.].
More than four vehicles were set ablaze and TV footage showed protesters breaking windows of parked cars and army personnel carriers driving full speed towards crowds.
The protests began as a march by Christians against an attack on a Coptic church last week that they blamed on Muslim extremists. The protesters insisted they had been planning a peaceful sit-in at a television studio but were set upon by thugs....."
Barry Neild and agencies
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 9 October 2011
"At least 19 people have been killed and scores injured in Cairo after a protest over an attack on a church erupted into the worst violence since the 18-day uprising that ousted Hosni Mubarak as president of Egypt in February.
Christians battled with military police, throwing rocks and petrol bombs and torching vehicles during clashes which saw the deployment of more than 1,000 security force personnel.
State television put the number injured in the violence at 150, saying that three of those killed were soldiers. Witnesses quoted by news agencies claimed several protesters had died when they were run over by a military vehicle [See video posted below.].
More than four vehicles were set ablaze and TV footage showed protesters breaking windows of parked cars and army personnel carriers driving full speed towards crowds.
The protests began as a march by Christians against an attack on a Coptic church last week that they blamed on Muslim extremists. The protesters insisted they had been planning a peaceful sit-in at a television studio but were set upon by thugs....."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)