February 26, 2012
Dr. Essam Abdallah, an Egyptian liberal intellectual, in an article published last October in the leading liberal pan-Arab journal Elaph, refers to certain reports coming out of Washington:
These reports reveal the depth of the below-the-surface coordination between the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iranian regime and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Libya and Jordan. This bloc of regimes and organizations is now becoming the greatest Islamist radical lobby ever to penetrate and infiltrate the White House, Congress, the State Department and the main decision making centers of the US government. All of this is happening at a time when the US government is going through its most strategically dangerous period in modern times because of its need to confront the Iranian Mullahs regime, which is expanding in the Middle East, as well as penetrating the United States, via powerful and influential allies.
Abdallah alleged that "the popular revolts in the Arab world -- and the Obama Administration's position towards them -- were determined by political battles between various pressure groups in Washington."
He followed up with another article this month in which he asks:
[W]hy isn't the West in general and the United States Administration in particular clearly and forcefully supporting our civil societies and particularly the secular democrats of the region? Why were the bureaucracies in Washington and in Brussels partnering with Islamists in the region and not with their natural allies the democracy promoting political forces?
Steve Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism said of this article: "This is one of the most important articles I have read in years." He then made allegations of his own:
It was just revealed two days ago that FBI Director Mueller secretly met on February 8 at FBI headquarters with a coalition of groups including various Islamist and militant Arabic groups who in the past have defended Hamas and Hizballah and have also issued blatantly anti-Semitic statements. At this meeting, the FBI revealed that it had removed more than 1000 presentations and curricula on Islam from FBI offices around the country that was deemed "offensive." The FBI did not reveal what criteria was used to determine why material was considered "offensive" but knowledgeable law enforcement sources have told the IPT that it was these radical groups who made that determination. Moreover, numerous FBI agents have confirmed that from now on, FBI headquarters has banned all FBI offices from inviting any counter-terrorist specialists who are considered "anti-Islam" by Muslim Brotherhood front groups.
This comes as no surprise to me. In August of 2011, after making the case, I wrote, "To my mind, the alliance between the Obama administration and the Muslim Brotherhood is the cornerstone of Obama's New Middle East policy."
The most damning bit of evidence was reported by Herb London in his article, "U.S. Betrays Syria's Opposition":
In an effort to understand and placate Syrian opposition groups, Secretary Clinton invited them to a meeting in Washington. Most of those invited, however, have links to the Muslim Brotherhood. Missing from the invitations are Kurdish leaders, Sunni liberals, Assyrians and Christian spokesmen. According to various reports the State Department made a deal with Turkey and Muslim Brotherhood representatives either to share power with Assad to stabilize the government, or replace him if this effort fails. One organization, the Syrian Democracy Council (SDC), an opposition group composed of diverse ethnic and religious organizations, including Alawis, Aramaic Christians, Druze and Assyrians was conspicuously -- and no coincidentally -- omitted from the invitation list.
Caroline Glick wrote in August of last year:
What these observers fail to recognize is that Erdogan's interests in a post-Assad Syria have little in common with US interests. Erdogan will seek to ensure the continued disenfranchisement of Syria's Kurdish minority. And he will work towards the Islamification of Syria through the Muslim Brotherhood.
This week Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held a private meeting with these brave democrats. Why didn't she hold a public meeting? Why hasn't Obama welcomed them to the White House?"
Today there is a coalition of Syrian opposition figures that include all ethnic groups in Syria. Their representatives have been banging the doors of the corridors of power in Washington and beyond. Yet the same Western leaders who were so eager to recognize the Libyan opposition despite the presence of al Qaeda terrorists in the opposition tent have refused to publicly embrace Syrian regime opponents that seek a democratic, federal Syria that will live at peace with Israel and embrace liberal policies.
By refusing to embrace liberal, multi-ethnic regime opponents, the administration is all but ensuring the success of the Turkish bid to install the Muslim Brotherhood in power if Assad is overthrown.
The Syrian Democratic Coalition (SDC), above mentioned, is self-described thus:
The Syrian Democratic Coalition (SDC) is an emerging coalition of diverse Syrian organizations coming together to help bring an end to the Assad regime and promote the transformation of Syria into a secular democracy based in liberty. The coalition is founded upon a belief in the separation of religion from state and is dedicated to establishing a new constitution and transparent federal republic in Syria, based in reason that equally protects minority rights, promotes gender equality, and embraces the rights and liberties of every individual as enumerated in the United Nations Declaration for Human Rights. This growing coalition crosses all ethnic, religious and tribal lines to represent all Syrians. It currently includes members of Save Syria Now!, the Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria, the Union of Syrian Arab Tribes and the Syrian Christian Democratic Movement.
Sherkoh Abbas is secretary general of the Syria Democracy Council and president of the Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria. I first met him when he invited me to be a director of the American Kurdish Friendship League some five years ago.
Recently, he confided in me that in all his dealings with the State Department over the last two years, no interest was shown in his coalition, and instead, he was continually pressed to support the Syrian National Council (SNC), made up of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists and Arabists. He believes that the U.S. is working with Salafi groups, and the Turkish government, to create an opposition in Syria that is strictly Islamist. Such an opposition would serve Turkish economic interests in Syria and keep the Kurdish issue dormant in Turkey as well as in Syria.
For the last six months at least, Obama has been cultivating a relationship with PM Erdoğan of Turkey. The budding relationship prompted Barry Rubin to ask, "Why Is an Anti-American Islamist, Obama's Favorite ME Leader?"
According to Sherkoh Abbas, one faction of the SDC had family connections in various Gulf States at the highest level and went to them for financial support. They were turned down, as Obama had instructed them to give money only to the SNC.
Nevertheless, the SDC is gaining traction amongst the Kurds, Druze, Sunnis, Christians, and even the Alawites. This is so because these various minorities are beginning to think of a post-Assad Syria, and they all want a region of their own. They have expressed their willingness to be secular, democratic, and a friend of Israel and will be asked to commit to this in writing. They don't want Islamism or Arabism. They prefer peace, freedom, and prosperity. So why isn't Obama embracing them?
The Obama administration is totally in sync with the Muslim Brotherhood. At the renowned Herzlia Conference this year, I met Salman Shalkh, one of the speakers from Qatar. We had a long conversation in which he kept pushing for the Saudi Plan to be embraced by Israel. This is the plan that Obama is committed to -- i.e., '67 borders with mutually agreed-upon swaps.
Shalkh argued that Israel should talk to Hamas, and I countered, "What's the point? We have nothing to offer to them." Shalkh was also an apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood. These arguments should be expected from someone from Qatar. Unfortunately, the same arguments are being made by the White House. It is instructive to note that Shalkh is director of the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar, the Arab offshoot of the Brookings Institute that has so much influence with the State Department. He told me that he was one of the people who drafted the Roadmap on behalf of the State Department. I told him that it didn't surprise me and suggested that he probably drafted the Saudi Peace Plan for them as well.
What is going on now in American foreign policy is not so much a product of the Islamist lobby fueled by both the Muslim Brotherhood and the gulf states as it is a product of a strategic alliance that has existed between the U.S. and the gulf states led by Saudi Arabia since before Israel declared her independence. Unfortunately, President Obama, with his overt outreach to Islam, Muslims, and the Muslim Brotherhood, has taken it to another level.
It would appear that the ideas expressed by Mearsheimer and Walt in their book, The Israel Lobby, are being embraced by both the State Department and the White House. These include the idea that the Israel lobby is too strong for America's good and that Israel is a liability to America.
But the truth is otherwise, as John R. MacArthur pointed out in 2007, in "The Vast Power of the Saudi Lobby":
Somehow, though, I can't shake the idea that the Israel lobby, no matter how powerful, isn't all it is cracked up to be, particularly where it concerns the Bush administrations past and present. Indeed, when I think of pernicious foreign lobbies with disproportionate sway over American politics, I can't see past Saudi Arabia and its royal house, led by King Abdullah.
This article is a classic and should be read in full.
Obama has decidedly moved from an alliance with Israel to an alliance with the Islamists.
MK Aryeh Eldad, in a speech given in the fall in the U.S., when Israel was intending to act against Iran militarily, said word came down from the White House that "if you act alone, you will remain alone." Because Israel is so dependent on the U.S. for resupply of weapons and munitions in a prolonged war, this threat changed the calculus immediately. It is true that when Mahmoud Abbas was threatening to go to the U.N. for recognition, the Obama administration lobbied around the world for negative votes. But at the same time, Obama threatened Netanyahu that Obama would withhold his veto if Israel took punitive action against the PA by annexing some of the territories or by withholding funds. Finally, he used the same threat to get Israel to instruct AIPAC to lobby Congress not to punish the PA by withholding U.S. funds.
Over the last six months, Israel has been warned by a succession of senior military and administration officials not to attack Iran, at this time, all in the name of giving sanctions a chance. But who believes that sanctions will stop Iran? And who believes that that the U.S. will in the end attack Iran to stop them?
So while Obama is supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, he is keeping Israel under his thumb.
Isi Leibler takes exception to all this and reminds everyone:
[T]his organization [The Muslim Brotherhood] represents one of the most fanatical and dangerous of the radical Islamist groups in the region, with a dark record of violence and terrorism imbedded in its DNA. It is rabidly anti-Western, anti-Christian, antisemitic, committed to imposing sharia law and a global Caliphate - and willing to employ any means to further its objectives.
Many would argue that Obama is also "anti-Western, anti-Christian[, and] antisemitic." Judging by his policies, they would be right.
SOURCE: Ted Belman - American Thinker
Sunday, February 26, 2012
The economic illiteracy of Timothy Geithner
2.25.12
Timothy Geithner, the 75th Treasury Secretary of the United States, on fixing America’s budget mess through higher taxes on wealthier Americans (via CNBC):
“That’s the kind of balance you need. Why is that the case? Because if you don’t try to generate more revenues through tax reform, if you don’t ask, you know, the most fortunate Americans to bear a slightly larger burden of the privilege of being an American, then you have to — the only way to achieve fiscal sustainability is through unacceptably deep cuts in benefits for middle class seniors, or unacceptably deep cuts in national security.”
Let’s take this incredibly wrongheaded statement apart, piece by piece:
1. “That’s the kind of balance you need.” | Me: No you don’t. The Obama plan would raise taxes by nearly $2 trillion, and the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio would actually edge higher rather than turn lower. Senator Pat Toomey came out with a fiscal proposal in May that would balance the budget by fiscal year 2020 and achieves a modest surplus in fiscal year 2021. It would also reduce debt/GDP to 52% vs. 75% in Obama’s budget. The debt picture would getting noticeably better vs. marginally worse. And no tax increases.
2. “Because if you don’t try to generate more revenues through tax reform …” | Me: Geithner assumes raising taxes is the only way to generate more revenue through tax reform. How about reforming the code so it produces more revenue through higher economic growth? For instance, converting the current tax system into a consumption tax could add a percentage point to revenue as a share of GDP by boosting growth. Grow the pie, Mr. Geithner. Or, you know, cut spending.
3. “… if you don’t ask, you know, the most fortunate Americans to bear a slightly larger burden of the privilege of being an American …” | Me: What on Earth is he talking about? As it is, the top 1 percent pay 36.7 percent of federal income taxes and earn 16.9 percent of adjusted gross income (as of 2009). The top 0.1 percent pay 17.1 percent of taxes and earn 7.8 percent of adjusted gross income. The average income tax rate for the top 1 percent is 24 percent. The bottom 50 percent? Just 1.85 percent. The bottom 50 percent pay just 2.3 percent of income taxes. It seems to me the “most fortunate Americans” — because they all inherited their wealth or just got a lucky break, right? — already bear a “slightly larger burden.”
And what, if someone doesn’t agree with Obama’s plan, they’re not earning their place as an American? If someone doesn’t agree to send more tax money to a free-spending, inefficient central government running record deficits as far as the eye can see, they’re somehow leeching off Uncle Sam? Being Treasury secretary is a privilege, one earned by pushing policies that keep America prosperous and solvent — even in an election year.
4. “[Without boosting taxes on couples making over $250,000], the only way to achieve fiscal sustainability is through unacceptably deep cuts in benefits for middle class seniors, or unacceptably deep cuts in national security. | Me: If taxable income in the 35 percent bracket were taxed at 49 percent, federal income tax revenues would be just $78 billion higher. To get the deficit to 2 percent by 2020 using Obama’s budget baseline, it would take a 91 percent top rate by taxing just the rich. As it is, Obama’s new budget only makes things get worse more slowly — and even that assumes the tax hikes won’t slow growth one bit.
Again, the Toomey plan would cut spending over a decade to 18% of GDP from 24% of GDP by cutting/freezing discretionary spending and block granting Medicaid to the states. And let’s not forget Obama-Geithner are proposing massive tax increases while not even trying to offer a solution to long-term entitlement costs. As Geithner infamously told Paul Ryan the other day: “We’re not coming before you to say we have a definitive solution to that long-term problem. What we do know is we don’t like yours.”
See, what America needs is solutions and leadership from the Obama administration, not lectures.
SOURCE: By James Pethokoukis - The American
Timothy Geithner, the 75th Treasury Secretary of the United States, on fixing America’s budget mess through higher taxes on wealthier Americans (via CNBC):
“That’s the kind of balance you need. Why is that the case? Because if you don’t try to generate more revenues through tax reform, if you don’t ask, you know, the most fortunate Americans to bear a slightly larger burden of the privilege of being an American, then you have to — the only way to achieve fiscal sustainability is through unacceptably deep cuts in benefits for middle class seniors, or unacceptably deep cuts in national security.”
Let’s take this incredibly wrongheaded statement apart, piece by piece:
1. “That’s the kind of balance you need.” | Me: No you don’t. The Obama plan would raise taxes by nearly $2 trillion, and the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio would actually edge higher rather than turn lower. Senator Pat Toomey came out with a fiscal proposal in May that would balance the budget by fiscal year 2020 and achieves a modest surplus in fiscal year 2021. It would also reduce debt/GDP to 52% vs. 75% in Obama’s budget. The debt picture would getting noticeably better vs. marginally worse. And no tax increases.
2. “Because if you don’t try to generate more revenues through tax reform …” | Me: Geithner assumes raising taxes is the only way to generate more revenue through tax reform. How about reforming the code so it produces more revenue through higher economic growth? For instance, converting the current tax system into a consumption tax could add a percentage point to revenue as a share of GDP by boosting growth. Grow the pie, Mr. Geithner. Or, you know, cut spending.
3. “… if you don’t ask, you know, the most fortunate Americans to bear a slightly larger burden of the privilege of being an American …” | Me: What on Earth is he talking about? As it is, the top 1 percent pay 36.7 percent of federal income taxes and earn 16.9 percent of adjusted gross income (as of 2009). The top 0.1 percent pay 17.1 percent of taxes and earn 7.8 percent of adjusted gross income. The average income tax rate for the top 1 percent is 24 percent. The bottom 50 percent? Just 1.85 percent. The bottom 50 percent pay just 2.3 percent of income taxes. It seems to me the “most fortunate Americans” — because they all inherited their wealth or just got a lucky break, right? — already bear a “slightly larger burden.”
And what, if someone doesn’t agree with Obama’s plan, they’re not earning their place as an American? If someone doesn’t agree to send more tax money to a free-spending, inefficient central government running record deficits as far as the eye can see, they’re somehow leeching off Uncle Sam? Being Treasury secretary is a privilege, one earned by pushing policies that keep America prosperous and solvent — even in an election year.
4. “[Without boosting taxes on couples making over $250,000], the only way to achieve fiscal sustainability is through unacceptably deep cuts in benefits for middle class seniors, or unacceptably deep cuts in national security. | Me: If taxable income in the 35 percent bracket were taxed at 49 percent, federal income tax revenues would be just $78 billion higher. To get the deficit to 2 percent by 2020 using Obama’s budget baseline, it would take a 91 percent top rate by taxing just the rich. As it is, Obama’s new budget only makes things get worse more slowly — and even that assumes the tax hikes won’t slow growth one bit.
Again, the Toomey plan would cut spending over a decade to 18% of GDP from 24% of GDP by cutting/freezing discretionary spending and block granting Medicaid to the states. And let’s not forget Obama-Geithner are proposing massive tax increases while not even trying to offer a solution to long-term entitlement costs. As Geithner infamously told Paul Ryan the other day: “We’re not coming before you to say we have a definitive solution to that long-term problem. What we do know is we don’t like yours.”
See, what America needs is solutions and leadership from the Obama administration, not lectures.
SOURCE: By James Pethokoukis - The American
FBI Turns Off Thousands of GPS Devices After Supreme Court Ruling
2.25.12
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling overturning the warrantless use of GPS tracking devices has caused a “sea change” inside the U.S. Justice Department, according to FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann.
Mr. Weissmann, speaking at a University of San Francisco conference called “Big Brother in the 21st Century” on Friday, said that the court ruling prompted the FBI to turn off about 3,000 GPS tracking devices that were in use.
These devices were often stuck underneath cars to track the movements of the car owners. In U.S. v. Jones, the Supreme Court ruled that using a device to track a car owner without a search warrant violated the law.
After the ruling, the FBI had a problem collecting the devices that it had turned off, Mr. Weissmann said. In some cases, he said, the FBI sought court orders to obtain permission to turn the devices on briefly – only in order to locate and retrieve them.
Mr. Weissmann said that the FBI is now working to develop new guidelines for the use of GPS devices. He said the agency is also working on guidelines to cover the broader implications of the court decision beyond GPS devices.
For instance, he said, agency is now “wrestling” with the legality of whether agents can lift up the lid of a trash can without committing trespass. The majority opinion in U.S. v. Jones held that the agents had trespassed when placing the GPS device on a car without warrant.
He said the agency is also considering the implications of the concurring justices – whose arguments were largely based on the idea that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the totality of their movements, even if those movements are in public.
“From a law enforcement perspective, even though its not technically holding, we have to anticipate how it’s going to go down the road,” Mr. Weissmann said.
SOURCE: Julia Angwin - Wall Street Journal
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling overturning the warrantless use of GPS tracking devices has caused a “sea change” inside the U.S. Justice Department, according to FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann.
Mr. Weissmann, speaking at a University of San Francisco conference called “Big Brother in the 21st Century” on Friday, said that the court ruling prompted the FBI to turn off about 3,000 GPS tracking devices that were in use.
These devices were often stuck underneath cars to track the movements of the car owners. In U.S. v. Jones, the Supreme Court ruled that using a device to track a car owner without a search warrant violated the law.
After the ruling, the FBI had a problem collecting the devices that it had turned off, Mr. Weissmann said. In some cases, he said, the FBI sought court orders to obtain permission to turn the devices on briefly – only in order to locate and retrieve them.
Mr. Weissmann said that the FBI is now working to develop new guidelines for the use of GPS devices. He said the agency is also working on guidelines to cover the broader implications of the court decision beyond GPS devices.
For instance, he said, agency is now “wrestling” with the legality of whether agents can lift up the lid of a trash can without committing trespass. The majority opinion in U.S. v. Jones held that the agents had trespassed when placing the GPS device on a car without warrant.
He said the agency is also considering the implications of the concurring justices – whose arguments were largely based on the idea that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the totality of their movements, even if those movements are in public.
“From a law enforcement perspective, even though its not technically holding, we have to anticipate how it’s going to go down the road,” Mr. Weissmann said.
SOURCE: Julia Angwin - Wall Street Journal
A letter to the Obama campaign
February 26, 2012
Byron Tau reports at Politico that the Koch Companies have released a response to the Obama campaign’s fundraising letter of this past Friday directly assaulting the Koch brothers and their business. John wrote about the disgusting nature of the Obama capping fundraising letter here, alternately quoting from and responding to it. It is a letter that comes straight out of the Alinsky playbook.
Tau links to the Koch Companies’ response, a letter to the Obama campaign from Phillip Ellender, head of Government Affairs and Public Relations at the Koch Companies. It seems to me that Ellender’s letter deserves the widest circulation. Here it is:
Mr. Jim Messina
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
Dear Mr. Messina:
Because every American has the right to take part in the public discourse on matters that affect the future of our country, I feel compelled to respond directly about a fundraising letter you sent out on February 24 denouncing Koch. It is both surprising and disappointing that the President would allow his re-election team to send such an irresponsible and misleading letter to his supporters.
For example, it is false that our “business model is to make millions by jacking up prices at the pump.” Our business vision begins and ends with value creation — real, long-term value for customers and for society. We own no gasoline stations and the part of our business you allude to, oil and gas refining, actually lowers the price of gasoline by increasing supply. Either you simply misunderstand the way commodities markets work or you are misleading your supporters and the rest of the American people.
Contrary to your assertion that we have “committed $200 million to try to destroy President Obama,” we have stated publicly and repeatedly since last November that we have never made any such claim or pledge. It is hard to imagine that the campaign is unaware of our publicly stated position on that point. Similarly, Americans for Prosperity is not simply “funded by the Koch brothers,” as you state — rather it has tens of thousands of members and contributors from across the country and from all walks of life. Further, our opposition to this President’s policies is not based on partisan politics but on principles. Charles Koch and David Koch have been outspoken advocates of the free-market for over 50 years and they have consistently opposed policies that frustrate or subvert free markets, regardless of whether a Democrat or a Republican was President.
If the President’s campaign has some principled disagreement with the arguments we are making publicly about the staggering debt the President and previous administrations have imposed on the country, the regulations that are stifling business growth and innovation, the increasing intrusion of government into nearly every aspect of American life, we would be eager to hear them. But it is an abuse of the President’s position and does a disservice to our nation for the President and his campaign to criticize private citizens simply for the act of engaging in their constitutional right of free speech about important matters of public policy. The implication in that sort of attack is obvious: dare to criticize the President’s policies and you will be singled out and personally maligned by the President and his campaign in an effort to chill free speech and squelch dissent.
This is not the first time that the President and his Administration have engaged in this sort of disturbing behavior. As far back as August, 2010, Austan Goolsbee, then the President’s chief economic advisor, made public comments concerning Koch’s tax status and falsely stated that the company did not pay income tax, which triggered a federal investigation into Mr. Goolsbee’s conduct that potentially implicated federal law against improper disclosure of taxpayer information. Last June, your colleagues sent fundraising letters disparaging us as “plotting oil men” bent on “misleading people” with “disinformation” in order to “smear” the President’s record. Those accusations were baseless and were made at the very same time the president was publicly calling for a more “civil conversation” in the country.
It is understandable that the President and his campaign may be “tired of hearing” that many Americans would rather not see the president re-elected. However, the inference is that you would prefer that citizens who disagree with the President and his policies refrain from voicing their own viewpoint. Clearly, that’s not the way a free society should operate.
We agree with the President that civil discourse is an American strength. That is why it is troubling to see a national political campaign apparently target individual citizens and private companies for some perceived political advantage. I also hope the President will reflect on how the approach the campaign is using is at odds with our national values and the constitutional right to free speech.
Sincerely,
Philip Ellender
President, Government & Public Affairs
Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC
SOURCE: Scott Johnson - Powerline
Byron Tau reports at Politico that the Koch Companies have released a response to the Obama campaign’s fundraising letter of this past Friday directly assaulting the Koch brothers and their business. John wrote about the disgusting nature of the Obama capping fundraising letter here, alternately quoting from and responding to it. It is a letter that comes straight out of the Alinsky playbook.
Tau links to the Koch Companies’ response, a letter to the Obama campaign from Phillip Ellender, head of Government Affairs and Public Relations at the Koch Companies. It seems to me that Ellender’s letter deserves the widest circulation. Here it is:
Mr. Jim Messina
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
Dear Mr. Messina:
Because every American has the right to take part in the public discourse on matters that affect the future of our country, I feel compelled to respond directly about a fundraising letter you sent out on February 24 denouncing Koch. It is both surprising and disappointing that the President would allow his re-election team to send such an irresponsible and misleading letter to his supporters.
For example, it is false that our “business model is to make millions by jacking up prices at the pump.” Our business vision begins and ends with value creation — real, long-term value for customers and for society. We own no gasoline stations and the part of our business you allude to, oil and gas refining, actually lowers the price of gasoline by increasing supply. Either you simply misunderstand the way commodities markets work or you are misleading your supporters and the rest of the American people.
Contrary to your assertion that we have “committed $200 million to try to destroy President Obama,” we have stated publicly and repeatedly since last November that we have never made any such claim or pledge. It is hard to imagine that the campaign is unaware of our publicly stated position on that point. Similarly, Americans for Prosperity is not simply “funded by the Koch brothers,” as you state — rather it has tens of thousands of members and contributors from across the country and from all walks of life. Further, our opposition to this President’s policies is not based on partisan politics but on principles. Charles Koch and David Koch have been outspoken advocates of the free-market for over 50 years and they have consistently opposed policies that frustrate or subvert free markets, regardless of whether a Democrat or a Republican was President.
If the President’s campaign has some principled disagreement with the arguments we are making publicly about the staggering debt the President and previous administrations have imposed on the country, the regulations that are stifling business growth and innovation, the increasing intrusion of government into nearly every aspect of American life, we would be eager to hear them. But it is an abuse of the President’s position and does a disservice to our nation for the President and his campaign to criticize private citizens simply for the act of engaging in their constitutional right of free speech about important matters of public policy. The implication in that sort of attack is obvious: dare to criticize the President’s policies and you will be singled out and personally maligned by the President and his campaign in an effort to chill free speech and squelch dissent.
This is not the first time that the President and his Administration have engaged in this sort of disturbing behavior. As far back as August, 2010, Austan Goolsbee, then the President’s chief economic advisor, made public comments concerning Koch’s tax status and falsely stated that the company did not pay income tax, which triggered a federal investigation into Mr. Goolsbee’s conduct that potentially implicated federal law against improper disclosure of taxpayer information. Last June, your colleagues sent fundraising letters disparaging us as “plotting oil men” bent on “misleading people” with “disinformation” in order to “smear” the President’s record. Those accusations were baseless and were made at the very same time the president was publicly calling for a more “civil conversation” in the country.
It is understandable that the President and his campaign may be “tired of hearing” that many Americans would rather not see the president re-elected. However, the inference is that you would prefer that citizens who disagree with the President and his policies refrain from voicing their own viewpoint. Clearly, that’s not the way a free society should operate.
We agree with the President that civil discourse is an American strength. That is why it is troubling to see a national political campaign apparently target individual citizens and private companies for some perceived political advantage. I also hope the President will reflect on how the approach the campaign is using is at odds with our national values and the constitutional right to free speech.
Sincerely,
Philip Ellender
President, Government & Public Affairs
Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC
SOURCE: Scott Johnson - Powerline
Dem Rep Kathy Hochul Admits Constitution not a Consideration Under Obamacare
February 25, 2012
Congresswoman Kathy Hochul (D-NY26) held a town hall meeting and was asked where in the Constitution the government is granted the right to force insurance companies to give away contraception for free. Hochul probably regrets how she phrased her answer. No doubt she was telling the truth, but it’s probably not a good idea to go around broadcasting it.
“Well, basically, we’re not looking to the Constitution on that aspect of it.”
She also said Congress decided health care is a right.
Freedom’s Lighthouse has more information.
SOURCE: Lonely Conservative
Congresswoman Kathy Hochul (D-NY26) held a town hall meeting and was asked where in the Constitution the government is granted the right to force insurance companies to give away contraception for free. Hochul probably regrets how she phrased her answer. No doubt she was telling the truth, but it’s probably not a good idea to go around broadcasting it.
“Well, basically, we’re not looking to the Constitution on that aspect of it.”
She also said Congress decided health care is a right.
Freedom’s Lighthouse has more information.
SOURCE: Lonely Conservative
Facebook spies on phone users' text messages, report says
2.26.12
LONDON – Internet giant Facebook is accessing smartphone users' personal text messages, an investigation revealed Sunday.
Facebook admitted reading text messages belonging to smartphone users who downloaded the social-networking app and said that it was accessing the data as part of a trial to launch its own messaging service, The (London) Sunday Times reported.
Other well-known companies accessing smartphone users' personal data -- such as text messages -- include photo-sharing site Flickr, dating site Badoo and Yahoo Messenger, the paper said.
It claimed that some apps even allow companies to intercept phone calls -- while others, such as YouTube, are capable of remotely accessing and operating users' smartphone cameras to take photographs or videos at any time.
Security app My Remote Lock and the app Tennis Juggling Game were among smaller companies' apps that may intercept users' calls, the paper said.
Emma Draper, of the Privacy International campaign group, said, "Your personal information is a precious commodity, and companies will go to great lengths to get their hands on as much of it as possible."
More than 400,000 apps can be downloaded to Android phones, and more than 500,000 are available for iPhones -- with all apps downloaded from Apple's App Store covered by the same terms and conditions policy.
According to a YouGov poll for the newspaper, 70 percent of smartphone users rarely or never read the terms and conditions policy when they download an app.
SOURCE: NewsCore
LONDON – Internet giant Facebook is accessing smartphone users' personal text messages, an investigation revealed Sunday.
Facebook admitted reading text messages belonging to smartphone users who downloaded the social-networking app and said that it was accessing the data as part of a trial to launch its own messaging service, The (London) Sunday Times reported.
Other well-known companies accessing smartphone users' personal data -- such as text messages -- include photo-sharing site Flickr, dating site Badoo and Yahoo Messenger, the paper said.
It claimed that some apps even allow companies to intercept phone calls -- while others, such as YouTube, are capable of remotely accessing and operating users' smartphone cameras to take photographs or videos at any time.
Security app My Remote Lock and the app Tennis Juggling Game were among smaller companies' apps that may intercept users' calls, the paper said.
Emma Draper, of the Privacy International campaign group, said, "Your personal information is a precious commodity, and companies will go to great lengths to get their hands on as much of it as possible."
More than 400,000 apps can be downloaded to Android phones, and more than 500,000 are available for iPhones -- with all apps downloaded from Apple's App Store covered by the same terms and conditions policy.
According to a YouGov poll for the newspaper, 70 percent of smartphone users rarely or never read the terms and conditions policy when they download an app.
SOURCE: NewsCore
Firewall break leads China web surfers to Obama's Google+ page
Chinese web surfers found a way into Google+ and on to Obama's campaign page
2.26.12
A break in software known as the Great Firewall, has allowed people in China access to the forbidden Google+, the BBC reported.
They've been using their new found freedom to leave a few hundred or so messages for President Obama on his Google+ page.
"The expressions contributors used were in the style of mainland China and in simplified Chinese," the BBC said. It noted that some people made jokes, while others were more serious, asking for liberty in the case of civil rights activist Chen Guangcheng, who is under house arrest.
"Many people don't understand the meaning why all Chinese are coming here. We envy American people their democracy and freedom," Agence France-Presse quoted one poster as saying.
Google+ is among the social media sites that are typically blocked in China. Still, somehow Google+ appeared to become available through some users' mobile devices, AFP said.
More from GlobalPost: China government pushes for real names online
SOURCE: Global Post
2.26.12
A break in software known as the Great Firewall, has allowed people in China access to the forbidden Google+, the BBC reported.
They've been using their new found freedom to leave a few hundred or so messages for President Obama on his Google+ page.
"The expressions contributors used were in the style of mainland China and in simplified Chinese," the BBC said. It noted that some people made jokes, while others were more serious, asking for liberty in the case of civil rights activist Chen Guangcheng, who is under house arrest.
"Many people don't understand the meaning why all Chinese are coming here. We envy American people their democracy and freedom," Agence France-Presse quoted one poster as saying.
Google+ is among the social media sites that are typically blocked in China. Still, somehow Google+ appeared to become available through some users' mobile devices, AFP said.
More from GlobalPost: China government pushes for real names online
SOURCE: Global Post
Congress Tried to Change Natural Born Citizen Clause Over and Over
Our Congress worked diligently to change our Constitution’s Natural Born Citizen Clause and failed eight times between 2003 and 2008 – all in an effort to pave the way for their rising star, and unconstitutional candidate, Barack Obama. Fortunately, others in Congress worked just as diligently to kill the legislation, but have remained silent on other issues of Obama’s standing. I hope you listen to the most disturbing portion of the video at about 8 minutes-in, about the Supreme Court. If Congressman Dana Rohrabacher is your representative, please look below for the question I hope you will ask him.
Those attempting, through legislation, to change the Natural Born Citizen Clause (World Net Daily):
June 11, 2003, Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., broughtHJR 59.It was intended to “permit persons who are not natural born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of presidentandvicepresident.”
Sept. 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., brought HJR67, which would have done the same as Snyder’s, only the requirement to be a citizen was lowered to 20 years.
Feb. 25, 2004, Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., brought S.B. 2128 to “try to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural born citizen requirement.” But it defined NBC as someone who was born in and is subject to the United States,” which was not the understanding of the framers of the Constitution.
Sept. 15, 2004, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., brought HJR 104,“to make eligible for the office of president a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.”
Jan. 4, 2005, Conyers, D-Mich., HJR2, the same as Rohrabacher’s.
Feb. 1, 2005, HJR15, Rohrabacher, to require only 20 years citizenship to be eligible for the office of president.
April 14, 2005, Snyder, HJR42, requiring 35 years’ citizenship.
Feb. 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., tried to attach to SB 2678, Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, an amendment clarifying what “natural-born citizen” includes. Obama and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., were sponsors.
After Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama issued their non-binding resolution stating that John McCain was a Natural Born Citizen (which was never in question), there was language in that statement that Congress continually uses to prop-up Obama’s legitimacy:
Whereas the term natural born citizen as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is not defined in the Constitution of US…”
Congress has decided that the U.S. Constitution does not define Natural Born Citizenship. Did you know that? So who does? Friends, they are getting away with this unbelievable subversion of the Constitution and the Supreme Court is helping them!
At 7:20mins-in: Just a few days before Obama is sworn into office, Obama meets with Supreme Court Justices, 8 out of 9 of them, in a closed session meetings. This was done while there were now cases pending before the Supreme Court concerning Obama’s eligibility. Justice Samuel Alito was strangely missing. There were no reporters and attorneys invited on behalf of the plaintiffs who had cases pending. Neither the Supreme Court nor any other federal court, or any court for that matter, has heard a single case on merit concerning Obama’s citizenship challenge.
Not a single expert has come forward to proclaim Obama’s latest birth certificate legitimate. This World Net Daily article goes over the lingering questions and quotes Michael Isikoff, a well-known NBC News investigator:
Perhaps most significant, two weeks before Obama finally released his “long-form birth certificate,” Hawaii’s former Health Department chief Chiyome Fukino – the one official who claimed to have examined Obama’s original birth document – was interviewed by NBC News’ national investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff, who reported that Fukino told him she had seen the original birth certificate and that it was “half typed and half handwritten.”
In this video, you see Republican Congressman Leonard Lance (R-NJ) in a Townhall, asked what he would do if he believed Obama was unconstitutionally in office. He first says, Lance’s only answer is that he wants to focus elsewhere. Twice he asked, and twice he answers the same.
In the same article, you will read that Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) told a constituent he believed Obama met requirements as “set forth by the U.S. State Department!!! (not the Constitution).
The same article says the Congressional Research Services has issued a memo to Congress, instructing them on how to stand-up for Obama’s eligibility.
There is only one way the American people has allowed these attempts to change the Constitution’s natural-born requirement, and that is by electing Democrat Socialist/Communist-leaning to Congress. Via Doctor Bulldog & Ronin, comes this from Canada Free Press:
Conyers’ congressional office manages an Arabic version of his official website. Reportedly he does the bidding of these inner-city constituents and the militant Islamist activists who feed off them.
They want to squash the Patriot Act and put a leash on the FBI agents, including stopping them from profiling Muslim suspects in terror investigations. They also want to end the use of undisclosed evidence against suspected Arab terrorists in deportation proceedings even if they are in the country illegally. And the 77-year-old Conyers has vowed to deliver those changes for them.
In January 2003 he was the only member of Congress to speak before, and lend his prestige to, an anti-war rally organized by the Marxist-Leninist, pro-North Korean front group International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Rep. Rangel also addressed the rally but not in person — via a letter read by another speaker.) Conyers embraced his comrades in this group with the same enthusiasm and support he gave during the Cold War to the Soviet-backed World Peace Council.
In a New York Times opinion piece he co-authored with Marcus Raskin, co-founder of the extreme left-wing think-tank the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), Conyers asserted that “government’s responsibility is to revitalize the nation’s economy through creative forms of public ownership” — in other words, through socialism.
As I reported earlier on these pages, Rep Conyers is the highest ranking politico working to free Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted murderer of a Philadelphia police officer. Conyers has been a National Executive Board member of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), which was originally created as a Soviet front and still embraces its Communist heritage.
Conyers is one of the top recipients of donations from the Arab-American Leadership PAC. And not surprisingly, he has a long history of pandering to Arab and Muslim voters, according to Investors Business Daily.
During the first Gulf War, for instance, Conyers fought FBI outreach efforts in the Arab and Muslim community in Detroit that were designed to gather intelligence on potential cells and protect the home front. Conyers and other Detroit-area Democrats at the time, David Bonior and John Dingell, threatened to hold hearings unless the FBI stopped counterterrorism interviews.
The FBI met with them privately to explain the national security benefits of outreach, but could not allay their concerns. In the end, the FBI backed off. Today, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Al-Qaeda-tied Muslim Brotherhood are all active in the area.
Conyers bears the distinction of being the Congressman who has missed more votes than any other Congressman.
Rep. Vic Snyder did not stand for election in 2010. He was succeeded in Arkansas’ 2nd District by Republican Timothy Griffin.
Sen. Clair McCaskill’s 2678, said any child born to “any” U.S. citizen while serving in active or reserve components of the Armed Forces, would automatically be a natural born citizen of the U.S. What can we say about Sen. Claire McCaskill? She has a large military presence in her state of Missouri, but I think it safe to say, the majority of our military will not want a non-natural born citizen eligible for the presidency.
If Dana Rohrabacher (California District 46) is your representative, please call his office and ask what the heck he was thinking, and does he still, today, believe a president should be eligible for office after coming to this country from elsewhere, and living here only 20 years. (Areas included in District 46: Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Seal Beach, Avalon, Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills, Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills Estates and portions of Long Beach, Westminster, Santa Ana and San Pedro.)
Remember that Obama has spent MILLIONS to successfully block ALL of his identifying records. Elections have consequences, and those consequences must come down on the side of constitutionality. In particular, we must pay attention to the Senate races in 2012. They may well be a critical as replacing the presidency.
Others talking about Obama’s ineligibility:
Uncoverage: How Congress Gave Us an “Unconstitutional” President
Smart Girl Politics: Illegal Obama “Propped Up” By Congress
Thanks to The New United States Publishing for the graphic.
SOURCE: Maggie - Maggie's Notebook
Those attempting, through legislation, to change the Natural Born Citizen Clause (World Net Daily):
June 11, 2003, Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., broughtHJR 59.It was intended to “permit persons who are not natural born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of presidentandvicepresident.”
Sept. 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., brought HJR67, which would have done the same as Snyder’s, only the requirement to be a citizen was lowered to 20 years.
Feb. 25, 2004, Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., brought S.B. 2128 to “try to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural born citizen requirement.” But it defined NBC as someone who was born in and is subject to the United States,” which was not the understanding of the framers of the Constitution.
Sept. 15, 2004, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., brought HJR 104,“to make eligible for the office of president a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.”
Jan. 4, 2005, Conyers, D-Mich., HJR2, the same as Rohrabacher’s.
Feb. 1, 2005, HJR15, Rohrabacher, to require only 20 years citizenship to be eligible for the office of president.
April 14, 2005, Snyder, HJR42, requiring 35 years’ citizenship.
Feb. 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., tried to attach to SB 2678, Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, an amendment clarifying what “natural-born citizen” includes. Obama and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., were sponsors.
After Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama issued their non-binding resolution stating that John McCain was a Natural Born Citizen (which was never in question), there was language in that statement that Congress continually uses to prop-up Obama’s legitimacy:
Whereas the term natural born citizen as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is not defined in the Constitution of US…”
Congress has decided that the U.S. Constitution does not define Natural Born Citizenship. Did you know that? So who does? Friends, they are getting away with this unbelievable subversion of the Constitution and the Supreme Court is helping them!
At 7:20mins-in: Just a few days before Obama is sworn into office, Obama meets with Supreme Court Justices, 8 out of 9 of them, in a closed session meetings. This was done while there were now cases pending before the Supreme Court concerning Obama’s eligibility. Justice Samuel Alito was strangely missing. There were no reporters and attorneys invited on behalf of the plaintiffs who had cases pending. Neither the Supreme Court nor any other federal court, or any court for that matter, has heard a single case on merit concerning Obama’s citizenship challenge.
Not a single expert has come forward to proclaim Obama’s latest birth certificate legitimate. This World Net Daily article goes over the lingering questions and quotes Michael Isikoff, a well-known NBC News investigator:
Perhaps most significant, two weeks before Obama finally released his “long-form birth certificate,” Hawaii’s former Health Department chief Chiyome Fukino – the one official who claimed to have examined Obama’s original birth document – was interviewed by NBC News’ national investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff, who reported that Fukino told him she had seen the original birth certificate and that it was “half typed and half handwritten.”
In this video, you see Republican Congressman Leonard Lance (R-NJ) in a Townhall, asked what he would do if he believed Obama was unconstitutionally in office. He first says, Lance’s only answer is that he wants to focus elsewhere. Twice he asked, and twice he answers the same.
In the same article, you will read that Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) told a constituent he believed Obama met requirements as “set forth by the U.S. State Department!!! (not the Constitution).
The same article says the Congressional Research Services has issued a memo to Congress, instructing them on how to stand-up for Obama’s eligibility.
There is only one way the American people has allowed these attempts to change the Constitution’s natural-born requirement, and that is by electing Democrat Socialist/Communist-leaning to Congress. Via Doctor Bulldog & Ronin, comes this from Canada Free Press:
Conyers’ congressional office manages an Arabic version of his official website. Reportedly he does the bidding of these inner-city constituents and the militant Islamist activists who feed off them.
They want to squash the Patriot Act and put a leash on the FBI agents, including stopping them from profiling Muslim suspects in terror investigations. They also want to end the use of undisclosed evidence against suspected Arab terrorists in deportation proceedings even if they are in the country illegally. And the 77-year-old Conyers has vowed to deliver those changes for them.
In January 2003 he was the only member of Congress to speak before, and lend his prestige to, an anti-war rally organized by the Marxist-Leninist, pro-North Korean front group International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Rep. Rangel also addressed the rally but not in person — via a letter read by another speaker.) Conyers embraced his comrades in this group with the same enthusiasm and support he gave during the Cold War to the Soviet-backed World Peace Council.
In a New York Times opinion piece he co-authored with Marcus Raskin, co-founder of the extreme left-wing think-tank the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), Conyers asserted that “government’s responsibility is to revitalize the nation’s economy through creative forms of public ownership” — in other words, through socialism.
As I reported earlier on these pages, Rep Conyers is the highest ranking politico working to free Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted murderer of a Philadelphia police officer. Conyers has been a National Executive Board member of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), which was originally created as a Soviet front and still embraces its Communist heritage.
Conyers is one of the top recipients of donations from the Arab-American Leadership PAC. And not surprisingly, he has a long history of pandering to Arab and Muslim voters, according to Investors Business Daily.
During the first Gulf War, for instance, Conyers fought FBI outreach efforts in the Arab and Muslim community in Detroit that were designed to gather intelligence on potential cells and protect the home front. Conyers and other Detroit-area Democrats at the time, David Bonior and John Dingell, threatened to hold hearings unless the FBI stopped counterterrorism interviews.
The FBI met with them privately to explain the national security benefits of outreach, but could not allay their concerns. In the end, the FBI backed off. Today, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Al-Qaeda-tied Muslim Brotherhood are all active in the area.
Conyers bears the distinction of being the Congressman who has missed more votes than any other Congressman.
Rep. Vic Snyder did not stand for election in 2010. He was succeeded in Arkansas’ 2nd District by Republican Timothy Griffin.
Sen. Clair McCaskill’s 2678, said any child born to “any” U.S. citizen while serving in active or reserve components of the Armed Forces, would automatically be a natural born citizen of the U.S. What can we say about Sen. Claire McCaskill? She has a large military presence in her state of Missouri, but I think it safe to say, the majority of our military will not want a non-natural born citizen eligible for the presidency.
If Dana Rohrabacher (California District 46) is your representative, please call his office and ask what the heck he was thinking, and does he still, today, believe a president should be eligible for office after coming to this country from elsewhere, and living here only 20 years. (Areas included in District 46: Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Seal Beach, Avalon, Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills, Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills Estates and portions of Long Beach, Westminster, Santa Ana and San Pedro.)
Remember that Obama has spent MILLIONS to successfully block ALL of his identifying records. Elections have consequences, and those consequences must come down on the side of constitutionality. In particular, we must pay attention to the Senate races in 2012. They may well be a critical as replacing the presidency.
Others talking about Obama’s ineligibility:
Uncoverage: How Congress Gave Us an “Unconstitutional” President
Smart Girl Politics: Illegal Obama “Propped Up” By Congress
Thanks to The New United States Publishing for the graphic.
SOURCE: Maggie - Maggie's Notebook
Uncivil Rights
The civil rights movement is a success story, so much so that any and every movement has found that it can borrow the narrative and tactics of it to ram through whatever measures it likes. And so we come to the year 2012 where civil rights means men in dresses having the right to use the ladies room and the right of terrorist groups to be free from police scrutiny-- among many other equally insane "rights".
Much as the Civil Rights movement went from trying to reverse legal inequality embedded in law to trying to enforce an equality of outcome in every sphere from the commercial to the educational to the social by depriving others of their rights, succeeding movements have borrowed the narrative of inequality and the tactics of achieving equal outcomes, even when such outcomes are physically impossible.
We are for example obligated to believe that surgical intervention can transform women into men and that the only differences between the two can be eliminated with a few incisions and a few hormones. Applying the civil rights model moves the question from the realms of science and philosophy to the moral absolutism of resisting oppression. And that is the left's home field.
The left is constantly on the prowl for the oppressed, even if the new oppressed are men who want to use the ladies room. And the oppressed can never be denied anything they want, instead there is an affirmative obligation on the entitled people who are not confused about which bathroom they want to use, to prove that they are granting every possible privilege and courtesy to the bewildered and confused.
Guilty until proven innocent is the new approach. It is not enough to not actively discriminate, we must prove that we are not discriminating by meeting our diversity quotas. We are forced to become the Stakhanovites of political correctness, exceeding our diversity quotas as a model to the nation. That means everyplace must look exactly like "America", a phrase that is best interpreted as meaning that every workplace must look like the ones on television. And every ladies room must have at least one man in a dress.
Very little of this has to do with the kind of rights that were fought for from Appomattox to Selma. Instead individual freedom and equality before the law has been twisted to justify a state of legal inequality and the deprivation of individual freedoms. Rather than a color-blind society, we have achieved a color conscious society in which everyone knows their place on the great ladder of diversity.
Slavery has not gone away, we are just confronted with it on a day to day basis. Our slaves live in China or in Africa. They serve the same purposes that slaves did before the Civil War, they make things cheaply so that they can be sold cheaply. The only difference is that we rarely pass them on the street or see advertisements for slave auctions.
There is still slavery even in the United States. Mexican and Chinese laborers whose families are held hostage back home, and prosperous Muslim families who bring along their tradition of the house slave, often teenage girls who are treated little better than dogs. But the slave owners are generally members of the same race and culture as the slaves, which makes the entire affair beneath the notice of the political commissars of political correctness.
Open borders brings slavery to the United States, as surely as it brings terrorism and drugs, and it serves the interests of the Democratic Party now, just as it did then. The commercial interests allied with the Democratic Party touched off race riots aimed at blacks in New York and other cities to undermine Lincoln and sabotage the Civil War. A century later they were doing the same thing, only from the opposite racial angle. Back then they needed cheap labor inside the country to turn out exports, today they need cheap labor outside the country to bring in imports.
Today slavery goes on in the name of civil rights. As do many other evils. The term itself no longer has any meaning as its only application is to a government overseen caste system which awards certain privileges on a percent basis. The right to vote, to own property and to own arms has given way to a place on a diversity ladder where privileges are granted in exchange for the endorsement of legal inequality.
Any group is now able to represent its agenda as a new civil rights movement, all it has to do is identify a form of access that it wants and to demand that the courts force any and all to grant that access. Even if it to the ladies room.
The farcical pursuit of statistically equal outcomes led to a Dadaistic election in Port Chester where a Federal judge compelled the village to give all voters six votes in order to elect more minorities. The ability to cast six votes for one candidate certainly proved to be a boon for single-race voting, Maybe next time the village can give every person a hundred votes for a truly democratic solution to the inherent racism of the one man-one vote system.
What's wrong with one man-one vote anyway? The proof is in the pudding. If a system doesn't lead to a diverse enough group of winners, that is proof that it is discriminatory. The outcome is the only proof that is needed to convict a person, a company or a system.
If the outcome is impossible, that's all the more reason to demand it. Gay marriage is a contradiction in terms, but thanks to activist federal judges who think the peasants have no right to vote on issues in referendums, it is well on the way to becoming the law of the land. And what if the outcome isn't impossible, just hideously expensive in terms of human life and dignity? That's what a stroll through your local airport is for, where Muslims cannot be touched, but small children and the disabled can.
Once we begin with the premise that Muslims are no more likely to be terrorists than the Amish, any outcome that says otherwise must be tossed out as a random case of workplace violence or telepathically transmitted PTSD. To monitor Muslims and Muslim groups as if they were more likely to fly planes into skyscrapers than Mennonites is discrimination, no matter how rationally based it may be. Better for thousands of Americans to die than for the tenets of liberalism to be challenged by common sense and statistical evidence.
And thus we have gone from a civil rights movement based on rejecting the absurd notion that race should limit voting rights to a civil rights movement based on an equally absurd notion that religious and ethnic differences play no role in religious and ethnically motivated violence.
When you are being compelled to believe absurdities, you know that something has gone very wrong in the process. It is also an easy way to mark the transition from a rights based movement to something else entirely. Generations after the death of Martin Luther King, we are being urged to accept sexually mutilating children as the next civil rights movement, and you can only guess at whether I am discussing sexual reassignment surgery for children or female genital mutilation for Muslims. And it really makes no difference. Either one is an equally valid horror show that shows how far into the ditch we have gone.
The latest affirmative action case to come before the Supreme Court once again revisits the perversion of civil rights to mean a system of color based quotas. The Court's own rejection of any such system for whites should have innately disqualified such a system as applied to any race or combination of races. Instead we are still having the same old debates over whether discrimination can ever be justified, with the civil rights movement coming out on the side of discrimination.
We have done an excellent job of creating a society where people can be judged on the color of their skin, not on the content of their character. And the judging is being done by the Federal government to a greater degree than it was before the Civil War. This has not led to the great prize of integration, rather it has deepened the balkanization that the Democratic political machine has always set as its objective, from the days when their thugs were storming black orphanages to when their pet banks oversaw the ghettoization and later the destruction of neighborhoods along racial lines.
Power has always trumped justice. Power is not about race, it is about the exploitation of human beings. It is about playing divide and conquer at every level of society, creating and enforcing permanent divisions, even and especially when they are being carried under the guise of an integration program.
A justice based civil rights program was always unsustainable because it offered too few rewards. Equality was the decent thing, but it was not the profitable thing, neither for the government nor for the activists. Instead the status quo was transformed into a mandate for absolute power, there was to be a permanent crisis of race that could never be resolved, but which always had to receive top priority and which could justify any violation of civil rights.
The only way to save the village was to destroy the village, or to give everyone in the village six votes. The only way to implement civil rights was to destroy civil rights in the name of civil rights so that everyone ends up with fewer rights, but learns to feel good about it. This has been the pattern for every civil rights movement since which demands its special privileges. Having run out of races, we are now pandering to such bizarre notions as sexual identity as genetic and permanently fixed, yet existing entirely apart from the body of the person, and that religiously motivated terrorism exists entirely apart from the religion.
This isn't post-modernism, it's post-reason. It's post-everything. The left has always sought out the taboo and the transgressive, but as a society we are swiftly running out of transgressions to embrace and protect with government legislation. The more tolerant that Americans grudgingly become in the name of decency, the harder the commissars of correctness have to search for some new bigotry to charge them with.
We can look to Europe as a model for the future. In France you can marry the dead. In Spain, apes have received human rights. In the United Kingdom, immigrants from within the European Union are receiving refugee status. Alexander wept because he had no more lands to conquer. The degenerate and demented Eurocratic descendants of his empire weep because they haven't figured out how to marry, give human rights and refugee status to their own tables and chairs.
At war are two models of human rights. The negative model which limits government interference with the individual and the positive one in which government enforces its notion of human rights on everyone to achieve a perfect outcome society. The negative model gets government off our backs, the positive one brings government into our schools, our workplaces, our bedrooms, our trash cans and into our minds.
The negative model limits government seizure of human rights by creating a firewall, while its positive twin not only has no firewall, but is a recipe for the unlimited expansion of government and the unlimited deprivation of legal rights, so long as it is done in the name of ensuring civil rights. The positive rights model puts a system that is built for taking away rights in charge of guaranteeing them. The results are as ugly as they are inevitable.
Rights do not come from the exercise of government power, but from the restraint of government power. Once an infrastructure is created to redistribute positive outcomes, the only true beneficiaries of that infrastructure will be the organizers and the administrators. Even that system will be built to fail because the administrations only fully benefit from the system when it does not work properly. To the extent that it works properly the administrations will always be on the lookout for more excuses to justify the expansion of their power. More groups to protect. More civil rights to safeguard. Until no one has any rights at all.
SOURCE: Daniel Greenfield - Sultan Knish
Much as the Civil Rights movement went from trying to reverse legal inequality embedded in law to trying to enforce an equality of outcome in every sphere from the commercial to the educational to the social by depriving others of their rights, succeeding movements have borrowed the narrative of inequality and the tactics of achieving equal outcomes, even when such outcomes are physically impossible.
We are for example obligated to believe that surgical intervention can transform women into men and that the only differences between the two can be eliminated with a few incisions and a few hormones. Applying the civil rights model moves the question from the realms of science and philosophy to the moral absolutism of resisting oppression. And that is the left's home field.
The left is constantly on the prowl for the oppressed, even if the new oppressed are men who want to use the ladies room. And the oppressed can never be denied anything they want, instead there is an affirmative obligation on the entitled people who are not confused about which bathroom they want to use, to prove that they are granting every possible privilege and courtesy to the bewildered and confused.
Guilty until proven innocent is the new approach. It is not enough to not actively discriminate, we must prove that we are not discriminating by meeting our diversity quotas. We are forced to become the Stakhanovites of political correctness, exceeding our diversity quotas as a model to the nation. That means everyplace must look exactly like "America", a phrase that is best interpreted as meaning that every workplace must look like the ones on television. And every ladies room must have at least one man in a dress.
Very little of this has to do with the kind of rights that were fought for from Appomattox to Selma. Instead individual freedom and equality before the law has been twisted to justify a state of legal inequality and the deprivation of individual freedoms. Rather than a color-blind society, we have achieved a color conscious society in which everyone knows their place on the great ladder of diversity.
Slavery has not gone away, we are just confronted with it on a day to day basis. Our slaves live in China or in Africa. They serve the same purposes that slaves did before the Civil War, they make things cheaply so that they can be sold cheaply. The only difference is that we rarely pass them on the street or see advertisements for slave auctions.
There is still slavery even in the United States. Mexican and Chinese laborers whose families are held hostage back home, and prosperous Muslim families who bring along their tradition of the house slave, often teenage girls who are treated little better than dogs. But the slave owners are generally members of the same race and culture as the slaves, which makes the entire affair beneath the notice of the political commissars of political correctness.
Open borders brings slavery to the United States, as surely as it brings terrorism and drugs, and it serves the interests of the Democratic Party now, just as it did then. The commercial interests allied with the Democratic Party touched off race riots aimed at blacks in New York and other cities to undermine Lincoln and sabotage the Civil War. A century later they were doing the same thing, only from the opposite racial angle. Back then they needed cheap labor inside the country to turn out exports, today they need cheap labor outside the country to bring in imports.
Today slavery goes on in the name of civil rights. As do many other evils. The term itself no longer has any meaning as its only application is to a government overseen caste system which awards certain privileges on a percent basis. The right to vote, to own property and to own arms has given way to a place on a diversity ladder where privileges are granted in exchange for the endorsement of legal inequality.
Any group is now able to represent its agenda as a new civil rights movement, all it has to do is identify a form of access that it wants and to demand that the courts force any and all to grant that access. Even if it to the ladies room.
The farcical pursuit of statistically equal outcomes led to a Dadaistic election in Port Chester where a Federal judge compelled the village to give all voters six votes in order to elect more minorities. The ability to cast six votes for one candidate certainly proved to be a boon for single-race voting, Maybe next time the village can give every person a hundred votes for a truly democratic solution to the inherent racism of the one man-one vote system.
What's wrong with one man-one vote anyway? The proof is in the pudding. If a system doesn't lead to a diverse enough group of winners, that is proof that it is discriminatory. The outcome is the only proof that is needed to convict a person, a company or a system.
If the outcome is impossible, that's all the more reason to demand it. Gay marriage is a contradiction in terms, but thanks to activist federal judges who think the peasants have no right to vote on issues in referendums, it is well on the way to becoming the law of the land. And what if the outcome isn't impossible, just hideously expensive in terms of human life and dignity? That's what a stroll through your local airport is for, where Muslims cannot be touched, but small children and the disabled can.
Once we begin with the premise that Muslims are no more likely to be terrorists than the Amish, any outcome that says otherwise must be tossed out as a random case of workplace violence or telepathically transmitted PTSD. To monitor Muslims and Muslim groups as if they were more likely to fly planes into skyscrapers than Mennonites is discrimination, no matter how rationally based it may be. Better for thousands of Americans to die than for the tenets of liberalism to be challenged by common sense and statistical evidence.
And thus we have gone from a civil rights movement based on rejecting the absurd notion that race should limit voting rights to a civil rights movement based on an equally absurd notion that religious and ethnic differences play no role in religious and ethnically motivated violence.
When you are being compelled to believe absurdities, you know that something has gone very wrong in the process. It is also an easy way to mark the transition from a rights based movement to something else entirely. Generations after the death of Martin Luther King, we are being urged to accept sexually mutilating children as the next civil rights movement, and you can only guess at whether I am discussing sexual reassignment surgery for children or female genital mutilation for Muslims. And it really makes no difference. Either one is an equally valid horror show that shows how far into the ditch we have gone.
The latest affirmative action case to come before the Supreme Court once again revisits the perversion of civil rights to mean a system of color based quotas. The Court's own rejection of any such system for whites should have innately disqualified such a system as applied to any race or combination of races. Instead we are still having the same old debates over whether discrimination can ever be justified, with the civil rights movement coming out on the side of discrimination.
We have done an excellent job of creating a society where people can be judged on the color of their skin, not on the content of their character. And the judging is being done by the Federal government to a greater degree than it was before the Civil War. This has not led to the great prize of integration, rather it has deepened the balkanization that the Democratic political machine has always set as its objective, from the days when their thugs were storming black orphanages to when their pet banks oversaw the ghettoization and later the destruction of neighborhoods along racial lines.
Power has always trumped justice. Power is not about race, it is about the exploitation of human beings. It is about playing divide and conquer at every level of society, creating and enforcing permanent divisions, even and especially when they are being carried under the guise of an integration program.
A justice based civil rights program was always unsustainable because it offered too few rewards. Equality was the decent thing, but it was not the profitable thing, neither for the government nor for the activists. Instead the status quo was transformed into a mandate for absolute power, there was to be a permanent crisis of race that could never be resolved, but which always had to receive top priority and which could justify any violation of civil rights.
The only way to save the village was to destroy the village, or to give everyone in the village six votes. The only way to implement civil rights was to destroy civil rights in the name of civil rights so that everyone ends up with fewer rights, but learns to feel good about it. This has been the pattern for every civil rights movement since which demands its special privileges. Having run out of races, we are now pandering to such bizarre notions as sexual identity as genetic and permanently fixed, yet existing entirely apart from the body of the person, and that religiously motivated terrorism exists entirely apart from the religion.
This isn't post-modernism, it's post-reason. It's post-everything. The left has always sought out the taboo and the transgressive, but as a society we are swiftly running out of transgressions to embrace and protect with government legislation. The more tolerant that Americans grudgingly become in the name of decency, the harder the commissars of correctness have to search for some new bigotry to charge them with.
We can look to Europe as a model for the future. In France you can marry the dead. In Spain, apes have received human rights. In the United Kingdom, immigrants from within the European Union are receiving refugee status. Alexander wept because he had no more lands to conquer. The degenerate and demented Eurocratic descendants of his empire weep because they haven't figured out how to marry, give human rights and refugee status to their own tables and chairs.
At war are two models of human rights. The negative model which limits government interference with the individual and the positive one in which government enforces its notion of human rights on everyone to achieve a perfect outcome society. The negative model gets government off our backs, the positive one brings government into our schools, our workplaces, our bedrooms, our trash cans and into our minds.
The negative model limits government seizure of human rights by creating a firewall, while its positive twin not only has no firewall, but is a recipe for the unlimited expansion of government and the unlimited deprivation of legal rights, so long as it is done in the name of ensuring civil rights. The positive rights model puts a system that is built for taking away rights in charge of guaranteeing them. The results are as ugly as they are inevitable.
Rights do not come from the exercise of government power, but from the restraint of government power. Once an infrastructure is created to redistribute positive outcomes, the only true beneficiaries of that infrastructure will be the organizers and the administrators. Even that system will be built to fail because the administrations only fully benefit from the system when it does not work properly. To the extent that it works properly the administrations will always be on the lookout for more excuses to justify the expansion of their power. More groups to protect. More civil rights to safeguard. Until no one has any rights at all.
SOURCE: Daniel Greenfield - Sultan Knish
California Democrats push pension plan for nongovernment workers
Friday, Feb. 24, 2012
One day after Republicans sided with Gov. Jerry Brown on public pension reform, Democrats on Thursday said they want millions of Californians to have guaranteed retirement benefits.
Senate Bill 1234, written by Sen. Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, would require businesses with five or more employees to enroll them in a new "Personal Pension" defined benefit program or to offer an alternative employer-sponsored plan.
The new system's investments would be professionally managed by CalPERS or another contracted organization. Employees would contribute about 3 percent of their wages through a payroll deduction, although they could opt out of the plan. Employers could make voluntary contributions into the fund.
The fund would assume much lower investment returns than the 7.75 percent that the California Public Employees' Retirement System says its investments will generate, de León said.
Unlike public pension funds that can pass on their investment shortfalls to taxpayers, private underwriters would assume any losses by the private sector fund.
"It's a supplement to Social Security. It's not a panacea," de León said during a Thursday morning press event with Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and other Democratic and labor leaders.
The UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education figures about 62 percent of working Californians – more than 7 million people – have no retirement savings through their employer. If all of them put 3 percent of their wages into a retirement fund, the pot of money would grow to $6.6 billion in the first year, say university researchers.
The measure still has several details to work out, but assuming that money is deposited before being taxed, the state would lose some revenue but regain it later when the funds are withdrawn and spent in retirement.
A few years ago de León introduced similar savings jump-start legislation that would have put private sector workers into 401(k)-type savings plans instead of the fixed payments guaranteed in his new bill. Both sides of the aisle rejected it, he said.
De León rolled out his revised plan one day after Republicans co-opted Brown's 12-point pension reform plan and offered it up, word-for-word as their own legislation.
Steinberg rejected suggestions that Democrats are pushing de León's bill to fend off pressure to enact substantial public pension changes.
"Absolutely not. We're not running away from it," Steinberg said, calling de León's bill the private sector "bookend" to public pension reform measures he expects lawmakers will send to Brown before the current session ends.
SOURCE: Jon Ortiz - The Sacramento Bee
One day after Republicans sided with Gov. Jerry Brown on public pension reform, Democrats on Thursday said they want millions of Californians to have guaranteed retirement benefits.
Senate Bill 1234, written by Sen. Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, would require businesses with five or more employees to enroll them in a new "Personal Pension" defined benefit program or to offer an alternative employer-sponsored plan.
The new system's investments would be professionally managed by CalPERS or another contracted organization. Employees would contribute about 3 percent of their wages through a payroll deduction, although they could opt out of the plan. Employers could make voluntary contributions into the fund.
The fund would assume much lower investment returns than the 7.75 percent that the California Public Employees' Retirement System says its investments will generate, de León said.
Unlike public pension funds that can pass on their investment shortfalls to taxpayers, private underwriters would assume any losses by the private sector fund.
"It's a supplement to Social Security. It's not a panacea," de León said during a Thursday morning press event with Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and other Democratic and labor leaders.
The UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education figures about 62 percent of working Californians – more than 7 million people – have no retirement savings through their employer. If all of them put 3 percent of their wages into a retirement fund, the pot of money would grow to $6.6 billion in the first year, say university researchers.
The measure still has several details to work out, but assuming that money is deposited before being taxed, the state would lose some revenue but regain it later when the funds are withdrawn and spent in retirement.
A few years ago de León introduced similar savings jump-start legislation that would have put private sector workers into 401(k)-type savings plans instead of the fixed payments guaranteed in his new bill. Both sides of the aisle rejected it, he said.
De León rolled out his revised plan one day after Republicans co-opted Brown's 12-point pension reform plan and offered it up, word-for-word as their own legislation.
Steinberg rejected suggestions that Democrats are pushing de León's bill to fend off pressure to enact substantial public pension changes.
"Absolutely not. We're not running away from it," Steinberg said, calling de León's bill the private sector "bookend" to public pension reform measures he expects lawmakers will send to Brown before the current session ends.
SOURCE: Jon Ortiz - The Sacramento Bee
JUST IN TIME FOR THE ELECTION RUN-UP:
Authorities rank “sovereign citizen” movement among greatest threats
February 26, 2012
'Sovereign citizen' movement now on FBI's radar
The Homeland Security Department has ranked the movement as a major threat. Its members reject the law, and some kill police.
Reporting from Washington— With the FBI pounding on his door, and his wife and two children barely awake, Shawn Rice allegedly strapped on a bulletproof vest, grabbed a semiautomatic pistol and stepped out his back door on Dec. 22.
But dozens of FBI agents and local police had surrounded the ranch house in Seligman, Ariz., about 80 miles west of Flagstaff, and the only nearby cover was knee-high sagebrush. Rice ducked back inside, and warned the FBI to keep away.
After a tense 10-hour standoff, Rice, 49, was arrested. He now sits in a Las Vegas jail awaiting trial on federal money-laundering charges.
But it wasn't Rice's alleged offense alone that prompted the FBI's interest.
According to court papers, Rice was involved in the "sovereign citizen" movement, a group that has attracted little national media attention but which the FBI classifies as an "extremist antigovernment group." So-called sovereign citizens argue that they are not subject to local, state or federal laws, and some refuse to recognize the authority of courts or police.
Since 2000, members of the movement have killed six police officers, and clashes with law enforcement are on the rise, according to the FBI. The deadliest incident came in 2010, when a shootout with a member left four people dead, including two police officers, during what began as a routine traffic stop in West Memphis, Ark.
Since then, in a notable shift in policy, federal officials have stepped up their attention on sovereign citizens.
"We are focusing our efforts because of the threat of violence," said Stuart R. McArthur, a deputy assistant director in the FBI's Counterterrorism Division.
In two recent unpublished studies, the Homeland Security Department and the National Counterterrorism Center ranked the sovereign citizen movement as a major threat, along with Islamic extremists and white supremacists. The FBI assigned a supervisor to coordinate investigations of the movement last year.
"This is a movement that has absolutely exploded," said Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit organization based in Montgomery, Ala., that tracks domestic terrorists and hate groups. More than 100,000 Americans have aligned themselves with the sovereign citizens, the center said.
Adherents cite a patchwork of beliefs, including that the U.S. is essentially under martial law, that some U.S. constitutional amendments are invalid, and that dollars have been illegitimate since the U.S. Treasury went off the gold standard during the Great Depression.
Most important, some followers believe they are entitled to use armed force to resist arrest and fight police.
The FBI also is investigating followers for alleged mail fraud and harassment of federal officials through nuisance lawsuits and property liens. Such cases are clogging courts in every state, said Casey Carty, who heads the FBI's sovereign citizen unit.
Until recently, federal officials had steered clear of any extensive focus on right-wing extremist groups. In 2009, some members of Congress complained after a Homeland Security Department report warned that such groups might seek to recruit disaffected military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as others. The report highlighted several groups, including the sovereign citizen movement.
Bowing to the criticism, Homeland Security officials gutted the office that had focused on right-wing extremism. They also canceled planned presentations and shelved a reference guide that the office had produced to inform local police about the movement.
"The topic had become too politically charged," said Daryl Johnson, who headed the team that wrote the 2009 report.
That changed after the West Memphis shootout with Jerry Kane Jr., a sovereign citizen proponent who had traveled the country offering $100-a-head seminars that taught spurious ways to avoid paying taxes, among other movement tactics.
Kane and his 16-year-old son, Joseph, were killed in the shootout. Also killed was Police Sgt. Brandon Paudert, son of the local police chief, Bob Paudert.
Paudert had never heard of the sovereign citizen movement until that day. Now retired, he has spoken to more than 75 law enforcement groups around the country warning of its danger.
Paudert remains angry that Kane wasn't identified as potentially armed and dangerous in the FBI-run database that local police normally access for warrants and other data when they stop a vehicle. He wants the FBI to change the database to flag known sovereign citizen adherents.
"If we had that, [my son] would have immediately called for backup," Paudert said. "He would be alive today."
SOURCE: Brian Bennett - Los Angeles Times
February 26, 2012
'Sovereign citizen' movement now on FBI's radar
The Homeland Security Department has ranked the movement as a major threat. Its members reject the law, and some kill police.
Reporting from Washington— With the FBI pounding on his door, and his wife and two children barely awake, Shawn Rice allegedly strapped on a bulletproof vest, grabbed a semiautomatic pistol and stepped out his back door on Dec. 22.
But dozens of FBI agents and local police had surrounded the ranch house in Seligman, Ariz., about 80 miles west of Flagstaff, and the only nearby cover was knee-high sagebrush. Rice ducked back inside, and warned the FBI to keep away.
After a tense 10-hour standoff, Rice, 49, was arrested. He now sits in a Las Vegas jail awaiting trial on federal money-laundering charges.
But it wasn't Rice's alleged offense alone that prompted the FBI's interest.
According to court papers, Rice was involved in the "sovereign citizen" movement, a group that has attracted little national media attention but which the FBI classifies as an "extremist antigovernment group." So-called sovereign citizens argue that they are not subject to local, state or federal laws, and some refuse to recognize the authority of courts or police.
Since 2000, members of the movement have killed six police officers, and clashes with law enforcement are on the rise, according to the FBI. The deadliest incident came in 2010, when a shootout with a member left four people dead, including two police officers, during what began as a routine traffic stop in West Memphis, Ark.
Since then, in a notable shift in policy, federal officials have stepped up their attention on sovereign citizens.
"We are focusing our efforts because of the threat of violence," said Stuart R. McArthur, a deputy assistant director in the FBI's Counterterrorism Division.
In two recent unpublished studies, the Homeland Security Department and the National Counterterrorism Center ranked the sovereign citizen movement as a major threat, along with Islamic extremists and white supremacists. The FBI assigned a supervisor to coordinate investigations of the movement last year.
"This is a movement that has absolutely exploded," said Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit organization based in Montgomery, Ala., that tracks domestic terrorists and hate groups. More than 100,000 Americans have aligned themselves with the sovereign citizens, the center said.
Adherents cite a patchwork of beliefs, including that the U.S. is essentially under martial law, that some U.S. constitutional amendments are invalid, and that dollars have been illegitimate since the U.S. Treasury went off the gold standard during the Great Depression.
Most important, some followers believe they are entitled to use armed force to resist arrest and fight police.
The FBI also is investigating followers for alleged mail fraud and harassment of federal officials through nuisance lawsuits and property liens. Such cases are clogging courts in every state, said Casey Carty, who heads the FBI's sovereign citizen unit.
Until recently, federal officials had steered clear of any extensive focus on right-wing extremist groups. In 2009, some members of Congress complained after a Homeland Security Department report warned that such groups might seek to recruit disaffected military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as others. The report highlighted several groups, including the sovereign citizen movement.
Bowing to the criticism, Homeland Security officials gutted the office that had focused on right-wing extremism. They also canceled planned presentations and shelved a reference guide that the office had produced to inform local police about the movement.
"The topic had become too politically charged," said Daryl Johnson, who headed the team that wrote the 2009 report.
That changed after the West Memphis shootout with Jerry Kane Jr., a sovereign citizen proponent who had traveled the country offering $100-a-head seminars that taught spurious ways to avoid paying taxes, among other movement tactics.
Kane and his 16-year-old son, Joseph, were killed in the shootout. Also killed was Police Sgt. Brandon Paudert, son of the local police chief, Bob Paudert.
Paudert had never heard of the sovereign citizen movement until that day. Now retired, he has spoken to more than 75 law enforcement groups around the country warning of its danger.
Paudert remains angry that Kane wasn't identified as potentially armed and dangerous in the FBI-run database that local police normally access for warrants and other data when they stop a vehicle. He wants the FBI to change the database to flag known sovereign citizen adherents.
"If we had that, [my son] would have immediately called for backup," Paudert said. "He would be alive today."
SOURCE: Brian Bennett - Los Angeles Times
Now It's Hillary's Turn To Apologize
February 25, 2012
Give Hilarity credit, she’s not apologizing for all of America, she’s just apologizing for sane America.
Clinton tells Muslims to disregard Republicans
Seattle PI:
Speaking at a town-hall style event in Tunisia, the North African nation that sparked the “Arab Spring” revolts, Clinton said the partisan remarks made during campaign events “certainly don’t reflect the United States, don’t reflect our foreign policy, don’t reflect who we are as a people.”
Clinton’s remarks came in response to a question from a member of her audience who said he was troubled by some of the comments, which he considered anti-Muslim, made by candidates running for president.
“If you go to the United States, you see mosques everywhere, you see Muslim-Americans everywhere. That’s the fact. So I would not pay attention to the rhetoric,” she said.
Instead, she advised people to listen instead to President Barack Obama.
“I think that will be a very clear signal to the entire world as to what our values are,” Clinton said.
More
SOURCE: BigFurHat - IOwnTheWorld
Give Hilarity credit, she’s not apologizing for all of America, she’s just apologizing for sane America.
Clinton tells Muslims to disregard Republicans
Seattle PI:
Speaking at a town-hall style event in Tunisia, the North African nation that sparked the “Arab Spring” revolts, Clinton said the partisan remarks made during campaign events “certainly don’t reflect the United States, don’t reflect our foreign policy, don’t reflect who we are as a people.”
Clinton’s remarks came in response to a question from a member of her audience who said he was troubled by some of the comments, which he considered anti-Muslim, made by candidates running for president.
“If you go to the United States, you see mosques everywhere, you see Muslim-Americans everywhere. That’s the fact. So I would not pay attention to the rhetoric,” she said.
Instead, she advised people to listen instead to President Barack Obama.
“I think that will be a very clear signal to the entire world as to what our values are,” Clinton said.
More
SOURCE: BigFurHat - IOwnTheWorld
The Silence Regarding the Persecution of Christians
February 26, 2012
In case you haven't noticed, thousands -- perhaps millions -- of Christians living in Muslim nations are being prosecuted, even brutally murdered. For example, in Nigeria in 2011, the Muslim extremist group Boko Haram killed 510 Christians and destroyed more than 350 churches using guns, gasoline bombs, and even machetes, all the while shouting "Allahu akbar" ("God is great"). On Christmas Day alone they slaughtered 42 Catholics. Similar attacks have occurred in Iraq (our "ally"), where since 2003 more than 900 Iraqi Christians have died from terrorist attacks in Baghdad alone while half of all Iraqi Christians have fled the country (see here and here).
Details aside, this violent persecution is much the same in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia (home to one million Christian guest workers), Sudan, Egypt, Yemen, Iran, and Indonesia. According to a Pew Forum study, Christians are being persecuted in 131 of the world's 193 countries (200 million according to the World Evangelical Alliance). (These data are reported in David Aikman, "The Worldwide Attack on Christians" Commentary, February 2012). Syria may be the next venue for attacking Christians if the Assad regime falls. And there is nothing on the horizon that suggests that anti-Christian violence will recede.
With the exception of admitting a handful of Egyptian Copts fleeing prosecution, the official U.S. reaction has been limited to verbal condemnation. Speaking at a January 15, 2010 conference marking International Religious Freedom Day, Obama offered up some vacuous boilerplate: "[O]ur freedom to practice our faith and follow our consciences is central to our ability to live in harmony." In fact, the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act requires that the promotion of religious freedom worldwide be a part of U.S. foreign policy, but the Obama administration has yet to take a single step under this Act (see here).
Given America's celebrated history of providing sanctuary to those persecuted for their religious beliefs, this inaction is bewildering. To be sure, the U.S. need not emulate Israel, which provides automatic refuge to any Jew escaping danger, but surely the subject deserves at least some discussion -- yet none is forthcoming.
This silence has multiple roots, but one in particular lurks powerfully in the background: thanks to our welfare state and automatic racial preferences, millions of these Christian refugees would excessively burden already over-stressed government budgets, so better to let such people languish abroad. In crass economic terms, the economic and educational befits that would immediately flow to these Nigerians, Pakistanis, Iraqis, Egyptians, and all the rest make them too expensive to import. Today's galloping "compassion" for the less fortunate at home may now impose a death sentence for Christians abroad.
Some background. Until the 1960s, the burden of absorbing religious refugees was hardly cost-free but still light by today's standards. In the last half of the nineteenth century, for example, millions of Jews escaped Russian anti-Semitic pogroms, and while their arrival did burden government somewhat (e.g., additional policing), costs overwhelmingly fell on the immigrants themselves. As with their predecessors, Eastern European Jews relied on religious organizations plus self-help groups for everything from small business loans to funeral expenses. There was nothing that even remotely resembled today's safety net; it was sink or swim.
Moreover, the adjustment costs were widely and correctly viewed as temporary. Most of these refugees soon found work, began to assimilate (especially by learning English), and within a generation were contributing to the common good. T hose who found the U.S. too daunting returned home. Of the utmost importance, Jews fleeing pogroms, like the German and Irish refugees before them, were not greeted dockside by activists teaching new arrivals how to exploit government benefits and master the victimhood game. No new arrival believed that a slice of the economic pie was already waiting for him thanks to bean-counting government bureaucrats promoting "fairness."
Today, this age-old pattern is far iffier. Some groups -- notably the South Vietnamese, Indians, and Chinese -- assimilate relatively quickly and become economically productive. In other instances, however, immigrant populations, regardless of motives for immigrating, struggle to adapt and become long-term financial liabilities. For example, since the early 1990s, refugees from Somalia have been settling in Minneapolis, MN, where they stubbornly lag behind economically and educationally (in 2010 82% lived at or below the poverty line, and two-thirds lacked a high school diploma). Even more disturbing, several of these Somali newcomers have turned to terrorism. A similar problem with 2,000 Somali immigrants occurred in Lewiston, ME, where they though brought violence and swelling welfare rolls, educational problems, and myriad health issues. And while these Somalis may not fully grasp U.S. culture, they have acclimated well enough to request a Department of Justice investigation into possible discrimination in Lewiston. (For additional statistics on immigration and welfare use, see here).
The issue is not Somalis per se or, for that matter, the success or failure of any other recent immigrant group. It is axiomatic that, as in the past, some will outperform others. What has changed, however, is the downside risk. Nineteenth-century immigrants from Ireland and Italy, for example, only slowly moved up the economic ladder, but -- and here's the key point -- the cost of modest progress was not a public burden. A struggling Irish family of the 1850s relied on family, friends, private charities, and the Catholic Church, not government-supplied food stamps, subsidized housing, free school meals, Medicaid, government-paid vocational training, Supplemental Social Income (SSI), or preferences in college admission for a "historically under-served" minority. If an immigrant back then suffered from, say, alcoholism or mental illness, he or she might turn to the a priest, not a government-paid therapist. (Technically, today's immigrants who are judged likely to become public charges should be denied visas, but in practice this requirement is easily circumvented. See here.)
Further keep in mind that using religious persecution as the test for admitting immigrants probably undermines eventual economic progress, since immigrants admitted solely according to religious status are unlikely to possess the typical émigré virtues of a strong work ethic and ambition. In the meanwhile, no helping hand is necessarily extended to self-selecting, smarter, more ambitious newcomers.
So imagine what might happen if the Obama administration decides, in an act of Christian compassion, to admit 10,000 Christian Nigerians fearing for their lives. The best possible outcome would be that after some initial adjustment, these Nigerians become economically productive Americans independent of cradle-to-grave government-funded assistance. But the downside could be a long-term financial disaster: decades of public welfare, millions in federal educational and housing assistance and city budgets overwhelmed with medical and policing costs, with these grateful (though troublesome) refugees all the while adding little to the nation's economy.
The political downside may even be worse. Welcoming immigrants who do succeed (e.g., the Chinese) tends to yield few enduring political benefits. Yes, the children of recently arrived Chinese have energized the U.S. computer industry, but try to extract political credit (i.e., votes) for that accomplishment. But imagine if the Obama administration resettled the 10,000 Nigerian Christians in California. The upshot might be even more welfare spending, ethnic strife, gang-related crime, and lowered property values while the children of these newcomers receive preferential treatment in admission to Berkeley and UCLA. (And these calculations do not factor in the possible negative reaction from groups currently disproportionately reliant on government largess.)
It is easy to see why the U.S. once easily extended a helping hand to those persecuted for their religious beliefs. Back then, even if the welcomed group added little, the downside was modest. Today, however, thanks to the welfare state, the potential costs can be immense at a time when existing entitlements grow increasingly unaffordable. Perhaps Christian threatened overseas should pray for an end to the American welfare state.
SOURCE: Robert Weissberg - American Thinker
In case you haven't noticed, thousands -- perhaps millions -- of Christians living in Muslim nations are being prosecuted, even brutally murdered. For example, in Nigeria in 2011, the Muslim extremist group Boko Haram killed 510 Christians and destroyed more than 350 churches using guns, gasoline bombs, and even machetes, all the while shouting "Allahu akbar" ("God is great"). On Christmas Day alone they slaughtered 42 Catholics. Similar attacks have occurred in Iraq (our "ally"), where since 2003 more than 900 Iraqi Christians have died from terrorist attacks in Baghdad alone while half of all Iraqi Christians have fled the country (see here and here).
Details aside, this violent persecution is much the same in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia (home to one million Christian guest workers), Sudan, Egypt, Yemen, Iran, and Indonesia. According to a Pew Forum study, Christians are being persecuted in 131 of the world's 193 countries (200 million according to the World Evangelical Alliance). (These data are reported in David Aikman, "The Worldwide Attack on Christians" Commentary, February 2012). Syria may be the next venue for attacking Christians if the Assad regime falls. And there is nothing on the horizon that suggests that anti-Christian violence will recede.
With the exception of admitting a handful of Egyptian Copts fleeing prosecution, the official U.S. reaction has been limited to verbal condemnation. Speaking at a January 15, 2010 conference marking International Religious Freedom Day, Obama offered up some vacuous boilerplate: "[O]ur freedom to practice our faith and follow our consciences is central to our ability to live in harmony." In fact, the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act requires that the promotion of religious freedom worldwide be a part of U.S. foreign policy, but the Obama administration has yet to take a single step under this Act (see here).
Given America's celebrated history of providing sanctuary to those persecuted for their religious beliefs, this inaction is bewildering. To be sure, the U.S. need not emulate Israel, which provides automatic refuge to any Jew escaping danger, but surely the subject deserves at least some discussion -- yet none is forthcoming.
This silence has multiple roots, but one in particular lurks powerfully in the background: thanks to our welfare state and automatic racial preferences, millions of these Christian refugees would excessively burden already over-stressed government budgets, so better to let such people languish abroad. In crass economic terms, the economic and educational befits that would immediately flow to these Nigerians, Pakistanis, Iraqis, Egyptians, and all the rest make them too expensive to import. Today's galloping "compassion" for the less fortunate at home may now impose a death sentence for Christians abroad.
Some background. Until the 1960s, the burden of absorbing religious refugees was hardly cost-free but still light by today's standards. In the last half of the nineteenth century, for example, millions of Jews escaped Russian anti-Semitic pogroms, and while their arrival did burden government somewhat (e.g., additional policing), costs overwhelmingly fell on the immigrants themselves. As with their predecessors, Eastern European Jews relied on religious organizations plus self-help groups for everything from small business loans to funeral expenses. There was nothing that even remotely resembled today's safety net; it was sink or swim.
Moreover, the adjustment costs were widely and correctly viewed as temporary. Most of these refugees soon found work, began to assimilate (especially by learning English), and within a generation were contributing to the common good. T hose who found the U.S. too daunting returned home. Of the utmost importance, Jews fleeing pogroms, like the German and Irish refugees before them, were not greeted dockside by activists teaching new arrivals how to exploit government benefits and master the victimhood game. No new arrival believed that a slice of the economic pie was already waiting for him thanks to bean-counting government bureaucrats promoting "fairness."
Today, this age-old pattern is far iffier. Some groups -- notably the South Vietnamese, Indians, and Chinese -- assimilate relatively quickly and become economically productive. In other instances, however, immigrant populations, regardless of motives for immigrating, struggle to adapt and become long-term financial liabilities. For example, since the early 1990s, refugees from Somalia have been settling in Minneapolis, MN, where they stubbornly lag behind economically and educationally (in 2010 82% lived at or below the poverty line, and two-thirds lacked a high school diploma). Even more disturbing, several of these Somali newcomers have turned to terrorism. A similar problem with 2,000 Somali immigrants occurred in Lewiston, ME, where they though brought violence and swelling welfare rolls, educational problems, and myriad health issues. And while these Somalis may not fully grasp U.S. culture, they have acclimated well enough to request a Department of Justice investigation into possible discrimination in Lewiston. (For additional statistics on immigration and welfare use, see here).
The issue is not Somalis per se or, for that matter, the success or failure of any other recent immigrant group. It is axiomatic that, as in the past, some will outperform others. What has changed, however, is the downside risk. Nineteenth-century immigrants from Ireland and Italy, for example, only slowly moved up the economic ladder, but -- and here's the key point -- the cost of modest progress was not a public burden. A struggling Irish family of the 1850s relied on family, friends, private charities, and the Catholic Church, not government-supplied food stamps, subsidized housing, free school meals, Medicaid, government-paid vocational training, Supplemental Social Income (SSI), or preferences in college admission for a "historically under-served" minority. If an immigrant back then suffered from, say, alcoholism or mental illness, he or she might turn to the a priest, not a government-paid therapist. (Technically, today's immigrants who are judged likely to become public charges should be denied visas, but in practice this requirement is easily circumvented. See here.)
Further keep in mind that using religious persecution as the test for admitting immigrants probably undermines eventual economic progress, since immigrants admitted solely according to religious status are unlikely to possess the typical émigré virtues of a strong work ethic and ambition. In the meanwhile, no helping hand is necessarily extended to self-selecting, smarter, more ambitious newcomers.
So imagine what might happen if the Obama administration decides, in an act of Christian compassion, to admit 10,000 Christian Nigerians fearing for their lives. The best possible outcome would be that after some initial adjustment, these Nigerians become economically productive Americans independent of cradle-to-grave government-funded assistance. But the downside could be a long-term financial disaster: decades of public welfare, millions in federal educational and housing assistance and city budgets overwhelmed with medical and policing costs, with these grateful (though troublesome) refugees all the while adding little to the nation's economy.
The political downside may even be worse. Welcoming immigrants who do succeed (e.g., the Chinese) tends to yield few enduring political benefits. Yes, the children of recently arrived Chinese have energized the U.S. computer industry, but try to extract political credit (i.e., votes) for that accomplishment. But imagine if the Obama administration resettled the 10,000 Nigerian Christians in California. The upshot might be even more welfare spending, ethnic strife, gang-related crime, and lowered property values while the children of these newcomers receive preferential treatment in admission to Berkeley and UCLA. (And these calculations do not factor in the possible negative reaction from groups currently disproportionately reliant on government largess.)
It is easy to see why the U.S. once easily extended a helping hand to those persecuted for their religious beliefs. Back then, even if the welcomed group added little, the downside was modest. Today, however, thanks to the welfare state, the potential costs can be immense at a time when existing entitlements grow increasingly unaffordable. Perhaps Christian threatened overseas should pray for an end to the American welfare state.
SOURCE: Robert Weissberg - American Thinker
Video Flashback: Obama and Democrats Blast Bush for High Gas Prices in 2008: These people are shameless. Barack
Saturday, February 25, 2012
These people are shameless.
Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz attacked George W. Bush for high gas prices back in 2008.
Now Obama and democrats are complaining that Republicans are politicizing gas prices.
Even back in 2006 Democrats were politicizing gas prices and the economy when gas was $3 dollar a gallon and the unemployment rate was 5%.
The New York Times reported, via Free Republic:
Democrats running for Congress are moving quickly to use the most recent surge in oil and gasoline prices to bash Republicans over energy policy, and more broadly, the direction of the country.
With oil prices hitting a high this week and prices at the pump topping $3 a gallon in many places, Amy Klobuchar, a Democratic Senate candidate in Minnesota, is making the issue the centerpiece of her campaign. Ms. Klobuchar says it “is one of the first things people bring up” at her campaign stops.
To varying degrees, Democrats around the country are following a similar script that touches on economic anxiety and populist resentment against oil companies.
“It’s a metaphor for an economy that keeps biting people despite overall good numbers,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Mr. Schumer said Democratic candidates in 10 of the 34 Senate races this year had scheduled campaign events this week focusing on gasoline prices.
SOURCE: Jim Hoft - The Gateway Pundit
These people are shameless.
Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz attacked George W. Bush for high gas prices back in 2008.
Now Obama and democrats are complaining that Republicans are politicizing gas prices.
Even back in 2006 Democrats were politicizing gas prices and the economy when gas was $3 dollar a gallon and the unemployment rate was 5%.
The New York Times reported, via Free Republic:
Democrats running for Congress are moving quickly to use the most recent surge in oil and gasoline prices to bash Republicans over energy policy, and more broadly, the direction of the country.
With oil prices hitting a high this week and prices at the pump topping $3 a gallon in many places, Amy Klobuchar, a Democratic Senate candidate in Minnesota, is making the issue the centerpiece of her campaign. Ms. Klobuchar says it “is one of the first things people bring up” at her campaign stops.
To varying degrees, Democrats around the country are following a similar script that touches on economic anxiety and populist resentment against oil companies.
“It’s a metaphor for an economy that keeps biting people despite overall good numbers,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Mr. Schumer said Democratic candidates in 10 of the 34 Senate races this year had scheduled campaign events this week focusing on gasoline prices.
SOURCE: Jim Hoft - The Gateway Pundit
NPR's Ombudsman Skips 'Kill Whitey' Jokes, But Worries About Old Clips of Jewish Jokes From 1970
February 25, 2012
On February 12 many NPR stations aired the show “Smiley & West” in which comedian-actor Garrett Morris caused peals of laughter from Tavis Smiley and Cornel West by joking about the small space between “hate Whitey” and “kill Whitey.” West also lectured about how police brutality on the “vanilla side of town” in New York would get condemnations from the White House.
NPR ombudsman Edward Schumacher-Matos predictably told me on Twitter that this wasn’t in his critical purview, since it’s not produced by NPR, but by Public Radio International. But on February 23, Schumacher-Matos devoted a post to charges of anti-black racism on “Fresh Air,” which is also not produced by NPR, but by Philadelpha affiliate WHYY. It was far less racially transgressive than Smiley & West.
He claimed: "NPR distributes Fresh Air so it is NPR programming. PRI distributes Smiley's show so it is PRI programming."
On the February 8 “Fresh Air,” critic David Bianculli was recommending a DVD called "How to Be a Jewish Son," which aired on “The David Susskind Show.” Bianculli plucked out as a highlight some banter between Mel Brooks and comedian David Steinberg. Susskind was asking about dating outside the Jewish population, and he joked you take home a black girl first, so the Gentile girl seems less shocking:
DAVID STEINBERG: Well, it's hard to bring a gentile girl home to a Jewish family. What you do is you bring home a black girl first.
DAVID SUSSKIND: By way of breaking the ice.
STEINBERG: Then you bring home the gentile girl and then you're in. Then they say, oh, come on in. Hiya. Would you like something to eat? They say Mary Smith, sit down. See, that "CH" like in "Chanukah."
SUSSKIND: Seriously, have you brought – have you brought gentile ladies into your household?
STEINBERG: No. I...
SUSSKIND: Your father's being a rabbi—
BROOKS: Do you know, in a Jewish religion if you're going with a Jewish girl, if you're just engaged to her and you break off you still pay alimony? Did you know that? I bet you didn't know that.
SUSSKIND: No, I didn't. I didn't know that.
BROOKS: Legal. That's legal. Sure. Three kisses and mm-hmm, alimony!
SUSSKIND: Alimony.
BROOKS: It's not a lot but there is a token, a token, like 80 percent of your income.
Schumacher-Matos explained, with plenty of hemming and hawing:
Shortly after the segment aired, an email arrived in our inbox—a listener found the segment to be racially offensive. Several others said the same online. Marilu Carter wrote that she was "disheartened, disappointed, and alarmed" by the piece. Listener John Abbot said: "Certainly highlighting racist humor, even in the context of the time, is below the standard I expect from both Bianculli and NPR. Sadly this piece highlights the mutual damage of lateral racism and perpetuates the historic bias existing between African Americans and Jews."
I certainly appreciate the concerns of the offended listeners...
The question is a difficult one, but in the end I come down on the side of [Fresh Air producer Danny] Miller and Bianculli. The reality of bigotry exists whether we ignore it or not. Poking fun at it combats it, even if it doesn't convert all listeners. I think that most African Americans and Jews understand the clear intention of the humor and go along. But I could be wrong.
Whatever part of this comic exchange isn't harmless is a product of its times. It originally aired in 1970. So why should the NPR Ombudsman waste space on it?
The blog post before that one (on February 17) also responds to liberal complaints. A feminist was upset that the usual David Brooks/E.J. Dionne roundup on February 10 was unanimous is disliking the Obama contraceptive mandate. Schumacher shared the thoughts of Linda Fleck of Roslindale, Massachusetts:
Now that the issue of women's right to birth control has come to the fore, I think that it is inappropriate that E.J. Dionne be allowed to speak for the left insofar as he has apparently decided to subordinate women's health concerns to Catholic dogma. Perhaps someone like Gail Collins could substitute for Mr. Dionne while this matter rages in Washington. Both points of view need to be aired (versus the current "Amen" chorus of Brooks and Dionne). Women's rights matter. Women's voices need to be heard on this issue.
Liberals and feminists must always be heard from -- Dionne must be "substituted" when he departs from orthodoxy! Schumacher-Matos failed to address whether conservatives would like a substitute for Brooks pretty much every week if the goal was to broadcast a conservative perspective.
SOURCE: Tim Graham - Newsbusters
On February 12 many NPR stations aired the show “Smiley & West” in which comedian-actor Garrett Morris caused peals of laughter from Tavis Smiley and Cornel West by joking about the small space between “hate Whitey” and “kill Whitey.” West also lectured about how police brutality on the “vanilla side of town” in New York would get condemnations from the White House.
NPR ombudsman Edward Schumacher-Matos predictably told me on Twitter that this wasn’t in his critical purview, since it’s not produced by NPR, but by Public Radio International. But on February 23, Schumacher-Matos devoted a post to charges of anti-black racism on “Fresh Air,” which is also not produced by NPR, but by Philadelpha affiliate WHYY. It was far less racially transgressive than Smiley & West.
He claimed: "NPR distributes Fresh Air so it is NPR programming. PRI distributes Smiley's show so it is PRI programming."
On the February 8 “Fresh Air,” critic David Bianculli was recommending a DVD called "How to Be a Jewish Son," which aired on “The David Susskind Show.” Bianculli plucked out as a highlight some banter between Mel Brooks and comedian David Steinberg. Susskind was asking about dating outside the Jewish population, and he joked you take home a black girl first, so the Gentile girl seems less shocking:
DAVID STEINBERG: Well, it's hard to bring a gentile girl home to a Jewish family. What you do is you bring home a black girl first.
DAVID SUSSKIND: By way of breaking the ice.
STEINBERG: Then you bring home the gentile girl and then you're in. Then they say, oh, come on in. Hiya. Would you like something to eat? They say Mary Smith, sit down. See, that "CH" like in "Chanukah."
SUSSKIND: Seriously, have you brought – have you brought gentile ladies into your household?
STEINBERG: No. I...
SUSSKIND: Your father's being a rabbi—
BROOKS: Do you know, in a Jewish religion if you're going with a Jewish girl, if you're just engaged to her and you break off you still pay alimony? Did you know that? I bet you didn't know that.
SUSSKIND: No, I didn't. I didn't know that.
BROOKS: Legal. That's legal. Sure. Three kisses and mm-hmm, alimony!
SUSSKIND: Alimony.
BROOKS: It's not a lot but there is a token, a token, like 80 percent of your income.
Schumacher-Matos explained, with plenty of hemming and hawing:
Shortly after the segment aired, an email arrived in our inbox—a listener found the segment to be racially offensive. Several others said the same online. Marilu Carter wrote that she was "disheartened, disappointed, and alarmed" by the piece. Listener John Abbot said: "Certainly highlighting racist humor, even in the context of the time, is below the standard I expect from both Bianculli and NPR. Sadly this piece highlights the mutual damage of lateral racism and perpetuates the historic bias existing between African Americans and Jews."
I certainly appreciate the concerns of the offended listeners...
The question is a difficult one, but in the end I come down on the side of [Fresh Air producer Danny] Miller and Bianculli. The reality of bigotry exists whether we ignore it or not. Poking fun at it combats it, even if it doesn't convert all listeners. I think that most African Americans and Jews understand the clear intention of the humor and go along. But I could be wrong.
Whatever part of this comic exchange isn't harmless is a product of its times. It originally aired in 1970. So why should the NPR Ombudsman waste space on it?
The blog post before that one (on February 17) also responds to liberal complaints. A feminist was upset that the usual David Brooks/E.J. Dionne roundup on February 10 was unanimous is disliking the Obama contraceptive mandate. Schumacher shared the thoughts of Linda Fleck of Roslindale, Massachusetts:
Now that the issue of women's right to birth control has come to the fore, I think that it is inappropriate that E.J. Dionne be allowed to speak for the left insofar as he has apparently decided to subordinate women's health concerns to Catholic dogma. Perhaps someone like Gail Collins could substitute for Mr. Dionne while this matter rages in Washington. Both points of view need to be aired (versus the current "Amen" chorus of Brooks and Dionne). Women's rights matter. Women's voices need to be heard on this issue.
Liberals and feminists must always be heard from -- Dionne must be "substituted" when he departs from orthodoxy! Schumacher-Matos failed to address whether conservatives would like a substitute for Brooks pretty much every week if the goal was to broadcast a conservative perspective.
SOURCE: Tim Graham - Newsbusters
Congratulations, President Obama and the No-Drill Democrats: Gas Prices Top $5 In L.A.!
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Take a guess who the leftists and their idiot cousins in media will blame for skyrocketing gas prices: (a) "speculators", (b) "greedy oil companies", (c) "the rich", or (d) Bush. Not President Obama. Not his EPA. Not his Department of Interior. Not the brutal amount of taxes on each gallon of gas (about a dollar a gallon in total taxes versus two cents a gallon in profit for the "greedy oil companies").
Prices rise above $5 for a gallon of premium gas at a Shell station at Olympic Boulevard and Fairfax Avenue in Los Angeles, California...
Let's take a look at the price of gas and crude oil since Barack Obama took office in 2009.
Looks to me like Obama's done exactly what he said he'd do.
He's shut down drilling on public lands, slow-rolled permit approvals, continued his de facto (and illegal) drilling moratorium in the gulf, and wasted billions on crony "green energy programs".
I guess it's "for the children", though, so it's okay, right?
Hat tip: Drudge.
SOURCE: Doug Ross
Take a guess who the leftists and their idiot cousins in media will blame for skyrocketing gas prices: (a) "speculators", (b) "greedy oil companies", (c) "the rich", or (d) Bush. Not President Obama. Not his EPA. Not his Department of Interior. Not the brutal amount of taxes on each gallon of gas (about a dollar a gallon in total taxes versus two cents a gallon in profit for the "greedy oil companies").
Prices rise above $5 for a gallon of premium gas at a Shell station at Olympic Boulevard and Fairfax Avenue in Los Angeles, California...
Let's take a look at the price of gas and crude oil since Barack Obama took office in 2009.
Looks to me like Obama's done exactly what he said he'd do.
He's shut down drilling on public lands, slow-rolled permit approvals, continued his de facto (and illegal) drilling moratorium in the gulf, and wasted billions on crony "green energy programs".
I guess it's "for the children", though, so it's okay, right?
Hat tip: Drudge.
SOURCE: Doug Ross
How Republicans are Making Liberals Hate Capitalism, Jobs and Opportunity
LINK TO VIDEO HERE
Self-loathing millionaires like Michael Moore love to hate capitalism, even though it creates jobs and opportunity. So why can't Republicans sell capitalism to voters? Find out by watching this episode of ZoNation.
SOURCE: PJTV
Self-loathing millionaires like Michael Moore love to hate capitalism, even though it creates jobs and opportunity. So why can't Republicans sell capitalism to voters? Find out by watching this episode of ZoNation.
SOURCE: PJTV
Wyoming House advances doomsday bill
2.24.12
CHEYENNE — State representatives on Friday advanced legislation to launch a study into what Wyoming should do in the event of a complete economic or political collapse in the United States.
House Bill 85 passed on first reading by a voice vote. It would create a state-run government continuity task force, which would study and prepare Wyoming for potential catastrophes, from disruptions in food and energy supplies to a complete meltdown of the federal government.
The task force would look at the feasibility of
Wyoming issuing its own alternative currency, if needed. And House members approved an amendment Friday by state Rep. Kermit Brown, R-Laramie, to have the task force also examine conditions under which Wyoming would need to implement its own military draft, raise a standing army, and acquire strike aircraft and an aircraft carrier.
The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. David Miller, R-Riverton, has said he doesn’t anticipate any major crises hitting America anytime soon. But with the national debt exceeding $15 trillion and protest movements growing around the country, Miller said Wyoming — which has a comparatively good economy and sound state finances — needs to make sure it’s protected should any unexpected emergency hit the U.S.
Several House members spoke in favor of the legislation, saying there was no harm in preparing for the worst.
“I don’t think there’s anyone in this room today what would come up here and say that this country is in good shape, that the world is stable and in good shape — because that is clearly not the case,” state Rep. Lorraine Quarberg, R-Thermopolis, said. “To put your head in the sand and think that nothing bad’s going to happen, and that we have no obligation to the citizens of the state of Wyoming to at least have the discussion, is not healthy.”
Wyoming’s Department of Homeland Security already has a statewide crisis management plan, but it doesn’t cover what the state should do in the event of an extreme nationwide political or economic collapse. In recent years, lawmakers in at least six states have introduced legislation to create a state currency, all unsuccessfully.
The task force would include state lawmakers, the director of the Wyoming Department of Homeland Security, the Wyoming attorney general and the Wyoming National Guard’s adjutant general, among others.
The bill must pass two more House votes before it would head to the Senate for consideration. The original bill appropriated $32,000 for the task force, though the Joint Appropriations Committee slashed that number in half earlier this week.
University of Wyoming political science professor Jim King said the potential for a complete unraveling of the U.S. government and economy is “astronomically remote” in the foreseeable future.
But King noted that the federal government set up a Continuity of Government Commission in 2002, of which former U.S. Sen. Al Simpson, R-Wyo., was co-chairman. However, King said he didn’t know of any states that had established a similar board.
SOURCE: JEREMY PELZER Star-Tribune
CHEYENNE — State representatives on Friday advanced legislation to launch a study into what Wyoming should do in the event of a complete economic or political collapse in the United States.
House Bill 85 passed on first reading by a voice vote. It would create a state-run government continuity task force, which would study and prepare Wyoming for potential catastrophes, from disruptions in food and energy supplies to a complete meltdown of the federal government.
The task force would look at the feasibility of
Wyoming issuing its own alternative currency, if needed. And House members approved an amendment Friday by state Rep. Kermit Brown, R-Laramie, to have the task force also examine conditions under which Wyoming would need to implement its own military draft, raise a standing army, and acquire strike aircraft and an aircraft carrier.
The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. David Miller, R-Riverton, has said he doesn’t anticipate any major crises hitting America anytime soon. But with the national debt exceeding $15 trillion and protest movements growing around the country, Miller said Wyoming — which has a comparatively good economy and sound state finances — needs to make sure it’s protected should any unexpected emergency hit the U.S.
Several House members spoke in favor of the legislation, saying there was no harm in preparing for the worst.
“I don’t think there’s anyone in this room today what would come up here and say that this country is in good shape, that the world is stable and in good shape — because that is clearly not the case,” state Rep. Lorraine Quarberg, R-Thermopolis, said. “To put your head in the sand and think that nothing bad’s going to happen, and that we have no obligation to the citizens of the state of Wyoming to at least have the discussion, is not healthy.”
Wyoming’s Department of Homeland Security already has a statewide crisis management plan, but it doesn’t cover what the state should do in the event of an extreme nationwide political or economic collapse. In recent years, lawmakers in at least six states have introduced legislation to create a state currency, all unsuccessfully.
The task force would include state lawmakers, the director of the Wyoming Department of Homeland Security, the Wyoming attorney general and the Wyoming National Guard’s adjutant general, among others.
The bill must pass two more House votes before it would head to the Senate for consideration. The original bill appropriated $32,000 for the task force, though the Joint Appropriations Committee slashed that number in half earlier this week.
University of Wyoming political science professor Jim King said the potential for a complete unraveling of the U.S. government and economy is “astronomically remote” in the foreseeable future.
But King noted that the federal government set up a Continuity of Government Commission in 2002, of which former U.S. Sen. Al Simpson, R-Wyo., was co-chairman. However, King said he didn’t know of any states that had established a similar board.
SOURCE: JEREMY PELZER Star-Tribune
President Obama Declares Right Not to Work Act
Feb 24, 2012
It was a bright, joyous, sunshiny day in the nation’s capital. The bluebirds were chirping melodically. The immaculately kempt White House lawn smelled of the greenest spring, as the mid-day warmth stirred the fragrant wafting scent of moist grass clippings. Seated in impossibly straight rows of little white folding chairs were throngs of adoring admirers decked out in their best Sunday attire. Impeccably well-groomed ladies, draped in flowing knee-length sun dresses, fanned themselves patiently while intermittently swatting the wayward gnat.
President Obama entered the courtyard. A hush even quieter than a church congregation in silent prayer befell the crowd, which was largely made up of establishment dignitaries, their lovely wives, and the scribbling Washington press corps.
“Today, we mark a historic moment,” the president began with his loftiest of lofty voices, his head slightly upcocked as if he were drawing his words straight from the heavens. One instantly sensed the drama of the moment by his overleaping of any and all introductions. The god-echo was gloriously reverberating off the veranda and the White House barriers, recently erected, lined with barbwire and electrified, to frustrate the designs of the sprawling occupiers. There was a safety and a comfort within the confines of that idyllic tableau; an unimpeachable sense that no one could interpose an ugly sense of reality upon them. It was cozy, nestled and warm, like the pink uterine walls of an expectant mother. The pater familias was speaking.
“One that will influence future generations of Americans. One that rivals the significance of, and yet is superior to, the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, the Emancipation Proclamation, and all declarations to have come before combined. As President of the United States, I hereby decree — The Right Not to Work Act.”
The crowd sat in dazzled amazement. Here was a revolutionary idea for the ages! The right not to work… why hadn’t anyone thought of it before?
“For eons, men and women have been held in servitude to their masters, toiling away under the oppressive regime known as ‘work.’ Capitalist enslavers, uh… I mean corporations, have cynically used ‘work’ to blackmail workers into laboring for a pittance. They have exploited them and paid them off with fancy cars, houses, big screen TVs, mobile phones and the like… mere materialistic trifles! But no longer will citizens be forced to sell their souls for mere ‘stuff.’ This day, all are free! No more work unless you want to! From each according to his ability to each according to his needs. Free at last! Free at last! Thank god almighty, free at last!”
All were stunned. The jaw of the cameraman dropped. Unexpectedly, he reached into his pocket, deftly withdrew a Pall Mall cigarette, and walked off to have a smoke.
“Thus, let this act be decreed and observed by all. But before the American people get too excited, I want to talk to them about the sobering subject of duty and responsibility. Since work has been abolished, an act for which all citizens should be eternally grateful, I must announce compendium legislation, which is immediately to become law by executive order.”
Men shifted in their chairs uncomfortably, leaning forward to catch the drops of honey falling from the president’s lips.
“Being that an economy cannot run completely on voluntary labor, lest there be chaos and mass shortages, I hereby decree the National Mandatory Service Act. Citizens have a responsibility to their community and their government, and although no one can be asked to work for the state in order to pay for the lavish benefits we have bestowed upon you, it is only fair that we instate national mandatory service in order to maintain our precious rights and freedoms.”
No one stirred. All were trying to make sense of the simultaneous decrees and sat for a protracted moment mulling the president’s words.
Suddenly, from the back of the assembly, a slow clap began to ascend, drawing others in before rising to a fevered pitch. Clusters of men stood up, grasping their wives by the hand to greet the president’s good news. The audience heightened their boisterous ovation with shouts of “hurrah” and “hail to dear leader!” Applause rolled for nearly twenty minutes before dwindling to a steady hollow clap, as the crowd had furtively trickled out of the courtyard. The president was off to Hawaii to play golf.
The White House garden was now a disheveled mess of bestrewn seats, clear plastic cups littered on the lawn, and far-flung cigarette butts. As the lawnkeepers leaned against the barricades, smoking and chatting, a Secret Service agent walked by and muttered something unintelligible to the crew. Their cordiality evaporated. Casting down their smokes, they snatched up their rakes and plastic bags, and gloomily returned to public service.
SOURCE: Kyle Becker - CONSERVATIVE DAILY NEWS
It was a bright, joyous, sunshiny day in the nation’s capital. The bluebirds were chirping melodically. The immaculately kempt White House lawn smelled of the greenest spring, as the mid-day warmth stirred the fragrant wafting scent of moist grass clippings. Seated in impossibly straight rows of little white folding chairs were throngs of adoring admirers decked out in their best Sunday attire. Impeccably well-groomed ladies, draped in flowing knee-length sun dresses, fanned themselves patiently while intermittently swatting the wayward gnat.
President Obama entered the courtyard. A hush even quieter than a church congregation in silent prayer befell the crowd, which was largely made up of establishment dignitaries, their lovely wives, and the scribbling Washington press corps.
“Today, we mark a historic moment,” the president began with his loftiest of lofty voices, his head slightly upcocked as if he were drawing his words straight from the heavens. One instantly sensed the drama of the moment by his overleaping of any and all introductions. The god-echo was gloriously reverberating off the veranda and the White House barriers, recently erected, lined with barbwire and electrified, to frustrate the designs of the sprawling occupiers. There was a safety and a comfort within the confines of that idyllic tableau; an unimpeachable sense that no one could interpose an ugly sense of reality upon them. It was cozy, nestled and warm, like the pink uterine walls of an expectant mother. The pater familias was speaking.
“One that will influence future generations of Americans. One that rivals the significance of, and yet is superior to, the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, the Emancipation Proclamation, and all declarations to have come before combined. As President of the United States, I hereby decree — The Right Not to Work Act.”
The crowd sat in dazzled amazement. Here was a revolutionary idea for the ages! The right not to work… why hadn’t anyone thought of it before?
“For eons, men and women have been held in servitude to their masters, toiling away under the oppressive regime known as ‘work.’ Capitalist enslavers, uh… I mean corporations, have cynically used ‘work’ to blackmail workers into laboring for a pittance. They have exploited them and paid them off with fancy cars, houses, big screen TVs, mobile phones and the like… mere materialistic trifles! But no longer will citizens be forced to sell their souls for mere ‘stuff.’ This day, all are free! No more work unless you want to! From each according to his ability to each according to his needs. Free at last! Free at last! Thank god almighty, free at last!”
All were stunned. The jaw of the cameraman dropped. Unexpectedly, he reached into his pocket, deftly withdrew a Pall Mall cigarette, and walked off to have a smoke.
“Thus, let this act be decreed and observed by all. But before the American people get too excited, I want to talk to them about the sobering subject of duty and responsibility. Since work has been abolished, an act for which all citizens should be eternally grateful, I must announce compendium legislation, which is immediately to become law by executive order.”
Men shifted in their chairs uncomfortably, leaning forward to catch the drops of honey falling from the president’s lips.
“Being that an economy cannot run completely on voluntary labor, lest there be chaos and mass shortages, I hereby decree the National Mandatory Service Act. Citizens have a responsibility to their community and their government, and although no one can be asked to work for the state in order to pay for the lavish benefits we have bestowed upon you, it is only fair that we instate national mandatory service in order to maintain our precious rights and freedoms.”
No one stirred. All were trying to make sense of the simultaneous decrees and sat for a protracted moment mulling the president’s words.
Suddenly, from the back of the assembly, a slow clap began to ascend, drawing others in before rising to a fevered pitch. Clusters of men stood up, grasping their wives by the hand to greet the president’s good news. The audience heightened their boisterous ovation with shouts of “hurrah” and “hail to dear leader!” Applause rolled for nearly twenty minutes before dwindling to a steady hollow clap, as the crowd had furtively trickled out of the courtyard. The president was off to Hawaii to play golf.
The White House garden was now a disheveled mess of bestrewn seats, clear plastic cups littered on the lawn, and far-flung cigarette butts. As the lawnkeepers leaned against the barricades, smoking and chatting, a Secret Service agent walked by and muttered something unintelligible to the crew. Their cordiality evaporated. Casting down their smokes, they snatched up their rakes and plastic bags, and gloomily returned to public service.
SOURCE: Kyle Becker - CONSERVATIVE DAILY NEWS
Friday Afternoon News Story: It Looks Like Corzine Will Likely Stay Out Of The Slammer
Who would have seen this coming?
February 24, 2012
Dealbreaker's Bess Levin reports (via FoxBusiness) that former MF Global CEO Jon Corzine will not face criminal charges for his role in the firm's diverting of client funds and subsequent collapse.
Sources told FoxBusiness regulators were having "a very tough time" gathering evidence that would have put Corzine in the clinker.
Meanwhile, the avalanche of customer and shareholder lawsuits, as well as civil liability investigations by the CFTC and the SEC, continues apace.
SOURCE: Business Insider
February 24, 2012
Dealbreaker's Bess Levin reports (via FoxBusiness) that former MF Global CEO Jon Corzine will not face criminal charges for his role in the firm's diverting of client funds and subsequent collapse.
Sources told FoxBusiness regulators were having "a very tough time" gathering evidence that would have put Corzine in the clinker.
Meanwhile, the avalanche of customer and shareholder lawsuits, as well as civil liability investigations by the CFTC and the SEC, continues apace.
SOURCE: Business Insider
Second Gun Linked To Death of ICE Agent Jaime Zapata Traced to Fast and Furious
February 24, 2012
Adding insult to injury, Zapata’s family was kept in the dark and are now being stonewalled regarding their Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
(CBS) –Prosecutors recently sentenced a Texas man, Manuel Barba, for trafficking a weapon connected to the murder of Immigration and Customs (ICE) Agent Jaime Zapata. Nobody was more astonished to learn of the case than Zapata’s parents, who didn’t know that Barba had been arrested or linked to their son’s murder.
……
In a related development, CBS News has obtained documents showing that Barba was under ATF surveillance for at least six months before a rifle he trafficked was used in Zapata’s murder. Zapata’s government vehicle was ambushed by suspected cartel thugs in Mexico Feb. 15, 2011.
Documents indicate ATF opened its case against Barba, entitled “Baytown Crew,” in June of 2010. During the investigation, court records state Barba recruited straw purchasers and “facilitated the purchase and exportation of at least 44 firearms” including assault rifles. On August 20, 2010 Barba took delivery of the WASR-10 semi-automatic rifle later used in Zapata’s murder, obliterated its serial number, and sent it to Mexico with nine others just like it. Nearly two months later, on Oct. 8, 2010, ATF agents recorded a phone call in which Barba “spoke about the final disposition of … firearms to Mexico and also about the obliterating of the serial numbers before they were trafficked.” Barba told straw purchasers the guns were destined for the Zeta drug cartel.
A warrant wasn’t issued for Barba’s arrest until four months later; coincidentally, the day before a rifle he trafficked was used against Zapata.
……
The government has kept a close hold on nearly all information surrounding Zapata’s murder, denying the family’s Freedom of Information requests on the basis of an ongoing investigation. The Zapata’s attorney says they will keep pursuing the information by “whatever means necessary.”
Hang ‘em high.
More here, including Barba’s plea agreement.
SOURCE: Ironic Surrealism
Adding insult to injury, Zapata’s family was kept in the dark and are now being stonewalled regarding their Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
(CBS) –Prosecutors recently sentenced a Texas man, Manuel Barba, for trafficking a weapon connected to the murder of Immigration and Customs (ICE) Agent Jaime Zapata. Nobody was more astonished to learn of the case than Zapata’s parents, who didn’t know that Barba had been arrested or linked to their son’s murder.
……
In a related development, CBS News has obtained documents showing that Barba was under ATF surveillance for at least six months before a rifle he trafficked was used in Zapata’s murder. Zapata’s government vehicle was ambushed by suspected cartel thugs in Mexico Feb. 15, 2011.
Documents indicate ATF opened its case against Barba, entitled “Baytown Crew,” in June of 2010. During the investigation, court records state Barba recruited straw purchasers and “facilitated the purchase and exportation of at least 44 firearms” including assault rifles. On August 20, 2010 Barba took delivery of the WASR-10 semi-automatic rifle later used in Zapata’s murder, obliterated its serial number, and sent it to Mexico with nine others just like it. Nearly two months later, on Oct. 8, 2010, ATF agents recorded a phone call in which Barba “spoke about the final disposition of … firearms to Mexico and also about the obliterating of the serial numbers before they were trafficked.” Barba told straw purchasers the guns were destined for the Zeta drug cartel.
A warrant wasn’t issued for Barba’s arrest until four months later; coincidentally, the day before a rifle he trafficked was used against Zapata.
……
The government has kept a close hold on nearly all information surrounding Zapata’s murder, denying the family’s Freedom of Information requests on the basis of an ongoing investigation. The Zapata’s attorney says they will keep pursuing the information by “whatever means necessary.”
Hang ‘em high.
More here, including Barba’s plea agreement.
SOURCE: Ironic Surrealism
Obama Appeases Muslims, Offends Catholics
As a contribution to the ongoing discussion about Obama’s recent change in policy in reference to respecting Catholic’s right to religious freedom, I offer the following contrast in policy towards Muslims:
This speech was given in Cairo, Egypt on June 4th 2009, and was called, “A New Beginning.”
While Obama thinks we should bend over backwards for Islamism to practice whatever 7th century idiocy it imposes, including female mutilation and Sharia Law, which judges the testimony of a woman half as worthy as that of a man, he imposes policy that offends and curtails the ability of Catholics to practice their religion as they see fit.
That’s hope and change.
SOURCE: Sooper Mexican
This speech was given in Cairo, Egypt on June 4th 2009, and was called, “A New Beginning.”
While Obama thinks we should bend over backwards for Islamism to practice whatever 7th century idiocy it imposes, including female mutilation and Sharia Law, which judges the testimony of a woman half as worthy as that of a man, he imposes policy that offends and curtails the ability of Catholics to practice their religion as they see fit.
That’s hope and change.
SOURCE: Sooper Mexican
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)