Group Tied to Voter Registration Fraud Lobbies DOJ to Use National Voting Rights Act to Boost Welfare Voter Registration
Project Vote Official Promotes Hires for Department of Justice’s Voting Section
Contact Information:
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305
Washington, DC — December 14, 2011
Judicial Watch, the organization that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that it obtained records detailing communications between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Estelle Rogers, a former ACORN attorney currently serving as Director of Advocacy for the ACORN-connected organization Project Vote. (Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice (No. 11-1497)). Judicial Watch is investigating the DOJ’s partnering with Project Vote on a national campaign to use the National Voting Rights Act (NVRA) to register more individuals on public assistance, widely considered a key voting demographic for the Obama 2012 campaign. President Obama previously worked for Project Vote.
According to the records, obtained pursuant to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on August 19, 2011, “civil rights groups” met with Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli on March 17, 2011, to specifically discuss Section 7 of National Voting Rights Act, which requires states to offer voter registration services at all public assistance agencies. The groups included Project Vote, the American Association of People with Disabilities, Demos, the League of Women Voters, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Fair Elections Legal Network, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Legal Defense Fund, and Paralyzed Veterans of America.
On March 29, 2011, Rogers and the “undersigned voting rights groups” that met with Perrelli on March 17, 2011, sent detailed recommendations to the associate attorney general for strengthening “compliance with the NVRA. Forwarded to Perrelli by Rogers, the recommendations stated “we are grateful that you have invited us to continue this dialogue on the Department’s [DOJ’s] role in providing guidance to states, and we would be happy to supply any additional information you need.”
The records also detail an effort by Rogers to secure jobs for three individual applicants for positions with Civil Rights Division’s Voting Section, the department within the DOJ responsible for enforcing the National Voting Rights Act:
In a February 23, 2010, email to T. Christian Herren, Chief of the DOJ’s Voting Section, Rogers wrote, “I want to heartily recommend two candidates to you. [NAMES REDACTED]” In an April 20, 2010, email, Rogers wrote, “I look forward to continuing to work with you, Chris. And please let me know if you need any more feedback regarding hires.”
In a December 7, 2010, email, Rogers wrote, “I’d still love to talk for real, but in the meantime, the main reason I called is that you have an applicant for the [REDACTED] position [REDACTED] qualifies her beautifully for your position, and I hope you will give her every consideration. [REDACTED] So she would be a great fit, and I recommend her without reservation. Please let me know if I can tell you more. And give me a call if you possibly can.”
In a July 13, 2010, email to Herren and DOJ political appointee Julie Fernandes, Rogers references NVRA litigation and she informs Herren that she will be bringing Niyati Shah to a meeting at the DOJ. Shah “will be working on a lot of the litigation we’ll be telling you about,” Rogers writes. Rogers also indicated Nicole Kovite Zeitler, director of Project Vote’s public agency registration project, would also attend the meeting. As reported by The American Spectator’s Matthew Vadum, Zeitler “manages Project Vote’s efforts to advocate for enforcement of Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 through technical assistance and litigation across the country,” according to her bio on Project Vote’s website.
As Director of Advocacy for Project Vote, Estelle Rogers – a former attorney for ACORN, which was besieged with charges of corruption and fraud before declaring bankruptcy in November 2010 – is a primary contact person on policy matters at Project Vote on both state and federal levels and has been actively involved in voter registration issues. By threatening lawsuits under Section 7 of the NVRA, Project Vote has aggressively sought to force election officials in various states to increase the registration of people receiving public assistance.
On June 20, 2011, Rogers and the ACLU co-wrote a letter to the DOJ, asking the department to block Florida’s new election integrity law (H.B. 1355). Florida has since withdrawn its application to the DOJ for “preclearance” of the law, and has taken its case to court instead.
On August 4, 2011, Judicial Watch released documents obtained from the Colorado Department of State showing that ACORN and Project Vote successfully pressured Colorado officials into implementing new policies for increasing the registration of public assistance recipients during the 2008 and 2010 election seasons. Following the policy changes, the percentage of invalid voter registration forms from Colorado public assistance agencies was four times the national average. Project Vote also sought a “legislative fix” to allow people without a driver’s license or state identification to register to vote online.
In addition to pursuing public agency registration cases in Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, and New Mexico, Project Vote and the NAACP filed a lawsuit on April 19, 2011, against the State of Louisiana alleging violations of the NVRA. Less than three months later, on July 12, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division/Voting Section sued Louisiana on the same grounds, claiming that “Louisiana officials have not routinely offered voter registration forms, assistance and services to the state’s eligible citizens who apply, recertify or provide a change address for public assistance or disability services.”
The DOJ also sued the State of Rhode Island on March 11, 2011, alleging violations of the NVRA. The lawsuit led to policy changes intended to increase the number of voter registration applications processed by “public assistance and disability service officers.” These two lawsuits, filed within five months of each other, are the first such lawsuits filed by the DOJ since 2007.
Project Vote and the “community organization” ACORN have both been linked to massive voter registration fraud. A total of 70 ACORN employees in 12 states have been convicted of voter registration fraud. And as documented in a July 2009 report by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, of the 1.3 million registrations Project Vote/ACORN submitted in the 2008 election cycle, more than one-third were invalid.
Moreover, Project Vote’s “Field Director,” Amy Busefink, who handled the online registration campaign for Colorado, entered an Alford plea to two gross misdemeanor counts of conspiracy to commit the crime of compensation for registration of voters in Nevada while working for ACORN. (An Alford plea is a guilty plea, where the defendant does not admit the act or assert innocence, but admits that sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.)
“It is an affront to the rule of law and a threat to the integrity of our elections that the ACORN-front Project Vote is coordinating with the Holder Department of Justice on voting law,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Now we know why the Holder DOJ never bothered to fully investigate voter registration fraud by Project Vote/ACORN – because Project Vote and the Department of Justice seem to have implemented a joint litigation strategy in the run up to the 2012 elections.”
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Natural homophobes? Evolutionary psychology and antigay attitudes
The work in question dates back to 1995-1996 and involves a four-paper exchange published in Ethology and Sociobiology. It is a dialogue between two influential evolutionary psychologists—Gordon Gallup of SUNY-Albany, whose work on human sexuality I’ve covered before, and British psychologist John Archer of the University of Central Lancashire. Their primary debate is about whether or not people’s aversion to homosexuality (colloquially called "homophobia," although both authors acknowledge that this is a misnomer because it is more a negative attitude towards this demographic than it is fear) is a product of natural selection or, alternatively, a culturally constructed, transmitted bias. That this discussion ended in 1996, and not a single study to my knowledge has sought to disentangle the various knots in both scientists’ positions, is revealing in its own right, and probably reflective of shifts in the social zeitgeist since then.
As Archer notes, most evolutionary research on homosexuality involves trying to locate its fringe gene-enhancing benefits. This homosexuality-is-adaptive-too approach complements a growing tolerance for gay individuals, such as, happily, myself. Gallup comes at things from a very different angle, instead asking why there is such disdain for gay people to begin with and—although cultures may vary in their relative degree of tolerance or practice of homosexual behaviors—why no cultures actually endorse exclusive, lifelong same-sex relationships.
The Gallup-Archer debate hinges on a multi-study empirical report by Gallup. In it, he aims to test his hypothesis that negative attitudes toward homosexuals is a function of parents’ implicit concerns that their children’s sexual orientation is malleable. Formulated originally with Susan Suarez in 1983, Gallup’s idea involves the following central prediction:
So-called homophobic reactions should be proportional to the extent to which the homosexual [is] in a position that might provide extended contact with children and/or would allow the person to influence a child’s emerging sexuality.
Remember, adaptive behavior is behavior that simply favors genetic replication. So just as being cuckolded results in maladaptive, unprofitable parental investment in someone else’s biological offspring, gay offspring—even your own biological child—are less likely to reproduce, and are likewise genetically costly. There are caveats. Just as a stepchild can contribute to one’s genetic success in indirect, non-reproductive ways—for example, by helping to raise your younger biological offspring, their half-siblings—gay offspring can do the same. But Gallup’s is an all-else-being-equal argument, and it makes sense in strictly biological terms. "In its simplest form," he clarifies, "parents who showed a concern for their child’s sexual orientation may have left more descendants than those who were indifferent."
Gallup’s position rests on a set of assumptions about the development of sexual orientation, assumptions that are in fact challenged by Archer. We’ll get to Archer’s criticisms eventually, as well as Gallup’s responses to them. But first, let’s have a look at how Gallup went about testing his hypothesis that homophobia stems from unconscious, gene-driven, parental concerns.
In his first of four studies, Gallup administered a survey to 167 self-identified straight undergraduate students—males and females—a survey designed to gauge the student’s "degree of discomfort" in interacting with homosexuals who held different jobs. Importantly, these occupations varied along one dimension: the extent to which the job entailed interaction with children. Included were nine sample occupations—three that afforded a high degree of contact with kids (teacher, school bus driver, medical doctor) and six that provided moderate to low contact (lawyer, construction worker, bank teller, pilot, mechanic, sales clerk). As predicted, the degree of discomfort was significantly correlated with the likelihood that persons in these categories would come into contact with children.
Intriguingly, hypothetical gay medical doctors elicited the most discomfort among the participants, an unexpected finding that Gallup sought to better understand in his second study. "There are at least two ways to interpret the greater discomfort expressed by respondents concerning homosexual doctors," he writes:
One possibility is that medical doctors have privileged access to children’s genitals in the context of conducting routine medical examinations, and therefore might be perceived as posing a more serious threat to a child’s developing sexuality. An interesting alternative interpretation concerns the prospect of contracting [HIV] from a homosexual doctor through nonsexual modes of transmission (e.g., blood, hypodermic needles).
In the second study, all of the characters were doctors of various kinds, physicians varying in the extent to which they would have intimate contact with children (pediatrician, child psychiatrist, general practitioner, cardiologist, brain surgeon, gerontologist). When left uninformed about the doctor’s sexual orientation, participants expressed the most discomfort about the prospect of interacting with those who had "invasive" techniques, such as the brain surgeon. But the picture changed dramatically when they were told the doctor was gay. Contrary to the HIV-exposure hypothesis, which should have produced little to no differences in attitudes toward the different gay doctors, it was the opportunity for intimate contact with children that correlated with discomfort. The participants were significantly less comfortable about the idea of interacting with gay pediatricians and general physicians than they were for the other types of gay doctors. In fact, gay brain surgeons, associated readily with infectious material, elicited the least aversion.
Gallup’s third study was even more revealing. Imagine, undergraduate participants were told, that you had a son or a daughter, either an 8-year-old or a 21-year-old, who was invited to spend the night at a friend’s house. On a scale of 1 ("not at all upset") to 4 ("very upset"), how upset you would be, as a parent of this hypothetical child, to learn that the friend’s mother or father was gay? The participants expressed most concern when their imaginary younger child was exposed to same-sex homosexual parents (young sons being around the friend’s gay father; young daughters being around the friend’s gay mother). This was especially pronounced (mean concern = 3.3) for male participants thinking about their imaginary eight-year-old son (compared to 2.3 at the thought of him being around a lesbian). These very same male participants didn’t seem to mind the prospect of their 21-year-old son being exposed to their friend’s lesbian mother (1.6), or even for this older imaginary son spending the night around their friend’s gay dad (2.3). So, the participants’ homophobia didn’t seem to be moralistically generalized to the "gay lifestyle" but instead it emerged specifically in terms of their folk beliefs about children’s sexual impressionability.
Gallup’s final study replicated his basic findings with a broader sample. Nearly two hundred people from the Albany area, varying along a wide range of demographics (age, sex, religiosity, education, number of gay friends) were polled on a "Homosexual Reproductive Threat Scale." Participants responded to statements such as, "I would feel uncomfortable if I learned that my daughter’s teacher was a lesbian," "I would feel uncomfortable if I learned that my neighbor was a homosexual," and so on. As you might expect, variables such as sex (males being more negative) and religiosity predicted homophobia. But parental status was independently correlated with negative attitudes to gays and lesbians, too; and this effect was especially salient for the males in the survey. Fathers with young children were the most homophobic.
A year after Gallup published his theory of homophobia, Archer critiqued it in the same journal. "I shall argue," he writes, "that there is perhaps too great a willingness to assume that the sorts of human behavior with which we are familiar today can necessarily be viewed in adaptive terms." Archer rightly notes, in fact, that the best predictor of adult sexual orientation is gender nonconforming behavior in early childhood. So Gallup’s central position that homosexuality occurs via "seduction" of (especially male) children is flawed. Rather, says Archer, "the link between pedophiles and male homosexuals is one that has been encouraged by media depictions of all those with nonheterosexual orientations as deviant."
Not so fast, Gallup reacts to this media conspiracy claim:
Although the incidence of heterosexual pedophiles exceeds that of homosexual pedophiles by a factor of about two to one, individuals in the population at large with a heterosexual orientation outnumber those with a homosexual orientation by about 20 to 1. Thus, although there are fewer homosexual than heterosexual pedophiles, the proportion of homosexual pedophiles is considerably higher than that of heterosexual pedophiles. Homosexual pedophiles also tend to be highly promiscuous. [In 1987], the mean number of victims of heterosexual pedophiles was 19.8, whereas among homosexual pedophiles the average number of victims was 150.2. Because they have more victims, homosexual pedophiles have a correspondingly greater likelihood of being apprehended, and this might account for their disproportionate representation among those arrested for sex crimes.
Furthemore, Gallup never claims that being seduced by a gay pedophile is the only path to homosexuality, nor that—obviously—"turning gay" is an inevitable outcome of being molested by an adult of the same sex. Instead, he argues, in the ancestral past, such developmental experiences would have led to statistically more homosexuality outcomes than would the absence of such encounters, and thus there was a selection bias for homophobia, apparently exacerbated by becoming a parent.
Recent evidence offers some support for Gallup’s model: men—but not women—who were sexually abused as children by same-sex adults are more likely than non-abused males to have homosexual relationships as grownups. Most researchers believe that there is something like a "sexual imprinting" process that occurs in early development, which may help to explain this, as well as fetishism and paraphilias. Note also that some of the most virulent homophobia today can be found on the playgrounds, which is consistent with the sexual imprinting model. Children and teen’s stubborn reluctance towards tolerating gays and lesbians may itself be an adaptive proscription orienting them away from same-sex experimentation. Gallup points to data showing that boys whose first masturbation experiences are around other boys are more likely to be homosexual as adults than are those who are alone.
Archer favors an alternative evolutionary theory of xenophobia (hatred of outgroup members) to account for Gallup’s findings. Gays, he argues, have been homogenized into stereotypical pedophiles because of media biases, just as racist British people refer to anyone of certain Asian origin—whether from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, or Pakistan—as "Pakis." Xenophobia would have been an adaptive strategy in the ancestral past, says Archer, given the ever-present threat of social dissidence within groups and also the invasion of other groups.
But, replies Gallup, this still doesn’t explain the data in hand. "How can xenophobia," he counters, "account for the fact that college students who have yet to become parents feel more uncomfortable about the prospect of being in the presence of a homosexual teacher than a homosexual construction worker or airline pilot? Similarly, how would an appeal to xenophobia explain the fact that students report feeling more uncomfortable about the prospect of being in the presence of a homosexual pediatrician or general practitioner than a homosexual brain surgeon?"
And this, as I mentioned, is pretty much where the debate ends. I’ve revived this fifteen-year-old discussion in the hopes that it might spark new research. Gallup’s work is intriguing, his theory sound. Yet his studies are imperfect, the data remain un-replicated, public attitudes have changed (dramatically, in the US) and other cultures may differ in response to homophobia manipulations. One thing that is important to keep in mind, however, is that societal changes in attitudes toward homosexuals may not mirror people’s implicit biases. Today’s answers may very much sound like the voice of gay-friendly 2011 but, as any social psychologist knows, you can’t always trust what people tell you as reflecting their private attitudes. (They may not even be aware of these themselves.) So researchers today would have to be very clever in probing for what have rapidly become socially inappropriate feelings.
Sometimes, science can be exceedingly rude—unpalatable, even. The rare batch of data, especially from the psychological sciences, can abruptly expose a society’s hypocrisies and capital delusions, all the ugly little seams in a culturally valued fable. I have always had a special affection for those scientists like Gallup who, in investigating highly charged subject matter, operate without curtseying to the court of public opinion. And, before anyone does so, what an absurd, spineless suggestion for science to refrain from engaging in any intellectual inquiry, from exploring theoretical possibilities, because we fear what we may learn about ourselves. It’s the devils we don’t know that we have the most to fear. That Gallup’s ideas could be championed by antisocial conservatives to promote further intolerance against gays is inevitable, perhaps; but if it’s any consolation, it should also have them doing a bit of navel-gazing, seeing that their hatred is just an artifact of their godlessly evolved minds.
About The Author: Want more Bering in Mind? Follow Jesse on Twitter @JesseBering, visit www.jessebering.com, or friend Jesse on Facebook. Jesse is the author of newly released book, The Belief Instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny and the Meaning of Life (W. W. Norton).
Clinton in 2010: If It Doesn't Work In Two Years, 'Vote Us All Out Then'
In 2010, former President Bill Clinton spoke at Cuyahoga and told those in attendance to hold tight and give the Democrats a chance to fix the nations problems. He went on to say if they couldn't, to vote them all out in 2012.
Clinton stated:
"And they say they had 21 months put us back in, the Democrats are saying something like this: Look, we found a big hole that we did not dig, and we didn't get out of it in 21 months, but at least we quit digging. So, don't go back in reverse, give us two more years and if it doesn't work you have another election in just two years, you can vote us all out then. But for goodness sakes, we quit digging don't bring back the shovel brigade."
Common logic: Child With Gay Parents Can’t Enroll At School
A local Christian school that has refused to enroll a student in its pre-K program because his parents are gay is violating the New Mexico Human Rights Act, the family’s attorney contends.
Attorney Shane Youtz, who represents the family, said the couple received a letter from Hope Christian school saying their three-year-old son would not be able to enroll because of his parents’ sexual orientation.
An official from Hope Christian – which received $61,455 in public, federal funding for the current budget year – declined to comment.
Youtz said the family hopes the school will change its mind, and that the matter can be resolved without litigation.
The New Mexico Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment, housing and “public accommodations.” It also bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The statute allows religious-based organizations to discriminate on that basis, but not if they have a nonprofit status.
Hope is a nonprofit, so Youtz contends the school must admit the student...
Attorney Shane Youtz, who represents the family, said the couple received a letter from Hope Christian school saying their three-year-old son would not be able to enroll because of his parents’ sexual orientation.
An official from Hope Christian – which received $61,455 in public, federal funding for the current budget year – declined to comment.
Youtz said the family hopes the school will change its mind, and that the matter can be resolved without litigation.
The New Mexico Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment, housing and “public accommodations.” It also bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The statute allows religious-based organizations to discriminate on that basis, but not if they have a nonprofit status.
Hope is a nonprofit, so Youtz contends the school must admit the student...
Egypt: Muslims kidnap and enslave thousands of Christian girls
"Forbidden to you are your mothers and daughters, your sisters, your aunts paternal and maternal, your brother's daughters, your sister's daughters, your mothers who have given suck to you, your suckling sisters, your wives' mothers, your stepdaughters who are in your care being born of your wives you have been in to -- but if you have not yet been in to them it is no fault in you - and the spouses of your sons who are of your loins, and that you should take to you two sisters together, unless it be a thing of the past; God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate; and wedded women, save what your right hands own." (Qur'an 4:23-24)
Will the Islamophobia never end? "US professor says Coptic girls being kidnapped, forced into servitude in Egypt," by Joseph Mayton for Bikya Masr, July 27 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
CAIRO: A new report from George Washington University professor Michele Clark and Coptic rights activist Nada Ghaly has argued that thousands of young Coptic Christian girls in Egypt are the victim of kidnapping and forced servitude by Muslims in the North African country.
“Women and girls who are found indicate they were befriended by friends or relatives of their kidnappers, or the kidnappers themselves, drugged and then taken in a well-organized plan.
“Others, like a young mother who testified before the Helsinki Commission last week, were snatched by violent strangers in broad daylight. Her would-be abductor shouted to bystanders while dragging her to a waiting taxi, ‘No one interfere! She is an enemy of Islam’,” said a report highlighting the new report.
The report, which detailed Clark and Ghaly’s latest description of violence against young Coptic women, goes on to say:
Abduction, many who return home indicate that they were raped and told they could not go home because their families would never accept them back. Many are beaten; others are forced into domestic servitude. They are not allowed to leave where they are held without a member of their captor’s family keeping watch. They eventually are brainwashed into thinking the only way to be safe is to convert. Their families, who have been searching frantically for their daughters, sisters and wives — without any help from the police — often never discover their fate. The lucky ones find out via YouTube and other websites that their daughters are alive and have converted. While some conversions could be legitimate, overwhelming evidence points to abduction, forced marriage and coerced conversion persecuting the Coptic population.
Clark is not new to her outspoken coverage of the plight of Coptic women, issuing near annual reports on the situation, which some observers say embellishes and delivers a picture that is far from accurate.
In recent years, Coptic Christian advocacy groups have lambasted the Egyptian authorities for allegedly not forcing the return of Coptic girls to their families after they have allegedly been kidnapped by Muslim men. Police and media have reported scores of missing women over the past few years and many quickly return to their families without much explanation.
Some Coptic families have alleged that the women were kidnapped by Muslim men and forced to undergo conversion to Islam.
But some women’s rights advocates here argue that these are not kidnappings. More often, they see these cases as cries for help by young women in the socially conservative Coptic community, which traces its church to the first century when, by traditional belief, the apostle Mark founded it in Egypt as the first Christian church in history.
In particular, rights activists say the missing young women draw attention to customs among traditional Copts, particularly the lack of access to divorce and the practice of arranged marriages.
“A key reason for the so-called ‘kidnappings’ is that Coptic women have no right to divorce,” Nehad Abul Komsan, head of the Cairo-based Egyptian Center for Women’s Rights and now leading member of the newly re-established National Council of women, told Bikyamasr.com in a previous interview on the subject.
“This means that if their parents tell them they are going to marry their cousin, they have to submit to this and have no choice . . . So they turn to Islam, not because of a spiritual belief in the religion but because it gives them more of an opportunity to choose their life’s path,” she said.
Once returned to their families the women’s absences often remain unexplained and the ongoing controversy has served as flashpoints for long-simmering tensions between the Coptic and Muslim communities.
One of most reported cases is of Irene Hanna Labib, who was allegedly kidnapped from Sohag, some 500 kilometers south of Cairo, in 2009. According to AINA’s reporter, Mary Abbelmassih, the Egyptian police in the area are refusing to go after her abductor. She argues that Labib’s kidnapping is part of the “Islamization business” and part of the way Egypt’s Muslim population are attempting to rid Egypt of Christians.
She quotes Magdy Khalil, a Copt and researcher, who says “abducting and converting Coptic girls to Islam is not only a result of the paranoid and racist incitation against the Copts, it is an organized and pre-planned process by associations and organizations inside Egypt with domestic and Arab funding, as the main role in seducing and luring Coptic girls is carried through cunning, deceit, and enticement, or through force if required.”
But Komsan said her organization has received numerous reports from Coptic women who seek their help in deciding what to do with their lives, especially in a situation when legal divorce is not an option.
She said another major factor spurring young Coptic women to flee their families is the move in the 1990s by Coptic Christian churches to forbid conversion to another Christian sect in which they might have found more freedom.
“It is not necessarily a societal problem; it is more religious issues that face women in our society,” said Abul Komsan.
“Women face leaders that force them to do things that they do not have any desire to do. They do certain things, such as running away from their family and converting to Islam, because it is the only way to get out of their designated role their family has for them.”
Laura, a Coptic woman in her mid-20s living in Alexandria who asked that her surname not be used, agreed. She said that while a few of the kidnappings may be authentic, most of the media reports are based on fabrications made by the families to disguise their daughters’ dissatisfaction.
“We, as Coptic women, have to deal with what our priests tell us and force upon us on a daily basis and often many women just can’t take it any longer so they just leave their families and run off with a Muslim man,” she says.
Because of the alleged kidnappings, more women are coming to her organization for counseling, Abul Komsan says, and many ask for advice about whether to leave or stay.
Muslim leaders have condemned the alleged kidnappings as contrary to Islamic thinking. Al-Azhar’s former grand sheikh Sayyed Al-Tantawi told Al-Ahram a few years ago that “these actions are contrary to Islam and we hope to receive more information concerning alleged kidnappings and would like to have an open dialogue with our Christian brothers and sisters in the country.”...
Actually, kidnapping infidels and enslaving them is fully sanctioned in Islamic law: "As for the captives, the amir [ruler] has the choice of taking the most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first to put them to death by cutting their necks; the second, to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission; the third, to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show favor to them and pardon them. Allah, may he be exalted, says, 'When you encounter those [infidels] who deny [the Truth=Islam] then strike [their] necks' (Qur'an sura 47, verse 4)" — Abu’l-Hasan al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah (The Laws of Islamic Governance), trans. by Dr. Asadullah Yate, (London), Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd., 1996, p. 192.
Will the Islamophobia never end? "US professor says Coptic girls being kidnapped, forced into servitude in Egypt," by Joseph Mayton for Bikya Masr, July 27 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
CAIRO: A new report from George Washington University professor Michele Clark and Coptic rights activist Nada Ghaly has argued that thousands of young Coptic Christian girls in Egypt are the victim of kidnapping and forced servitude by Muslims in the North African country.
“Women and girls who are found indicate they were befriended by friends or relatives of their kidnappers, or the kidnappers themselves, drugged and then taken in a well-organized plan.
“Others, like a young mother who testified before the Helsinki Commission last week, were snatched by violent strangers in broad daylight. Her would-be abductor shouted to bystanders while dragging her to a waiting taxi, ‘No one interfere! She is an enemy of Islam’,” said a report highlighting the new report.
The report, which detailed Clark and Ghaly’s latest description of violence against young Coptic women, goes on to say:
Abduction, many who return home indicate that they were raped and told they could not go home because their families would never accept them back. Many are beaten; others are forced into domestic servitude. They are not allowed to leave where they are held without a member of their captor’s family keeping watch. They eventually are brainwashed into thinking the only way to be safe is to convert. Their families, who have been searching frantically for their daughters, sisters and wives — without any help from the police — often never discover their fate. The lucky ones find out via YouTube and other websites that their daughters are alive and have converted. While some conversions could be legitimate, overwhelming evidence points to abduction, forced marriage and coerced conversion persecuting the Coptic population.
Clark is not new to her outspoken coverage of the plight of Coptic women, issuing near annual reports on the situation, which some observers say embellishes and delivers a picture that is far from accurate.
In recent years, Coptic Christian advocacy groups have lambasted the Egyptian authorities for allegedly not forcing the return of Coptic girls to their families after they have allegedly been kidnapped by Muslim men. Police and media have reported scores of missing women over the past few years and many quickly return to their families without much explanation.
Some Coptic families have alleged that the women were kidnapped by Muslim men and forced to undergo conversion to Islam.
But some women’s rights advocates here argue that these are not kidnappings. More often, they see these cases as cries for help by young women in the socially conservative Coptic community, which traces its church to the first century when, by traditional belief, the apostle Mark founded it in Egypt as the first Christian church in history.
In particular, rights activists say the missing young women draw attention to customs among traditional Copts, particularly the lack of access to divorce and the practice of arranged marriages.
“A key reason for the so-called ‘kidnappings’ is that Coptic women have no right to divorce,” Nehad Abul Komsan, head of the Cairo-based Egyptian Center for Women’s Rights and now leading member of the newly re-established National Council of women, told Bikyamasr.com in a previous interview on the subject.
“This means that if their parents tell them they are going to marry their cousin, they have to submit to this and have no choice . . . So they turn to Islam, not because of a spiritual belief in the religion but because it gives them more of an opportunity to choose their life’s path,” she said.
Once returned to their families the women’s absences often remain unexplained and the ongoing controversy has served as flashpoints for long-simmering tensions between the Coptic and Muslim communities.
One of most reported cases is of Irene Hanna Labib, who was allegedly kidnapped from Sohag, some 500 kilometers south of Cairo, in 2009. According to AINA’s reporter, Mary Abbelmassih, the Egyptian police in the area are refusing to go after her abductor. She argues that Labib’s kidnapping is part of the “Islamization business” and part of the way Egypt’s Muslim population are attempting to rid Egypt of Christians.
She quotes Magdy Khalil, a Copt and researcher, who says “abducting and converting Coptic girls to Islam is not only a result of the paranoid and racist incitation against the Copts, it is an organized and pre-planned process by associations and organizations inside Egypt with domestic and Arab funding, as the main role in seducing and luring Coptic girls is carried through cunning, deceit, and enticement, or through force if required.”
But Komsan said her organization has received numerous reports from Coptic women who seek their help in deciding what to do with their lives, especially in a situation when legal divorce is not an option.
She said another major factor spurring young Coptic women to flee their families is the move in the 1990s by Coptic Christian churches to forbid conversion to another Christian sect in which they might have found more freedom.
“It is not necessarily a societal problem; it is more religious issues that face women in our society,” said Abul Komsan.
“Women face leaders that force them to do things that they do not have any desire to do. They do certain things, such as running away from their family and converting to Islam, because it is the only way to get out of their designated role their family has for them.”
Laura, a Coptic woman in her mid-20s living in Alexandria who asked that her surname not be used, agreed. She said that while a few of the kidnappings may be authentic, most of the media reports are based on fabrications made by the families to disguise their daughters’ dissatisfaction.
“We, as Coptic women, have to deal with what our priests tell us and force upon us on a daily basis and often many women just can’t take it any longer so they just leave their families and run off with a Muslim man,” she says.
Because of the alleged kidnappings, more women are coming to her organization for counseling, Abul Komsan says, and many ask for advice about whether to leave or stay.
Muslim leaders have condemned the alleged kidnappings as contrary to Islamic thinking. Al-Azhar’s former grand sheikh Sayyed Al-Tantawi told Al-Ahram a few years ago that “these actions are contrary to Islam and we hope to receive more information concerning alleged kidnappings and would like to have an open dialogue with our Christian brothers and sisters in the country.”...
Actually, kidnapping infidels and enslaving them is fully sanctioned in Islamic law: "As for the captives, the amir [ruler] has the choice of taking the most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first to put them to death by cutting their necks; the second, to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission; the third, to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show favor to them and pardon them. Allah, may he be exalted, says, 'When you encounter those [infidels] who deny [the Truth=Islam] then strike [their] necks' (Qur'an sura 47, verse 4)" — Abu’l-Hasan al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah (The Laws of Islamic Governance), trans. by Dr. Asadullah Yate, (London), Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd., 1996, p. 192.
Soros Open Society Now a Tourist Destination?
How did the George Soros Open Society logo get prominently displayed in the US Travel & Tourism ‘Land of Dreams’ video, televised in the United Kingdom, Japan and Canada for the past three months?
The $12.3 million ad campaign presents a display of photographs of beautiful scenic places in all 50 states that link to destination content pulled from ‘1,000 Places to See in the United States & Canada Before You Die’. (Forbes Magazine).
How the Open Society logo figures in with landmarks like the Rockies, Arizona Desert and New York City is one for the books.
Moving through breathtaking scenes with the Discover America’s signature song ‘Land of Dreams’ written and sung by Roseanne Cash, viewers don’t get a raincheck on the campaign’s multicultural theme and the spiral in the sand that builds the Open Society Logo in opening scenes. Such is the power of subliminal.
Discover America is $12.3 million dollars worth of free advertising for Soros.
Blame Brand USA for the Open Society’s free advertising ride.
Brand USA is governed by an 11-member Board of Directors appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, with headquarters based in Washington, DC.
“Brand USA was established by the Travel Promotion Act in 2010 to spearhead the nation’s first global marketing effort to promote the United States as a premier travel destination and communicate U.S. entry/exit policies and procedures. Formed as the Corporation for Travel Promotion, the public-private entity began operations in May 2011 and does business as Brand USA.
“No taxpayer dollars are used to fund Brand USA. At least half the program’s budget will be funded by investment from the private sector. The remainder will come from the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA), which assesses a small $14 fee on visitors traveling to the United States from countries that do not require a visa. Brand USA’s annual budget is projected to be up to $200 million.” (thebrandUSA.com).
Brand USA’s mission to conduct the “first ever commercial advertising the United States of America” seems to be at odds with the administration who spawned it. The same administration whose leader apologizes for America when traveling to other countries and one who is committed to the Fundamental Transformation of America.
“Brand USA works in close partnership with the travel industry to maximize the economic and social benefits of travel. Through its call-to-action—Discover America.com—Brand USA inspires travelers to explore the United States of America’s boundless possibilities. For industry or partner information about Brand USA, visit thebrandusa.com.”
Following its first three-month run in the UK, Japan and Canada, the campaign will run in Brazil, South Korea and other countries.
Meanwhile, fast fading from U.S. tourism jingo is the meaning behind one of the country’s most famous folksongs, ‘This Land is Your Land’.
The $12.3 million ad campaign presents a display of photographs of beautiful scenic places in all 50 states that link to destination content pulled from ‘1,000 Places to See in the United States & Canada Before You Die’. (Forbes Magazine).
How the Open Society logo figures in with landmarks like the Rockies, Arizona Desert and New York City is one for the books.
Moving through breathtaking scenes with the Discover America’s signature song ‘Land of Dreams’ written and sung by Roseanne Cash, viewers don’t get a raincheck on the campaign’s multicultural theme and the spiral in the sand that builds the Open Society Logo in opening scenes. Such is the power of subliminal.
Discover America is $12.3 million dollars worth of free advertising for Soros.
Blame Brand USA for the Open Society’s free advertising ride.
Brand USA is governed by an 11-member Board of Directors appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, with headquarters based in Washington, DC.
“Brand USA was established by the Travel Promotion Act in 2010 to spearhead the nation’s first global marketing effort to promote the United States as a premier travel destination and communicate U.S. entry/exit policies and procedures. Formed as the Corporation for Travel Promotion, the public-private entity began operations in May 2011 and does business as Brand USA.
“No taxpayer dollars are used to fund Brand USA. At least half the program’s budget will be funded by investment from the private sector. The remainder will come from the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA), which assesses a small $14 fee on visitors traveling to the United States from countries that do not require a visa. Brand USA’s annual budget is projected to be up to $200 million.” (thebrandUSA.com).
Brand USA’s mission to conduct the “first ever commercial advertising the United States of America” seems to be at odds with the administration who spawned it. The same administration whose leader apologizes for America when traveling to other countries and one who is committed to the Fundamental Transformation of America.
“Brand USA works in close partnership with the travel industry to maximize the economic and social benefits of travel. Through its call-to-action—Discover America.com—Brand USA inspires travelers to explore the United States of America’s boundless possibilities. For industry or partner information about Brand USA, visit thebrandusa.com.”
Following its first three-month run in the UK, Japan and Canada, the campaign will run in Brazil, South Korea and other countries.
Meanwhile, fast fading from U.S. tourism jingo is the meaning behind one of the country’s most famous folksongs, ‘This Land is Your Land’.
Here are 48 things that Barack Obama has done which should make his supporters feel ashamed and embarrassed
1) Carried out military interventionism
In June 2011, U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said that Obama had violated the Constitution when he launched military operations in Libya without Congressional approval.
2) Gave a no-bid contract to Halliburton
In May 2010, it was reported that the Obama administration had selected KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton, for a no-bid contract worth as much as $568 million through 2011 for military support services in Iraq, just hours after the Justice Department had said it would pursue a lawsuit accusing the Houston-based company of taking kickbacks from two subcontractors on Iraq-related work.
3) Has an administration full of lobbyists
While running for President, Obama had promised that, unlike Bush, he would not have any lobbyists working in his administration. However, by February 2010, he had more than 40 lobbyists working in his administration.
4) Has close ties to Wall St.
Although Obama claims to support the Occupy Wall St. movement, the truth is that he has raised more money from Wall St. than any other candidate during the last 20 years. In early 2012, Obama held a fundraiser where Wall St. investment bankers and hedge fund managers each paid $35,800 to attend. In October 2011, Obama hired Broderick Johnson, a longtime Wall Street lobbyist, to be his new senior campaign adviser. Johnson had worked as a lobbyist for JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Fannie Mae, Comcast, Microsoft, and the oil industry.
5) Abused prisoners at Guantanamo Bay
Under President Obama, abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay became even worse than it had been under President Bush.
6) Supported the $700 billion TARP corporate-welfare bailout
While Senator, Obama voted for the $700 billion TARP bank bailout bill.
7) Waged war against medical marijuana
In May 2008, Obama campaign spokesperson Ben LaBolt said that Obama would end DEA raids on medical marijuana in states where it’s legal. Also in 2008, Obama said that he supported the “basic concept of using medical marijuana for the same purposes and with the same controls as other drugs” and that he was “not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws.” However, in February 2010, DEA agents raided a medical marijuana grower in Highlands Ranch in Colorado, a state where medical marijuana is legal. Also in February 2010, DEA agents raided a medical marijuana dispensary in Culver City in California, a state where medical marijuana is legal. In July 2010, the DEA raided at least four medical marijuana growers in San Diego, California. Also in July 2010, the DEA raided a medical marijuana facility in Covelo, California. Then in September 2010, the DEA conducted raids on at least five medical marijuana dispensaries in Las Vegas, Nevada, where medical marijuana is legal. In 2011, the DEA conducted raids on medical marijuana in Seattle, Washington, West Hollywood, California, and Helena, Montana, all places where it is legal. In April 2012, the DEA carried out several raids on medical marijuana in Oakland, California. In February 2012, Rolling Stone magazine wrote that Obama’s war against medical marijuana went “far beyond anything undertaken by George W. Bush.” In May 2012, U.S. Congressperson Nancy Pelosi (D-California) said she had “strong concerns” about Obama’s forced closure of five medical marijuana facilities in Pelosi’s congressional district. Commenting on Obama’s crackdown on medical marijuana, U.S. Congressman Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) said, “I’m very disappointed… They look more like the Bush administration than the Clinton administration.”
8) Looked the other way at tax cheaters
Obama nominated Timothy Geithner, a repeat tax cheater, to head the government agency that enforces the tax laws.
9) Gave tax dollars to AIG executives
Obama signed a stimulus bill that spent money on bonuses for AIG executives. Prior to signing this bill, Obama had said, “when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” However, after reading “line by line” and signing the stimulus bill that protected the AIG bonuses, Obama pretended to be shocked and outraged at the bonuses, and said, “Under these circumstances, it’s hard to understand how derivative traders at A.I.G. warranted any bonuses at all, much less $165 million in extra pay… How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?” and also said that he would “pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses.”
10) Supported government faith based programs
Obama expanded the federal government’s faith based programs which had been started by President George W. Bush.
11) Supported the Patriot Act
In May 2011, Obama signed a renewal of the Patriot Act.
12) Increased the national debt
The national debt increased more during Obama’s first three years and two months than it did during all eight years of George W. Bush’s presidency.
13) Supported indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without filing any charges
In December 2011, ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero criticized Obama for signing a bill that gave the U.S. government the power to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without any charges being filed or any trial taking place.
14) Supported warrnentless wiretapping
President Obama has defended warrantless wiretapping.
15) Avoided prosecution of Wall. St criminals
Although Obama had promised to prosecute Wall St. criminals, as of May 2012, the Obama administration had not filed any criminal charges against any of the top financial executives.
16) Had U.S. citizen killed without judicial process
The ACLU accused Obama of violating the U.S. Constitution by having a U.S. citizen killed without judicial process. U.S. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) said that Obama’s actions might be an impeachable offense.
17) Ordered private company to fire 1,000 employees
In 2011, after Boeing had hired 1,000 new employees to work at its new factory in South Carolina, the Obama administration ordered Boeing to shut down the factory, because the factory was non-union.
18) Stole money from retired teachers and police officers
During the Chrysler bankruptcy, Obama violated the Fifth Amendment and more than 150 years of bankruptcy law by illegally treating secured creditors worse than unsecured creditors. Some of these secured creditors were retired teachers and police officers from Indiana. Richard A. Epstein, a law professor at New York University School of Law, wrote, “Upsetting this fixed hierarchy among creditors is just an illegal taking of property from one group of creditors for the benefit of another, which should be struck down on both statutory and constitutional grounds.” Todd Zywicki, Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law, wrote that Obama’s treatment of secured creditors was “dangerous to the rule of law.” The Economist wrote that Obama’s actions could “establish a terrible precedent. Bankruptcy exists to sort legal claims on assets. If it becomes a tool of social policy, who will then lend to struggling firms in which the government has a political interest?” Francis Cianfrocca, the CEO of Bayshore Networks, wrote that Obama’s actions were “an astonishingly reckless abrogation of contract law that will introduce a new level of uncertainty into business transactions at all levels, and make wealth generation more difficult going forward… An extraordinary uncertainty has been created when the most powerful man in the world can rewrite contracts and choose winners and losers in private negotiations as he sees fit. Since this is an unquantifiable uncertainty, and not a quantifiable risk, its effect on business and investor confidence will be large and unpredictable. As in the 1930s, a time when government also cavalierly rewrote private contracts, the prudent approach for business will be to invest minimally and wait for another administration.”
19) Supported release of convicted serial killer
In 2010, Obama supported releasing Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi (who had been convicted of murdering 270 people) from prison.
20) Illegally put thousands of guns into hands of criminals
In Operation Fast and Furious, the Obama administration ordered gun storeowners to illegally sell thousands of guns to criminals.
21) Fired Inspector General for discovering that Obama’s friend had embezzled government funds
In June 2009, Obama fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin, after Walpin accused Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson, an Obama supporter, of misuse of AmeriCorps funding to pay for school-board political activities. In a letter to Congress, the White House said that Walpin was fired because he was “confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve.” A bipartisan group of 145 current and former public officials, attorneys, and legal scholars signed a letter that was sent to the White House, which defended Walpin, said the criticisms of him were not true, and said that his firing was politically motivated. The letter can be read here.
22) Ignored constitutional requirements for appointees
In February 2009, U.S. Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) expressed concern that Obama’s dozens of czars might violate the U.S. Constitution, because they were not approved by the U.S. Senate. U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) expressed a similar concern in September 2009.
23) Forced union to drop health insurance for employees’ children
In November 2010, 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East announced that it would drop health insurance for the children of more than 30,000 low-wage home attendants. Mitra Behroozi, executive director of benefit and pension funds for 1199SEIU stated, “… new federal health-care reform legislation requires plans with dependent coverage to expand that coverage up to age 26… meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible.”
24) Gave some employers special exemptions from health care reform
In October 2010, Obama gave McDonald’s and 29 other organizations an exemption from some of the requirements of his health care plan. Over time, more than 1,300 organizations were granted waivers.
25) Gave tax dollars to campaign contributors and lobbyists, and falsely claimed that the money was for “green” energy
The Obama administration gave $535 million to Solyndra, claiming that it would create 4,000 new jobs. However, instead of creating those 4,000 new jobs, the company went bankrupt. It was later revealed that the company’s shareholders and executives had made substantial donations to Obama’s campaign, and that the company had also spent a large sum of money on lobbying. In April 2012, CBS News reported that Solyndra had left a substantial amount of toxic waste at its abandoned facility in Milpitas, California. After Obama gave Raser Technologies $33 million to build a power plant, the company declared bankruptcy, and owed $1.5 million in back taxes. After Obama gave Abound Solar, Inc. a $400 million loan guarantee to build photovoltaic panel factories, the company halted production and laid off 180 employees. After Obama gave Beacon Power a $43 million loan guarantee to build green energy storage, the company filed for bankruptcy. After Obama approved $2.1 billion in loan guarantees for Solar Trust of America so it could build solar power plants, the company filed for bankruptcy. Although Obama stated that all of the green energy companies that received taxpayer money were chosen “based solely on their merits,” the truth is that 71% of these grants and loans went to Obama donors and fundraisers, who raised $457,834 for his campaign, and were later approved for grants and loans totaling more than $11 billion. By November 2011, the Energy Department’s inspector general had begun more than 100 criminal investigations related to Obama’s stimulus.
26) Had “off the record” meetings with lobbyists
In June 2010, the New York Times reported that Obama administration officials had held hundreds of meetings with lobbyists at coffee houses near the White House, in order to avoid the disclosure requirements for White House visitors, and that these meetings “reveal a disconnect between the Obama administration’s public rhetoric — with Mr. Obama himself frequently thrashing big industries’ ‘battalions’ of lobbyists as enemies of reform — and the administration’s continuing, private dealings with them.”
27) Falsely claimed to believe in public education
Although Obama said, “We need to uphold the ideal of public education,” he expressed his true opinion of America’s public education system by sending his own children to private schools while living in Chicago and Washington D.C.
28) Had armed agents raid guitar factory and seize guitars without charges being filed
Obama had armed federal agents raid the Gibson guitar factory, order the employees to leave, and seize guitars and other property from the factory – and all of this happened without any charges being filed.
29) Shut down Amish farm
In February 2012, Obama shut down an Amish farm for selling unpasteurized milk across state lines, even though the customers were happy with what they were buying.
30) Rewarded his fundraisers by giving them federal jobs
Although Obama had promised to have “the most sweeping ethics reform in history,” and had often criticized the role of money in politics, the truth is that after he was elected, he gave administration jobs to more than half of his 47 biggest fundraisers.
31) Made recess appointments when Congress was not in recess
In January 2012, Obama violated the Constitution by making four recess appointments when Congress was not in recess. Recess appointments themselves are constitutional, but only if they are made when Congress is actually in recess.
32) Gave tax dollars to corrupt private contractors
While Obama was a state Senator in Illinois, he used tax dollars to build 504 units of slum housing, which had mice and backed up sewage. Federal inspectors graded the condition of the housing so bad that the buildings faced demolition.
33) Used tax dollars to glorify murderers
The Obama administration spent $1.6 million to restore graffiti that glorified communist murderers Che Guevara and Fidel Castro.
34) Proved that he’s the least intelligent President in history
Despite having taught constitutional law at one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, in April 2012 Obama falsely claimed that the U.S. Supreme Court had never overturned any laws that had been passed by Congress.
35) Supported new bailouts for speculators who caused housing bubble
In March 2012, Obama announced a new set of bailouts for speculators who had caused the housing bubble.
36) Doesn’t care about taxpayers’ money
As part of his economic stimulus, Obama spent $205,075 of taxpayer money to relocate and care for a single specimen of Arctostaphylos franciscana, a shrubbery which nurseries sell for $16.
37) Supported ludicrous “scientific study”
Obama’s administration funded a study to see whether or not rats’ enjoyment of the music of Miles Davis was increased when the rats were high on cocaine.
38) Tried to outlaw family farms
In April 2012, the Obama administration proposed new regulations which would prohibit farm children under 18 from working at grain elevators, silos, feed lots, stockyards, and livestock auctions, as well as from storing, marketing and transporting farm product raw materials. Critics claimed that this would prevent children from the common practice of working on their friends’ and relatives’ farms, and that farm children did not need “help” from a community organizer in Washington.
39) Auctioned off ambassadorship to the Netherlands
In April 2012, Obama nominated Timothy Broas, who had “bundled” more than $500,000 for Obama’s 2012 campaign, to be U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands.
40) Claimed that written tests are a form of “racial discrimination”
The Obama administration accused fire and police departments in Jacksonville, Florida, New York City, and Dayton, Ohio of “racial discrimination” because they required potential firefighters and police officers to take a written test. Ten real examples of these “racist” questions from the New York test can be read here.
41) Made the TSA more abusive and more ridiculuos
The Obama administration gave a very invasive patdown to a three-year-old boy in a wheelchair, which caused the boy to tremble in fear. The Obama administration gave an aggressive patdown to a seven-year-old girl with cerebral palsy. The Obama administration said that a four-year-old girl was a “high security threat.” The Obama administration placed an 18-month-old girl on its no fly list. The Obama administration gave a patdown to Henry Kissinger.
42) Violated Freedom of Information Act
The Obama administration demanded that the Goldwater Institute pay $78,935.80 before it would share public records which it had requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
43) Fined public school $15,000 for selling soda
The Obama administration fined a high school $15,000 for selling soda to students during lunch.
44) Conducted dangerous and illegal scientific experiments on people
From January 2010 through June 2011, the Obama administration conducted illegal scientific experiments which exposed 42 people to dangerous levels of toxins.
45) Gave middle finger to Vietnam veterans, their families, and their friends
On Memorial Day 2012, Obama prevented Vietnam veterans and their friends and families from visiting the Vietnam memorial for seven hours, so Obama could have his picture taken.
46) Took ownership and control of General Motors
Obama fired the CEO of General Motors, had the government take 60.8% ownership of the company, and ordered the company to close some of its dealerships.
47) Pressued poor people to buy overpriced housing
While working as a community organizer, Obama filed lawsuits which forced banks to give mortgages to people with low incomes and bad credit. As a result, many of these people ended up defaulting on their mortgages.
48) Started the false rumor that he was born in Kenya
Although Obama was born in Hawaii, in 1991 he told his book publisher that he was born in Kenya.
In June 2011, U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said that Obama had violated the Constitution when he launched military operations in Libya without Congressional approval.
2) Gave a no-bid contract to Halliburton
In May 2010, it was reported that the Obama administration had selected KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton, for a no-bid contract worth as much as $568 million through 2011 for military support services in Iraq, just hours after the Justice Department had said it would pursue a lawsuit accusing the Houston-based company of taking kickbacks from two subcontractors on Iraq-related work.
3) Has an administration full of lobbyists
While running for President, Obama had promised that, unlike Bush, he would not have any lobbyists working in his administration. However, by February 2010, he had more than 40 lobbyists working in his administration.
4) Has close ties to Wall St.
Although Obama claims to support the Occupy Wall St. movement, the truth is that he has raised more money from Wall St. than any other candidate during the last 20 years. In early 2012, Obama held a fundraiser where Wall St. investment bankers and hedge fund managers each paid $35,800 to attend. In October 2011, Obama hired Broderick Johnson, a longtime Wall Street lobbyist, to be his new senior campaign adviser. Johnson had worked as a lobbyist for JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Fannie Mae, Comcast, Microsoft, and the oil industry.
5) Abused prisoners at Guantanamo Bay
Under President Obama, abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay became even worse than it had been under President Bush.
6) Supported the $700 billion TARP corporate-welfare bailout
While Senator, Obama voted for the $700 billion TARP bank bailout bill.
7) Waged war against medical marijuana
In May 2008, Obama campaign spokesperson Ben LaBolt said that Obama would end DEA raids on medical marijuana in states where it’s legal. Also in 2008, Obama said that he supported the “basic concept of using medical marijuana for the same purposes and with the same controls as other drugs” and that he was “not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws.” However, in February 2010, DEA agents raided a medical marijuana grower in Highlands Ranch in Colorado, a state where medical marijuana is legal. Also in February 2010, DEA agents raided a medical marijuana dispensary in Culver City in California, a state where medical marijuana is legal. In July 2010, the DEA raided at least four medical marijuana growers in San Diego, California. Also in July 2010, the DEA raided a medical marijuana facility in Covelo, California. Then in September 2010, the DEA conducted raids on at least five medical marijuana dispensaries in Las Vegas, Nevada, where medical marijuana is legal. In 2011, the DEA conducted raids on medical marijuana in Seattle, Washington, West Hollywood, California, and Helena, Montana, all places where it is legal. In April 2012, the DEA carried out several raids on medical marijuana in Oakland, California. In February 2012, Rolling Stone magazine wrote that Obama’s war against medical marijuana went “far beyond anything undertaken by George W. Bush.” In May 2012, U.S. Congressperson Nancy Pelosi (D-California) said she had “strong concerns” about Obama’s forced closure of five medical marijuana facilities in Pelosi’s congressional district. Commenting on Obama’s crackdown on medical marijuana, U.S. Congressman Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) said, “I’m very disappointed… They look more like the Bush administration than the Clinton administration.”
8) Looked the other way at tax cheaters
Obama nominated Timothy Geithner, a repeat tax cheater, to head the government agency that enforces the tax laws.
9) Gave tax dollars to AIG executives
Obama signed a stimulus bill that spent money on bonuses for AIG executives. Prior to signing this bill, Obama had said, “when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” However, after reading “line by line” and signing the stimulus bill that protected the AIG bonuses, Obama pretended to be shocked and outraged at the bonuses, and said, “Under these circumstances, it’s hard to understand how derivative traders at A.I.G. warranted any bonuses at all, much less $165 million in extra pay… How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?” and also said that he would “pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses.”
10) Supported government faith based programs
Obama expanded the federal government’s faith based programs which had been started by President George W. Bush.
11) Supported the Patriot Act
In May 2011, Obama signed a renewal of the Patriot Act.
12) Increased the national debt
The national debt increased more during Obama’s first three years and two months than it did during all eight years of George W. Bush’s presidency.
13) Supported indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without filing any charges
In December 2011, ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero criticized Obama for signing a bill that gave the U.S. government the power to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without any charges being filed or any trial taking place.
14) Supported warrnentless wiretapping
President Obama has defended warrantless wiretapping.
15) Avoided prosecution of Wall. St criminals
Although Obama had promised to prosecute Wall St. criminals, as of May 2012, the Obama administration had not filed any criminal charges against any of the top financial executives.
16) Had U.S. citizen killed without judicial process
The ACLU accused Obama of violating the U.S. Constitution by having a U.S. citizen killed without judicial process. U.S. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) said that Obama’s actions might be an impeachable offense.
17) Ordered private company to fire 1,000 employees
In 2011, after Boeing had hired 1,000 new employees to work at its new factory in South Carolina, the Obama administration ordered Boeing to shut down the factory, because the factory was non-union.
18) Stole money from retired teachers and police officers
During the Chrysler bankruptcy, Obama violated the Fifth Amendment and more than 150 years of bankruptcy law by illegally treating secured creditors worse than unsecured creditors. Some of these secured creditors were retired teachers and police officers from Indiana. Richard A. Epstein, a law professor at New York University School of Law, wrote, “Upsetting this fixed hierarchy among creditors is just an illegal taking of property from one group of creditors for the benefit of another, which should be struck down on both statutory and constitutional grounds.” Todd Zywicki, Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law, wrote that Obama’s treatment of secured creditors was “dangerous to the rule of law.” The Economist wrote that Obama’s actions could “establish a terrible precedent. Bankruptcy exists to sort legal claims on assets. If it becomes a tool of social policy, who will then lend to struggling firms in which the government has a political interest?” Francis Cianfrocca, the CEO of Bayshore Networks, wrote that Obama’s actions were “an astonishingly reckless abrogation of contract law that will introduce a new level of uncertainty into business transactions at all levels, and make wealth generation more difficult going forward… An extraordinary uncertainty has been created when the most powerful man in the world can rewrite contracts and choose winners and losers in private negotiations as he sees fit. Since this is an unquantifiable uncertainty, and not a quantifiable risk, its effect on business and investor confidence will be large and unpredictable. As in the 1930s, a time when government also cavalierly rewrote private contracts, the prudent approach for business will be to invest minimally and wait for another administration.”
19) Supported release of convicted serial killer
In 2010, Obama supported releasing Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi (who had been convicted of murdering 270 people) from prison.
20) Illegally put thousands of guns into hands of criminals
In Operation Fast and Furious, the Obama administration ordered gun storeowners to illegally sell thousands of guns to criminals.
21) Fired Inspector General for discovering that Obama’s friend had embezzled government funds
In June 2009, Obama fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin, after Walpin accused Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson, an Obama supporter, of misuse of AmeriCorps funding to pay for school-board political activities. In a letter to Congress, the White House said that Walpin was fired because he was “confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve.” A bipartisan group of 145 current and former public officials, attorneys, and legal scholars signed a letter that was sent to the White House, which defended Walpin, said the criticisms of him were not true, and said that his firing was politically motivated. The letter can be read here.
22) Ignored constitutional requirements for appointees
In February 2009, U.S. Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) expressed concern that Obama’s dozens of czars might violate the U.S. Constitution, because they were not approved by the U.S. Senate. U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) expressed a similar concern in September 2009.
23) Forced union to drop health insurance for employees’ children
In November 2010, 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East announced that it would drop health insurance for the children of more than 30,000 low-wage home attendants. Mitra Behroozi, executive director of benefit and pension funds for 1199SEIU stated, “… new federal health-care reform legislation requires plans with dependent coverage to expand that coverage up to age 26… meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible.”
24) Gave some employers special exemptions from health care reform
In October 2010, Obama gave McDonald’s and 29 other organizations an exemption from some of the requirements of his health care plan. Over time, more than 1,300 organizations were granted waivers.
25) Gave tax dollars to campaign contributors and lobbyists, and falsely claimed that the money was for “green” energy
The Obama administration gave $535 million to Solyndra, claiming that it would create 4,000 new jobs. However, instead of creating those 4,000 new jobs, the company went bankrupt. It was later revealed that the company’s shareholders and executives had made substantial donations to Obama’s campaign, and that the company had also spent a large sum of money on lobbying. In April 2012, CBS News reported that Solyndra had left a substantial amount of toxic waste at its abandoned facility in Milpitas, California. After Obama gave Raser Technologies $33 million to build a power plant, the company declared bankruptcy, and owed $1.5 million in back taxes. After Obama gave Abound Solar, Inc. a $400 million loan guarantee to build photovoltaic panel factories, the company halted production and laid off 180 employees. After Obama gave Beacon Power a $43 million loan guarantee to build green energy storage, the company filed for bankruptcy. After Obama approved $2.1 billion in loan guarantees for Solar Trust of America so it could build solar power plants, the company filed for bankruptcy. Although Obama stated that all of the green energy companies that received taxpayer money were chosen “based solely on their merits,” the truth is that 71% of these grants and loans went to Obama donors and fundraisers, who raised $457,834 for his campaign, and were later approved for grants and loans totaling more than $11 billion. By November 2011, the Energy Department’s inspector general had begun more than 100 criminal investigations related to Obama’s stimulus.
26) Had “off the record” meetings with lobbyists
In June 2010, the New York Times reported that Obama administration officials had held hundreds of meetings with lobbyists at coffee houses near the White House, in order to avoid the disclosure requirements for White House visitors, and that these meetings “reveal a disconnect between the Obama administration’s public rhetoric — with Mr. Obama himself frequently thrashing big industries’ ‘battalions’ of lobbyists as enemies of reform — and the administration’s continuing, private dealings with them.”
27) Falsely claimed to believe in public education
Although Obama said, “We need to uphold the ideal of public education,” he expressed his true opinion of America’s public education system by sending his own children to private schools while living in Chicago and Washington D.C.
28) Had armed agents raid guitar factory and seize guitars without charges being filed
Obama had armed federal agents raid the Gibson guitar factory, order the employees to leave, and seize guitars and other property from the factory – and all of this happened without any charges being filed.
29) Shut down Amish farm
In February 2012, Obama shut down an Amish farm for selling unpasteurized milk across state lines, even though the customers were happy with what they were buying.
30) Rewarded his fundraisers by giving them federal jobs
Although Obama had promised to have “the most sweeping ethics reform in history,” and had often criticized the role of money in politics, the truth is that after he was elected, he gave administration jobs to more than half of his 47 biggest fundraisers.
31) Made recess appointments when Congress was not in recess
In January 2012, Obama violated the Constitution by making four recess appointments when Congress was not in recess. Recess appointments themselves are constitutional, but only if they are made when Congress is actually in recess.
32) Gave tax dollars to corrupt private contractors
While Obama was a state Senator in Illinois, he used tax dollars to build 504 units of slum housing, which had mice and backed up sewage. Federal inspectors graded the condition of the housing so bad that the buildings faced demolition.
33) Used tax dollars to glorify murderers
The Obama administration spent $1.6 million to restore graffiti that glorified communist murderers Che Guevara and Fidel Castro.
34) Proved that he’s the least intelligent President in history
Despite having taught constitutional law at one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, in April 2012 Obama falsely claimed that the U.S. Supreme Court had never overturned any laws that had been passed by Congress.
35) Supported new bailouts for speculators who caused housing bubble
In March 2012, Obama announced a new set of bailouts for speculators who had caused the housing bubble.
36) Doesn’t care about taxpayers’ money
As part of his economic stimulus, Obama spent $205,075 of taxpayer money to relocate and care for a single specimen of Arctostaphylos franciscana, a shrubbery which nurseries sell for $16.
37) Supported ludicrous “scientific study”
Obama’s administration funded a study to see whether or not rats’ enjoyment of the music of Miles Davis was increased when the rats were high on cocaine.
38) Tried to outlaw family farms
In April 2012, the Obama administration proposed new regulations which would prohibit farm children under 18 from working at grain elevators, silos, feed lots, stockyards, and livestock auctions, as well as from storing, marketing and transporting farm product raw materials. Critics claimed that this would prevent children from the common practice of working on their friends’ and relatives’ farms, and that farm children did not need “help” from a community organizer in Washington.
39) Auctioned off ambassadorship to the Netherlands
In April 2012, Obama nominated Timothy Broas, who had “bundled” more than $500,000 for Obama’s 2012 campaign, to be U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands.
40) Claimed that written tests are a form of “racial discrimination”
The Obama administration accused fire and police departments in Jacksonville, Florida, New York City, and Dayton, Ohio of “racial discrimination” because they required potential firefighters and police officers to take a written test. Ten real examples of these “racist” questions from the New York test can be read here.
41) Made the TSA more abusive and more ridiculuos
The Obama administration gave a very invasive patdown to a three-year-old boy in a wheelchair, which caused the boy to tremble in fear. The Obama administration gave an aggressive patdown to a seven-year-old girl with cerebral palsy. The Obama administration said that a four-year-old girl was a “high security threat.” The Obama administration placed an 18-month-old girl on its no fly list. The Obama administration gave a patdown to Henry Kissinger.
42) Violated Freedom of Information Act
The Obama administration demanded that the Goldwater Institute pay $78,935.80 before it would share public records which it had requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
43) Fined public school $15,000 for selling soda
The Obama administration fined a high school $15,000 for selling soda to students during lunch.
44) Conducted dangerous and illegal scientific experiments on people
From January 2010 through June 2011, the Obama administration conducted illegal scientific experiments which exposed 42 people to dangerous levels of toxins.
45) Gave middle finger to Vietnam veterans, their families, and their friends
On Memorial Day 2012, Obama prevented Vietnam veterans and their friends and families from visiting the Vietnam memorial for seven hours, so Obama could have his picture taken.
46) Took ownership and control of General Motors
Obama fired the CEO of General Motors, had the government take 60.8% ownership of the company, and ordered the company to close some of its dealerships.
47) Pressued poor people to buy overpriced housing
While working as a community organizer, Obama filed lawsuits which forced banks to give mortgages to people with low incomes and bad credit. As a result, many of these people ended up defaulting on their mortgages.
48) Started the false rumor that he was born in Kenya
Although Obama was born in Hawaii, in 1991 he told his book publisher that he was born in Kenya.
Piracy on the Rise in the Gulf of Guinea as Niger Delta Militants Move Offshore
While the threat of piracy has gained international recognition off the coast of Somalia and farther out into the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean, pirate activities in the Gulf of Guinea have only recently caught the world’s attention. According to the UN’s International Maritime Organization (IMO), 64 incidents of piracy were reported in nine countries of the Gulf of Guinea region in 2011, up from 45 incidents in seven countries in 2010 (Ghanian Chronicle, May 15). However, one of the defining features of West African piracy is its considerable underreporting, leading most analysts to believe that the level of attacks is in fact significantly higher than is officially reported (AP, March 29). It is widely believed that pirate activity, when unreported events are included, has reached levels similar to those experienced off Somalia’s coast, which in turn has seen a recent decline in pirate activity. Attacks in the Gulf of Guinea have been on the rise for several years, especially following the 2009 of members of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND). The independent criminal gangs responsible for the piracy are composed mainly of former Nigerian rebels that joined the criminal ranks following the amnesty (African Confidential, October 21, 2011). In the opinion of many, the amnesty served largely to benefit the MEND leadership, leaving those in the lower ranks desperate for economic opportunities and open to recruitment for pirate operations.
The surge in attacks has been concentrated in the Gulf of Guinea off the coast of Nigeria and Benin and has naturally led to mounting concern in the shipping industry. In August 2011, maritime insurers in London added the waters of Nigeria and Benin to a list of areas perceived as high risk as a result of increased pirate attacks in the Gulf. According to the International Maritime Bureau, there were 32 piracy incidents recorded off the coasts of Benin, Nigeria, and Togo in the first half of 2012, up from the 25 attacks reported in 2011. [1] After reporting that West Africa had become a piracy "hotspot," an IMB official further noted that this uptick likely does not reflect an actual increase in attacks but merely better reporting (AllAfrica.com, September 15, 2011; News24 [Lagos], July 18, 2012). In a worrying sign, pirate activity has occurred over the past year in Beninese and Togolese waters where no incidents were reported in 2010 or in early 2011. While attacks have traditionally centered off the coast of Nigeria's Niger Delta, the waters of Benin and Togo have become increasingly risky because of these nations’ weak enforcement capabilities, leading former MEND rebels-turned-pirates to shift their operations away from Nigeria's comparably better patrolled waters. Moreover, the pirates have taken their activities to deeper waters, mirroring attacks by their Somali counterparts.
Attacks in West Africa generally target tankers along with oilfield service and support vessels. Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea has escalated over the years from low-level armed robberies to hijackings, cargo thefts, and large-scale robberies. Unlike Somali piracy, the attackers have not been driven by ransom payments. Pirates often take hijacked tankers to another empty tanker to collect its siphoned fuel to be sold on the black market. The original vessel is then brought back and released. In a prominent incident highlighting this method, armed pirates boarded a tanker on September 14, 2011, kidnapping 23 sailors off the coast of Benin about 62 nautical miles from the Beninese port of Cotonou, one of the farthest offshore seizures ever recorded in West Africa. The pirates sailed to an unknown location and released the crew unharmed ten days later after having unloaded its cargo of oil (AP, October 11, 2011; September 14, 2011). Benin’s underequipped patrol force was hours away and powerless to intervene.
The territorial waters of Nigeria and Cameroon have traditionally served as the focus of piracy in West Africa, driven in part by Nigeria’s oil assets. The International Maritime Bureau warned ships to “steer clear of waters off Nigeria” after a trio of piracy attacks that occurred in early February, including a deadly assault on the master and chief engineer of a cargo vessel who were shot and killed by pirates about 90 nautical miles south of Lagos (AFP, February 27). The other attacks included a tanker that was briefly hijacked and a thwarted attack on an international shipping vessel (Vanguard [Lagos], February 13). Meanwhile, thanks to the increased focus of the Cameroonian Navy since 2010, there has been a decline in incidents in Cameroonian waters, which is believed to have pushed pirates westward, resulting in a marked increase in piracy precisely since that time in Benin and Togo. [2]
Ostensibly, attacks declined in Nigeria’s waters in 2009 and 2010 thanks to a security crackdown in its waters and a general amnesty granted to southern rebels in 2009. However, it is believed that the lower levels of pirate attacks are more attributable to significant underreporting since the amnesty. [3] An IMB official has cited government pressure as a possible reason for this under-reporting (News24 [Lagos], July 18). In addition, the victims of the attacks themselves have an incentive to not report an incident in order to avoid the resultant higher insurance premiums. Whatever the precise number of pirate incidents, piracy is inflicting a significant economic toll on the region. The nations of the Gulf of Guinea are reportedly losing $2 billion annually to maritime crime, according to the Nigerian Navy (This Day [Lagos], February 23). Moreover, Benin saw a 70% decrease in the past year in the number of ships entering its main port of Cotonou, which carries 90% of Benin’s trade, representing 80% of the government’s budget. Cotonou is a critical port for landlocked nations to the north, according to the Minister of State in Charge of National Defense in Benin. [4]
As in Somalia, the future of West African piracy in the long term depends on the security and economic situation on the mainland. It will be impossible to achieve substantive improvements in the fight against piracy through purely defensive tactics on the open sea. For real improvement, the benefits of legitimate economic pursuits on the mainland would have to outweigh the benefits of piracy for would-be buccaneers.
Jamestown analyst Mark McNamee is an Intelligence Analyst for Sub-Saharan Africa at an international risk consulting firm in the Washington, D.C. region as well as a contract employee for the U.S. Army Combating Terrorism Center.
Notes:
1. According to the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) International Maritime Bureau’s (IMB) Global Piracy Report, released on July 16, 2012, www.icc-ccs.org/news/747-six-month-drop-in-world-piracy-imb-report-shows.
2. Comments by U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Susan Rice at a Security Council Debate on Piracy and Maritime Armed Robbery in the Gulf of Guinea, as reported in AllAfrica.com, February 27, 2012.
3. IMB Global Piracy Report, op cit.
3. United Nations Security Council Meeting, February 27, 2012, www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/sc10558.doc.htm.
The surge in attacks has been concentrated in the Gulf of Guinea off the coast of Nigeria and Benin and has naturally led to mounting concern in the shipping industry. In August 2011, maritime insurers in London added the waters of Nigeria and Benin to a list of areas perceived as high risk as a result of increased pirate attacks in the Gulf. According to the International Maritime Bureau, there were 32 piracy incidents recorded off the coasts of Benin, Nigeria, and Togo in the first half of 2012, up from the 25 attacks reported in 2011. [1] After reporting that West Africa had become a piracy "hotspot," an IMB official further noted that this uptick likely does not reflect an actual increase in attacks but merely better reporting (AllAfrica.com, September 15, 2011; News24 [Lagos], July 18, 2012). In a worrying sign, pirate activity has occurred over the past year in Beninese and Togolese waters where no incidents were reported in 2010 or in early 2011. While attacks have traditionally centered off the coast of Nigeria's Niger Delta, the waters of Benin and Togo have become increasingly risky because of these nations’ weak enforcement capabilities, leading former MEND rebels-turned-pirates to shift their operations away from Nigeria's comparably better patrolled waters. Moreover, the pirates have taken their activities to deeper waters, mirroring attacks by their Somali counterparts.
Attacks in West Africa generally target tankers along with oilfield service and support vessels. Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea has escalated over the years from low-level armed robberies to hijackings, cargo thefts, and large-scale robberies. Unlike Somali piracy, the attackers have not been driven by ransom payments. Pirates often take hijacked tankers to another empty tanker to collect its siphoned fuel to be sold on the black market. The original vessel is then brought back and released. In a prominent incident highlighting this method, armed pirates boarded a tanker on September 14, 2011, kidnapping 23 sailors off the coast of Benin about 62 nautical miles from the Beninese port of Cotonou, one of the farthest offshore seizures ever recorded in West Africa. The pirates sailed to an unknown location and released the crew unharmed ten days later after having unloaded its cargo of oil (AP, October 11, 2011; September 14, 2011). Benin’s underequipped patrol force was hours away and powerless to intervene.
The territorial waters of Nigeria and Cameroon have traditionally served as the focus of piracy in West Africa, driven in part by Nigeria’s oil assets. The International Maritime Bureau warned ships to “steer clear of waters off Nigeria” after a trio of piracy attacks that occurred in early February, including a deadly assault on the master and chief engineer of a cargo vessel who were shot and killed by pirates about 90 nautical miles south of Lagos (AFP, February 27). The other attacks included a tanker that was briefly hijacked and a thwarted attack on an international shipping vessel (Vanguard [Lagos], February 13). Meanwhile, thanks to the increased focus of the Cameroonian Navy since 2010, there has been a decline in incidents in Cameroonian waters, which is believed to have pushed pirates westward, resulting in a marked increase in piracy precisely since that time in Benin and Togo. [2]
Ostensibly, attacks declined in Nigeria’s waters in 2009 and 2010 thanks to a security crackdown in its waters and a general amnesty granted to southern rebels in 2009. However, it is believed that the lower levels of pirate attacks are more attributable to significant underreporting since the amnesty. [3] An IMB official has cited government pressure as a possible reason for this under-reporting (News24 [Lagos], July 18). In addition, the victims of the attacks themselves have an incentive to not report an incident in order to avoid the resultant higher insurance premiums. Whatever the precise number of pirate incidents, piracy is inflicting a significant economic toll on the region. The nations of the Gulf of Guinea are reportedly losing $2 billion annually to maritime crime, according to the Nigerian Navy (This Day [Lagos], February 23). Moreover, Benin saw a 70% decrease in the past year in the number of ships entering its main port of Cotonou, which carries 90% of Benin’s trade, representing 80% of the government’s budget. Cotonou is a critical port for landlocked nations to the north, according to the Minister of State in Charge of National Defense in Benin. [4]
As in Somalia, the future of West African piracy in the long term depends on the security and economic situation on the mainland. It will be impossible to achieve substantive improvements in the fight against piracy through purely defensive tactics on the open sea. For real improvement, the benefits of legitimate economic pursuits on the mainland would have to outweigh the benefits of piracy for would-be buccaneers.
Jamestown analyst Mark McNamee is an Intelligence Analyst for Sub-Saharan Africa at an international risk consulting firm in the Washington, D.C. region as well as a contract employee for the U.S. Army Combating Terrorism Center.
Notes:
1. According to the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) International Maritime Bureau’s (IMB) Global Piracy Report, released on July 16, 2012, www.icc-ccs.org/news/747-six-month-drop-in-world-piracy-imb-report-shows.
2. Comments by U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Susan Rice at a Security Council Debate on Piracy and Maritime Armed Robbery in the Gulf of Guinea, as reported in AllAfrica.com, February 27, 2012.
3. IMB Global Piracy Report, op cit.
3. United Nations Security Council Meeting, February 27, 2012, www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/sc10558.doc.htm.
Calif mental health dollars bypassing mentally ill
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- As state mental health services have crumbled under budget cuts, tens of millions of dollars raised through a tax designed to help the mentally ill have gone to "wellness" programs like horseback riding for teens and yoga classes for city workers. And that's by design.
Voters approved Proposition 63, the so-called "millionaire's tax," in 2004 to make up for decades of mental health cuts. The ballot summary said it would "expand services and develop innovative programs" for the mentally ill and the text of the measure stipulated 20 percent of the funds would go to programs "effective in preventing mental illnesses from becoming severe" and "reducing the duration of untreated severe mental illnesses."
In 2007, the Department of Mental Health developed guidelines for counties and dictated that the 20 percent would go to help people who had never been diagnosed with mental illness or even shown any evidence of mental illness. The idea was to promote mental wellness, not just treat mental disorders.
Now, with money to help people diagnosed as mentally ill tighter than ever, some mental health advocates want the state Legislature to redirect that 20 percent into treatment programs.
Peter Mantas, former chairman of the Contra Costa County Mental Health Commission, said state officials violated the intent of the ballot measure.
"In the law, the money was to be focused on people with mental illness, not little boutique programs that made the county personnel feel good," said Mantas, who resigned in 2010 over what he saw as the squandered promise of Proposition 63. "The Department of Mental Health went astray significantly by doing what they did."
Proposition 63 has brought in $7.4 billion through a 1 percent tax on income greater than $1 million a year and funded the creation of about 1,500 new programs, many of them general wellness initiatives.
Even with that money, California overall has cut 21 percent, or $764.8 million, from mental health spending since 2009, a higher percentage than all but five states, according to the National Alliance on Mental Illness.
There are no inpatient psychiatric services in 25 of California's 58 counties, the California Hospital Association reports. Meanwhile, the proportion of prison inmates with mental illnesses has grown from 19 percent in 2007 to 26 percent now. And this year, Gov. Jerry Brown eliminated the Department of Mental Health to help address the state's huge deficit.
Nearly $1.2 billion in Proposition 63 money has gone to prevention and early intervention programs in the past five years. The state doesn't track where every dollar ends up, so where it's all gone is unclear.
However, an Associated Press review of programs in the state's 58 counties turned up spending on scores of wellness programs, many with seemingly little or no specific connection to mental health.
The state has approved spending on acupuncture, art and drama classes, sweat lodges for American Indians, parenting courses for Spanish-speakers and massage chairs for students in Southern California. More than two dozen counties have spent money on anti-bullying programs and several have used it to fund horseback riding therapy, including a $944,843 program in Kings County.
Fresno County spent $315,000 on gardens for Hmong refugees. In San Francisco, Proposition 63 money pays for city workers with mental illness in their families to attend lunchtime yoga classes.
For three years, the Department of Mental Health paid someone $76,000 a year to work from home and recruit celebrities to promote a Proposition 63 anti-stigma campaign. The position, which also included interacting with local law enforcement, was cut in 2011 after the state auditor's office determined it had been a waste of public funds.
Ron Henninger, former chairman of the Santa Clara Mental Health Department, said such spending means people with real mental illness have been "left on their own."
"It's almost like they were propping up other areas of the county with Prop 63 funds instead of directly taking care of the sick people," he said.
Rusty Selix, executive director of the California Council of Mental Health Agencies and co-author of Proposition 63, believes counties must be given leeway to develop the most effective programs for their residents.
"We have to learn how to do prevention," he said. However, Selix acknowledged it can be difficult to see the correlation between mental health prevention and certain wellness programs. "I kind of raise my eyebrows at some of these general wellness campaigns, but I have to admit, they may have payoff."
Some mental health advocates and public health workers see an opportunity in Brown's elimination of the Department of Mental Health and shift of some Proposition 63 oversight to the counties to look at how revenue is spent. They want the Legislature to pass a "clarifying amendment" stipulating money raised by the millionaire's tax go only to help people with mental and emotional problems.
This year's state budget included several tweaks to Proposition 63 procedures, which are passed with a simple majority. However, so far, critics of wellness programs haven't found a lawmaker willing to introduce the amendment they seek.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, who wrote Proposition 63 with Selix, doesn't think a change is needed.
Steinberg, D-Sacramento, allowed that he might have crafted the measure differently if he had known about the dramatic cuts that lay ahead, but defended the prevention programs, which include anti-stigma campaigns, as the best way to start moving beyond a system where people must succumb to their illness before they can get help.
"Prevention and early intervention is the only way that we are going to change attitudes and make sure people get help before they become a statistic." he said. "It is vital, especially in communities that have traditionally seen mental health services as a stigma and as something to avoid, to draw people in and to create an atmosphere where getting help is seen as OK."
In March, the state Oversight and Accountability Commission began its first evaluation of the wellness programs. For years, the only evaluations came from county administrators who, a 2011 UCLA study found, have never reported a negative or neutral finding. Results are expected next May.
Meantime, Selix stands by the decision to fund wellness programs with millionaire's tax money.
"We knew that most of the people in counties were not in favor of doing prevention, and we feared that they would take that money and divert it to people who were already sick by saying, 'Well, they could get sicker,'" he said.
Voters approved Proposition 63, the so-called "millionaire's tax," in 2004 to make up for decades of mental health cuts. The ballot summary said it would "expand services and develop innovative programs" for the mentally ill and the text of the measure stipulated 20 percent of the funds would go to programs "effective in preventing mental illnesses from becoming severe" and "reducing the duration of untreated severe mental illnesses."
In 2007, the Department of Mental Health developed guidelines for counties and dictated that the 20 percent would go to help people who had never been diagnosed with mental illness or even shown any evidence of mental illness. The idea was to promote mental wellness, not just treat mental disorders.
Now, with money to help people diagnosed as mentally ill tighter than ever, some mental health advocates want the state Legislature to redirect that 20 percent into treatment programs.
Peter Mantas, former chairman of the Contra Costa County Mental Health Commission, said state officials violated the intent of the ballot measure.
"In the law, the money was to be focused on people with mental illness, not little boutique programs that made the county personnel feel good," said Mantas, who resigned in 2010 over what he saw as the squandered promise of Proposition 63. "The Department of Mental Health went astray significantly by doing what they did."
Proposition 63 has brought in $7.4 billion through a 1 percent tax on income greater than $1 million a year and funded the creation of about 1,500 new programs, many of them general wellness initiatives.
Even with that money, California overall has cut 21 percent, or $764.8 million, from mental health spending since 2009, a higher percentage than all but five states, according to the National Alliance on Mental Illness.
There are no inpatient psychiatric services in 25 of California's 58 counties, the California Hospital Association reports. Meanwhile, the proportion of prison inmates with mental illnesses has grown from 19 percent in 2007 to 26 percent now. And this year, Gov. Jerry Brown eliminated the Department of Mental Health to help address the state's huge deficit.
Nearly $1.2 billion in Proposition 63 money has gone to prevention and early intervention programs in the past five years. The state doesn't track where every dollar ends up, so where it's all gone is unclear.
However, an Associated Press review of programs in the state's 58 counties turned up spending on scores of wellness programs, many with seemingly little or no specific connection to mental health.
The state has approved spending on acupuncture, art and drama classes, sweat lodges for American Indians, parenting courses for Spanish-speakers and massage chairs for students in Southern California. More than two dozen counties have spent money on anti-bullying programs and several have used it to fund horseback riding therapy, including a $944,843 program in Kings County.
Fresno County spent $315,000 on gardens for Hmong refugees. In San Francisco, Proposition 63 money pays for city workers with mental illness in their families to attend lunchtime yoga classes.
For three years, the Department of Mental Health paid someone $76,000 a year to work from home and recruit celebrities to promote a Proposition 63 anti-stigma campaign. The position, which also included interacting with local law enforcement, was cut in 2011 after the state auditor's office determined it had been a waste of public funds.
Ron Henninger, former chairman of the Santa Clara Mental Health Department, said such spending means people with real mental illness have been "left on their own."
"It's almost like they were propping up other areas of the county with Prop 63 funds instead of directly taking care of the sick people," he said.
Rusty Selix, executive director of the California Council of Mental Health Agencies and co-author of Proposition 63, believes counties must be given leeway to develop the most effective programs for their residents.
"We have to learn how to do prevention," he said. However, Selix acknowledged it can be difficult to see the correlation between mental health prevention and certain wellness programs. "I kind of raise my eyebrows at some of these general wellness campaigns, but I have to admit, they may have payoff."
Some mental health advocates and public health workers see an opportunity in Brown's elimination of the Department of Mental Health and shift of some Proposition 63 oversight to the counties to look at how revenue is spent. They want the Legislature to pass a "clarifying amendment" stipulating money raised by the millionaire's tax go only to help people with mental and emotional problems.
This year's state budget included several tweaks to Proposition 63 procedures, which are passed with a simple majority. However, so far, critics of wellness programs haven't found a lawmaker willing to introduce the amendment they seek.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, who wrote Proposition 63 with Selix, doesn't think a change is needed.
Steinberg, D-Sacramento, allowed that he might have crafted the measure differently if he had known about the dramatic cuts that lay ahead, but defended the prevention programs, which include anti-stigma campaigns, as the best way to start moving beyond a system where people must succumb to their illness before they can get help.
"Prevention and early intervention is the only way that we are going to change attitudes and make sure people get help before they become a statistic." he said. "It is vital, especially in communities that have traditionally seen mental health services as a stigma and as something to avoid, to draw people in and to create an atmosphere where getting help is seen as OK."
In March, the state Oversight and Accountability Commission began its first evaluation of the wellness programs. For years, the only evaluations came from county administrators who, a 2011 UCLA study found, have never reported a negative or neutral finding. Results are expected next May.
Meantime, Selix stands by the decision to fund wellness programs with millionaire's tax money.
"We knew that most of the people in counties were not in favor of doing prevention, and we feared that they would take that money and divert it to people who were already sick by saying, 'Well, they could get sicker,'" he said.
An Open Letter to Bill Press: Regarding your proposal for a bloody civil war, just how many millions of us do you want dead?
"Bill Press: Praise the Lord -- and stockpile the ammunition."
My email reply:
-----Original Message-----
From: georgemason1776
To: bill@billpress.com
Sent: Sat, Jul 28, 2012 11:36 am
Subject: RE: Your proposal for a bloody civil war over firearms. How many millions of us do you want dead?
"Don't get me wrong. I believe in the Second Amendment. And, as a Scalia originalist, I believe we should take it literally. Let's bring back, in every state, as the Constitution so clearly calls for, a "well-regulated militia." Let's require its gun-toting members to carry and clean their own single-shot muskets, to wear the militia uniform, and to go out and drill once a month with fellow minutemen. But let all other guns be banned. . . There is no need for anyone, outside the military, to own an assault weapon. There is no need for anyone, outside of law enforcement, to have a handgun." -- Bill Press.
Dear Mr. Press,
I note with interest your proposals for the forcible disarmament of the American citizenry laid out in your recent column, "Praise the Lord -- and stockpile the ammunition." ( http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x1602164926/Press-Praise-the-Lord-and-stockpile-the-ammunition )
I was just wondering how many millions of bodies of your fellow citizens are you willing to stack up to achieve that end? Will a million be enough? Three million? Five? Twenty? For surely you must recognize that there are people in this country who are willing to die for the Founders' principles of liberty and right to property. These are God-given and inalienable and do not depend upon any Constitution, law, politician's whim, and certainly not on your preference. More disconcertingly for you and your tyrannical, confiscationist ilk, people who are willing to die for their principles are most often willing to kill in defense of them as well, usually by a much larger ratio than one to one. So I ask you again, how many millions of us are you willing to kill, you bloodthirsty bastard, and how many of your side are you willing to see dead in your cause as well? Is it worth my life to you? The lives of all my family? Is it worth your life? Starting to have doubts?
Do not extrapolate from your own cowardice. Just because you would obey any government diktat that threatened you with prison or death doesn't mean others will. You may think us wrong, or even insane, but you cannot deny we exist in the millions, us "bitter clingers." So face the issue squarely and tell us now -- before the government begins shooting us in your proposed bloody civil war -- how many millions of dead Americans are you willing to see in order to get your way?
Otherwise, quit smoking what you're shoveling and shut up about disarming the rest of us. It can't be done without an exercise in tyranny that would make the Holocaust look like a picnic. For unlike Hitler's victims, we are armed, trained in the use of those arms, and intend to stay that way.
But, by all means, if you are willing to name a number and have the courage of your convictions, be sure and come yourself when the Feds raid the first house.
Sincerely,
Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com
Santorum hits Chick-fil-A before Ted Cruz rally; Left says, ‘You’re gay!’
Last time Rick Santorum tweeted about eating at Chick-fil-A, vile progressives suggested he had a gay, incestuous relationship with his own children. Today Santorum thumbed his nose at the hateful Left by stopping at Chick-fil-A on his way to a Ted Cruz rally. Predictably, the oh-so-tolerant Left couldn’t wait to insinuate that Rick Santorum is a vocal supporter of Chick-fil-A because he’s secretly gay. How original. As always, leave it to Left to use “gay” as a slur..
Racist Arab Islamic Apartheid 'wall' at the London Olympics 2012
Of course the IOC complied with this racism rather than give Lebanon an ultimatum to abide by the Olympic Charter, curb their behavior or pack for the trip home.
WHITE HOUSE GAFFE: Uses Female First Name for Japan's (Very) Male PRIME MINISTER
The Japanese major television network JNN (and others) reported on its national news today as well as website a hefty diplomatic faux pas by the Obama White House and national security team in advance of White House's National Security Advisor Tom Donilon's trip here to Tokyo.
The gaffe is referred to in this short video clip (at link) of JNN Network News today.
Go to link, hit white arrow in center of photo to stream; stream may be up one more day and may not work on all systems. Hilarious!
Open Carry law clarified in Wichita(KS)
Wichita, Kansas -- It is now perfectly legal to walk down Wichita city streets with a loaded gun in plain sight.
Some restrictions apply..
Some restrictions apply..
Excuse me. Do I know you?
Patients should not have to share beds by 2015
HA NOI — The Ministry of Health has targeted that patients will no longer have to share beds during treatment in major hospitals by 2015.
HA NOI — The Ministry of Health has targeted that patients will no longer have to share beds during treatment in major hospitals by 2015.
Shelby County Commission seeks identities of newspaper commenters
County Commission attorney Imad Abdullah said in the subpoena the county wants first and last names, postal addresses and telephone numbers of all account users who posted comments, including comments the newspaper's digital media staff removed because they were racially charged or otherwise inappropriate...
Growing Ties with Hanoi May Draw U.S. Deeper into South China Sea Dispute
During his visit to Vietnam in early June, U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta displayed eagerness to have the U.S. military return to the bases it once occupied at Cam Ranh Bay. The Pentagon lost its foothold there when South Vietnam fell to communist forces in the mid-1970s, and military officials have longed to regain access. Once Washington established diplomatic relations with Hanoi in 1995, that objective seemed to be an attainable goal rather than a hopeless wish...
SCAPE GOAT ALERT! Doctor of Colorado suspect had been disciplined by medical board
How Green Was My Bankruptcy? “Roadmap for Solar Energy Development on Public Lands” Edition
The agency has already approved 17 large-scale solar energy projects on public lands that are expected to produce nearly 6,000 megawatts of electricity, enough to power about 1.8 million homes. The department estimated the resource potential of the newly identified development zones at 23,700 megawatts, enough to power seven million homes, by 2030.
Wow! 23,700 megawatts! That’s a lot of megawatts! Right?
No. It’s not… Full Story>>
Unconstitutional, False Premise Property-tax cheats facing crackdown
Starved for revenue, interest groups at the county, the school district and cities are clamoring for tougher enforcement of homestead- exemption rules in hope of bringing in revenue to help save public jobs and programs threatened by the budget ax..
Romney would back Israeli strike against Iran, senior adviser says
Mitt Romney would back an Israeli military strike against Iran aimed at preventing Tehran from obtaining nuclear capability, a top foreign policy adviser said early Sunday, outlining the aggressive posture the Republican presidential candidate will take toward Iran in a speech in Israel later in the day.
Romney has said he has a "zero tolerance" policy toward Iran obtaining the capability to build a nuclear weapon..
Romney has said he has a "zero tolerance" policy toward Iran obtaining the capability to build a nuclear weapon..
A Glimpse of an Obama Second Term? Bloomberg’s pro-breast-feeding initiative to lock away baby formula at 27 hospitals
The nanny state is going after moms.
Mayor Bloomberg is pushing hospitals to hide their baby formula behind locked doors so more new mothers will breast-feed.
Starting Sept. 3, the city will keep tabs on the number of bottles that participating hospitals stock and use — the most restrictive pro-breast-milk program in the nation.
Under the city Health Department’s voluntary Latch On NYC initiative, 27 of the city’s 40 hospitals have also agreed to give up swag bags sporting formula-company logos, toss out formula-branded tchotchkes like lanyards and mugs, and document a medical reason for every bottle that a newborn receives.
While breast-feeding activists applaud the move, bottle-feeding moms are bristling at the latest lactation lecture.
“If they put pressure on me, I would get annoyed,” said Lynn Sidnam, a Staten Island mother of two formula-fed girls, ages 4 months and 9 years. “It’s for me to choose.”
Under Latch On NYC, new mothers who want formula won’t be denied it, but hospitals will keep infant formula in out-of-the-way secure storerooms or in locked boxes like those used to dispense and track medications.
With each bottle a mother requests and receives, she’ll also get a talking-to. Staffers will explain why she should offer the breast instead.
“It’s the patient’s choice,” said Allison Walsh, of Beth Israel Medical Center. “But it’s our job to educate them on the best option.”
Lisa Paladino, of Staten Island University Hospital, said: “The key to getting more moms to breast-feed is making the formula less accessible. This way, the RN has to sign out the formula like any other medication. The nurse’s aide can’t just go grab another bottle.”
Some of the hospitals already operate under the formula lockdown.
“New York City is definitely ahead of the curve,” said Eileen DiFrisco, of NYU Langone Medical Center, where the breast-feeding rate has surged from 39 to 68 percent under the program.
Breast-feeding in the first weeks gives a baby a critical healthy start, many medical experts say. It helps the digestive system develop and protects the baby with the mother’s immunities. Nursing also helps the mother recover from childbirth.
But not everyone is convinced.
“They make formula for a reason, and the FDA makes sure it’s safe,” said Roxanne Schmidt, whose 14-month-old twins were fed with formula from birth. “Locking it up is just wrong.”
Mayor Bloomberg is pushing hospitals to hide their baby formula behind locked doors so more new mothers will breast-feed.
Starting Sept. 3, the city will keep tabs on the number of bottles that participating hospitals stock and use — the most restrictive pro-breast-milk program in the nation.
Under the city Health Department’s voluntary Latch On NYC initiative, 27 of the city’s 40 hospitals have also agreed to give up swag bags sporting formula-company logos, toss out formula-branded tchotchkes like lanyards and mugs, and document a medical reason for every bottle that a newborn receives.
While breast-feeding activists applaud the move, bottle-feeding moms are bristling at the latest lactation lecture.
“If they put pressure on me, I would get annoyed,” said Lynn Sidnam, a Staten Island mother of two formula-fed girls, ages 4 months and 9 years. “It’s for me to choose.”
Under Latch On NYC, new mothers who want formula won’t be denied it, but hospitals will keep infant formula in out-of-the-way secure storerooms or in locked boxes like those used to dispense and track medications.
With each bottle a mother requests and receives, she’ll also get a talking-to. Staffers will explain why she should offer the breast instead.
“It’s the patient’s choice,” said Allison Walsh, of Beth Israel Medical Center. “But it’s our job to educate them on the best option.”
Lisa Paladino, of Staten Island University Hospital, said: “The key to getting more moms to breast-feed is making the formula less accessible. This way, the RN has to sign out the formula like any other medication. The nurse’s aide can’t just go grab another bottle.”
Some of the hospitals already operate under the formula lockdown.
“New York City is definitely ahead of the curve,” said Eileen DiFrisco, of NYU Langone Medical Center, where the breast-feeding rate has surged from 39 to 68 percent under the program.
Breast-feeding in the first weeks gives a baby a critical healthy start, many medical experts say. It helps the digestive system develop and protects the baby with the mother’s immunities. Nursing also helps the mother recover from childbirth.
But not everyone is convinced.
“They make formula for a reason, and the FDA makes sure it’s safe,” said Roxanne Schmidt, whose 14-month-old twins were fed with formula from birth. “Locking it up is just wrong.”
DNC Homepage Shows More Romney Attack Ads -- Than Obama Accomplishments
WASHINGTON (CBSDC) — If the Democratic National Committee’s strategy for victory is to muffle its own party’s achievements and focus more on slamming Republicans, it seems to be doing a good job on its website.
The DNC’s homepage has numerous attack ads against presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, far more than news touting President Obama’s accomplishments in office.
A review of the DNC’s homepage shows a majority of ads mocking Romney from “Romney’s Guide To International Diplomacy” following his comments that London might not be ready for the Olympics with the Twitter hashtag “RomneyShambles,” to attack ads highlighting “Mitt Romney’s $ecret $tash” of money in Swiss bank accounts and his tenure at Bain Capital.
But a visitor will have to dig through the site to find Obama’s signature accomplishments.
July 11 is the last post on the homepage to mention the president’s signature health care law, but in that instance, it’s a blog post about why Republicans shouldn’t have voted to repeal “Obamacare” for the 33rd time. Before that, users have to go back to last month to find the DNC page proclaiming a health care victory following the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the law as constitutional.
Obama made history by becoming the first sitting president to endorse same-sex marriage, but to find it on the DNC homepage, one has to go through over 100 posts back to May when he first made the statement.
Instead of having Obama’s accomplishments readily available on the homepage, visitors need to scroll over to the “People” and “Issue” tabs to find his successes in office. CBSDC reached out to the DNC for comment.
Mathews Pierson, director of politics at CBS Local Media, said negative attack ads work better than presenting someone’s success.
“Everyone complains about negative campaigning, but we keep doing it for one really simple reason: it works,” Pierson told CBSDC. “The same voter who tells you he doesn’t want to see anymore of it will then tell you something bad about Mitt Romney that he certainly didn’t learn doing his own research. “
Pierson explained that constantly using attack ads on the DNC’s front page will help to “rev up activists.”
“Driving Romney’s negatives is working to engage activists and generate press coverage to keep pressing until it doesn’t,” Pierson said. “Also, while most of the public is tuned-out and hitting the beach, if every time they tune in they hear the negative Romney narrative it can solidify their opinion of him before they truly start paying attention to the race this fall.”
A recent Rasmussen Reports poll shows that Romney holds a 49 to 44 percent lead over Obama.
The DNC’s homepage has numerous attack ads against presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, far more than news touting President Obama’s accomplishments in office.
A review of the DNC’s homepage shows a majority of ads mocking Romney from “Romney’s Guide To International Diplomacy” following his comments that London might not be ready for the Olympics with the Twitter hashtag “RomneyShambles,” to attack ads highlighting “Mitt Romney’s $ecret $tash” of money in Swiss bank accounts and his tenure at Bain Capital.
But a visitor will have to dig through the site to find Obama’s signature accomplishments.
July 11 is the last post on the homepage to mention the president’s signature health care law, but in that instance, it’s a blog post about why Republicans shouldn’t have voted to repeal “Obamacare” for the 33rd time. Before that, users have to go back to last month to find the DNC page proclaiming a health care victory following the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the law as constitutional.
Obama made history by becoming the first sitting president to endorse same-sex marriage, but to find it on the DNC homepage, one has to go through over 100 posts back to May when he first made the statement.
Instead of having Obama’s accomplishments readily available on the homepage, visitors need to scroll over to the “People” and “Issue” tabs to find his successes in office. CBSDC reached out to the DNC for comment.
Mathews Pierson, director of politics at CBS Local Media, said negative attack ads work better than presenting someone’s success.
“Everyone complains about negative campaigning, but we keep doing it for one really simple reason: it works,” Pierson told CBSDC. “The same voter who tells you he doesn’t want to see anymore of it will then tell you something bad about Mitt Romney that he certainly didn’t learn doing his own research. “
Pierson explained that constantly using attack ads on the DNC’s front page will help to “rev up activists.”
“Driving Romney’s negatives is working to engage activists and generate press coverage to keep pressing until it doesn’t,” Pierson said. “Also, while most of the public is tuned-out and hitting the beach, if every time they tune in they hear the negative Romney narrative it can solidify their opinion of him before they truly start paying attention to the race this fall.”
A recent Rasmussen Reports poll shows that Romney holds a 49 to 44 percent lead over Obama.
Retailers Ready To Force Consumers To Pay ‘Swipe Fee’ For Using Plastic
Expert: Small Business Model Of Discounts For Paying With Cash Also Possible
NEW YORK (CBS 2) — Every time you use your credit card, the store pays up to 3 percent of your total purchase to the credit card company. It’s called a “swipe fee” and now some fed-up retailers are getting ready to pass this cost on to you, in the form of a surcharge.
While others want to reward you for paying with cash.
Paper or plastic? It’s a simple choice, but it’s about to get a lot more complicated, CBS 2’s Emily Smith reported.
“You’re going to start to see retailers really weighing what they’re going to charge consumers for using a credit card,” said Kelli Grant of Smart Money magazine.
That’s right, major retailers — from supermarkets to drug stores — may soon be charging you more if you choose to pay for an item with a credit card, instead of paying with cash.
“An extra 2 to 3 percent,” Grant said.
It’s all because Visa-MasterCard and several major banks settled a long running lawsuit alleging they conspired to fix “swipe fees.”
As part of the settlement, retailers are now allowed to charge customers a surcharge if they pay with plastic.
“It’s going to be, for consumers, an interesting dance of convenience versus cash,” Grant said.
Grant, a consumer expert, said up until now most business owners rolled the cost of processing a credit card into the prices customers pay. But for businesses that sell small-ticket items and are hit hard by 3 percent swipe fees, it may make more sense to ask for the surcharge.
“To actually discourage people from paying credit when they think ideally you should be paying cash,” Grant said.
Conversely, retailers may also start offering discounts to those paying with cash, a practice that’s not completely foreign and seems to be growing with small business owners.
“If you want to pay by cash, we’ll be more than happy to give you a cash discount for not using a credit card,” said Tony Dicesare of Auto Body Service in New Jersey.
It’s becoming such a popular practice there’s even a website that tracks businesses that offer “discounts with cash” by zip code.
“If I can get an incentive to do so, I have no problem doing that,” one consumer told Smith.
Overall, people Smith spoke with have mixed feelings on the cash-versus-credit options.
“Merchants are going to do what the merchants are going to do and people are either going to pay it or not,” one person said.
But consumer experts said it’s a great way to help your bottom line.
“Not only are you able to stick within your budget but you might actually save a little bit of money, too,” Grant said.
If you’re buying an expensive item, experts said it’s better to pay with a credit card so you’re protected should the product be defective or not as advertised.
These changes won’t happen overnight. Computer systems, price tags and employees will all have to be updated by stores who choose to offer two different prices for cash and credit.
NEW YORK (CBS 2) — Every time you use your credit card, the store pays up to 3 percent of your total purchase to the credit card company. It’s called a “swipe fee” and now some fed-up retailers are getting ready to pass this cost on to you, in the form of a surcharge.
While others want to reward you for paying with cash.
Paper or plastic? It’s a simple choice, but it’s about to get a lot more complicated, CBS 2’s Emily Smith reported.
“You’re going to start to see retailers really weighing what they’re going to charge consumers for using a credit card,” said Kelli Grant of Smart Money magazine.
That’s right, major retailers — from supermarkets to drug stores — may soon be charging you more if you choose to pay for an item with a credit card, instead of paying with cash.
“An extra 2 to 3 percent,” Grant said.
It’s all because Visa-MasterCard and several major banks settled a long running lawsuit alleging they conspired to fix “swipe fees.”
As part of the settlement, retailers are now allowed to charge customers a surcharge if they pay with plastic.
“It’s going to be, for consumers, an interesting dance of convenience versus cash,” Grant said.
Grant, a consumer expert, said up until now most business owners rolled the cost of processing a credit card into the prices customers pay. But for businesses that sell small-ticket items and are hit hard by 3 percent swipe fees, it may make more sense to ask for the surcharge.
“To actually discourage people from paying credit when they think ideally you should be paying cash,” Grant said.
Conversely, retailers may also start offering discounts to those paying with cash, a practice that’s not completely foreign and seems to be growing with small business owners.
“If you want to pay by cash, we’ll be more than happy to give you a cash discount for not using a credit card,” said Tony Dicesare of Auto Body Service in New Jersey.
It’s becoming such a popular practice there’s even a website that tracks businesses that offer “discounts with cash” by zip code.
“If I can get an incentive to do so, I have no problem doing that,” one consumer told Smith.
Overall, people Smith spoke with have mixed feelings on the cash-versus-credit options.
“Merchants are going to do what the merchants are going to do and people are either going to pay it or not,” one person said.
But consumer experts said it’s a great way to help your bottom line.
“Not only are you able to stick within your budget but you might actually save a little bit of money, too,” Grant said.
If you’re buying an expensive item, experts said it’s better to pay with a credit card so you’re protected should the product be defective or not as advertised.
These changes won’t happen overnight. Computer systems, price tags and employees will all have to be updated by stores who choose to offer two different prices for cash and credit.
LEAK: US sees Israel as spy threat
The incident, described by three former senior U.S. intelligence officials, might have been dismissed as just another cloak-and-dagger incident in the world of international espionage, except that the same thing had happened to the previous station chief in Israel.
It was a not-so-subtle reminder that, even in a country friendly to the United States, the CIA was itself being watched.
In a separate episode, according to another two former U.S. officials, a CIA officer in Israel came home to find the food in the refrigerator had been rearranged. In all the cases, the U.S. government believes Israel's security services were responsible.
Such meddling underscores what is widely known but rarely discussed outside intelligence circles: Despite inarguable ties between the U.S. and its closest ally in the Middle East and despite statements from U.S. politicians trumpeting the friendship, U.S. national security officials consider Israel to be, at times, a frustrating ally and a genuine counterintelligence threat.
In addition to what the former U.S. officials described as intrusions in homes in the past decade, Israel has been implicated in U.S. criminal espionage cases and disciplinary proceedings against CIA officers and blamed in the presumed death of an important spy in Syria for the CIA during the administration of President George W. Bush.
The CIA considers Israel its No. 1 counterintelligence threat in the agency's Near East Division, the group that oversees spying across the Middle East, according to current and former officials. Counterintelligence is the art of protecting national secrets from spies. This means the CIA believes that U.S. national secrets are safer from other Middle Eastern governments than from Israel.
Israel employs highly sophisticated, professional spy services that rival American agencies in technical capability and recruiting human sources. Unlike Iran or Syria, for example, Israel as a steadfast U.S. ally enjoys access to the highest levels of the U.S. government in military and intelligence circles.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to talk publicly about the sensitive intelligence and diplomatic issues between the two countries.
The counterintelligence worries continue even as the U.S. relationship with Israel features close cooperation on intelligence programs that reportedly included the Stuxnet computer virus that attacked computers in Iran's main nuclear enrichment facilities. While the alliance is central to the U.S. approach in the Middle East, there is room for intense disagreement, especially in the diplomatic turmoil over Iran's nuclear ambitions.
"It's a complicated relationship," said Joseph Wippl, a former senior CIA clandestine officer and head of the agency's office of congressional affairs. "They have their interests. We have our interests. For the U.S., it's a balancing act."
The way Washington characterizes its relationship with Israel is also important to the way the U.S. is regarded by the rest of the world, particularly Muslim countries.
U.S. political praise has reached a crescendo ahead of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's scheduled meeting Sunday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem. Their relationship spans decades, since their brief overlap in the 1970s at the Boston Consulting Group. Both worked as advisers for the firm early in their careers before Romney co-founded his own private-equity firm. Romney said in a speech this past week that Israel was "one of our fondest friends," and he criticized Obama for what he called the administration's "shabby treatment" of the Jewish state.
"The people of Israel deserve better than what they've received from the leader of the free world," Romney said in a plain appeal to U.S. Jewish and pro-Israel evangelical voters.
Obama, who last year was overheard appearing to endorse criticism of Netanyahu from then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy, has defended his work with Israel. "We've gotten a lot of business done with Israel over the last three years," Obama said this year. "I think the prime minister - and certainly the defense minister - would acknowledge that we've never had closer military and intelligence cooperation."
An Israeli spokesman in Washington, Lior Weintraub, said his country has close ties with the U.S. A text message Saturday from the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the report "false."
"Israel's intelligence and security agencies maintain close, broad and continuous cooperation with their U.S. counterparts," Weintraub said. "They are our partners in confronting many mutual challenges. Any suggestion otherwise is baseless and contrary to the spirit and practice of the security cooperation between our two countries."
The CIA declined comment.
The tension exists on both sides.
The National Security Agency historically has kept tabs on Israel. The U.S., for instance, does not want to be caught off guard if Israel launches a surprise attack that could plunge the region into war and jeopardize oil supplies, putting American soldiers at risk.
Matthew Aid, the author of "The Secret Sentry," about the NSA, said the U.S. started spying on Israel even before the state was created in 1948. Aid said the U.S. had a station on Cyprus dedicated to spying on Israel until 1974. Today, teams of Hebrew linguists are stationed at Fort Meade, Md., at the NSA, listening to intercepts of Israeli communications, he said.
CIA policy generally forbids its officers in Tel Aviv from recruiting Israeli government sources, officials said. To do so would require approval from senior CIA leaders, two former senior officials said. During the Bush administration, the approval had to come from the White House.
Israel is not America's closest ally, at least when it comes to whom Washington trusts with the most sensitive national security information. That distinction belongs to a group of nations known informally as the "Five Eyes." Under that umbrella, the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand agree to share intelligence and not to spy on one another. Often, U.S. intelligence officers work directly alongside counterparts from these countries to handle highly classified information not shared with anyone else.
Israel is part of a second-tier relationship known by another informal name, "Friends on Friends." It comes from the phrase "Friends don't spy on friends," and the arrangement dates back decades. But Israel's foreign intelligence service, the Mossad, and its FBI equivalent, the Shin Bet, both considered among the best in the world, have been suspected of recruiting U.S. officials and trying to steal American secrets.
Around 2004 or 2005, the CIA fired two female officers for having unreported contact with Israelis. One of the women acknowledged during a polygraph exam that she had been in a relationship with an Israeli who worked in the Foreign Ministry, a former U.S. official said. The CIA learned the Israeli introduced the woman to his "uncle." That person worked for Shin Bet.
Jonathan Pollard, who worked for the Navy as a civilian intelligence analyst, was convicted of spying for Israel in 1987 when the Friends on Friends agreement was in effect. He was sentenced to life in prison. The Israelis for years have tried to win his release. In January 2011, Netanyahu asked Obama to free Pollard and acknowledged that Israel's actions in the case were "wrong and wholly unacceptable."
Ronald Olive, a former senior supervisor with the Naval Criminal Investigative Service who investigated Pollard, said that after the arrest, the U.S. formed a task force to determine what government records Pollard had taken. Olive said Israel turned over so few that it represented "a speck in the sand."
In the wake of Pollard, the Israelis promised not to operate intelligence agents on U.S. soil.
A former Army mechanical engineer, Ben-Ami Kadish, pleaded guilty in 2008 to passing classified secrets to the Israelis during the 1980s. His case officer was the same one who handled Pollard. Kadish let the Israelis photograph documents about nuclear weapons, a modified version of an F-15 fighter jet and the U.S. Patriot missile air defense system. Kadish, who was 85 years old when he was arrested, avoided prison and was ordered to pay a $50,000 fine. He told the judge that, "I thought I was helping the state of Israel without harming the United States."
In 2006, a former Defense Department analyst was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison for giving classified information to an Israeli diplomat and two pro-Israel lobbyists.
Despite the Pollard case and others, Olive said he believes the two countries need to maintain close ties "but do we still have to be vigilant? Absolutely. The Israelis are good at what they do."
During the Bush administration, the CIA ranked some of the world's intelligence agencies in order of their willingness to help in the U.S.-led fight against terrorism. One former U.S. intelligence official who saw the completed list said Israel, which hadn't been directly targeted in attacks by al-Qaida, fell below Libya, which recently had agreed to abandon its nuclear weapons program.
The espionage incidents have done little to slow the billions of dollars in money and weapons from the United States to Israel. Since Pollard's arrest, Israel has received more than $60 billion in U.S. aid, mostly in the form of military assistance, according to the Congressional Research Service. The U.S. has supplied Israel with Patriot missiles, helped pay for an anti-missile defense program and provided sensitive radar equipment to track Iranian missile threats.
Just on Friday, Obama said he was releasing an additional $70 million in military aid, a previously announced move that appeared timed to upstage Romney's trip, and he spoke of America's "unshakable commitment to Israel." The money will go to help Israel expand production of a short-range rocket defense system.
Some CIA officials still bristle over the disappearance of a Syrian scientist who during the Bush administration was the CIA's only spy inside Syria's military program to develop chemical and biological weapons. The scientist was providing the agency with extraordinary information about pathogens used in the program, former U.S. officials said about the previously unknown intelligence operation.
At the time, there was pressure to share information about weapons of mass destruction, and the CIA provided its intelligence to Israel. A former official with direct knowledge of the case said details about Syria's program were published in the media. Although the CIA never formally concluded that Israel was responsible, CIA officials complained to Israel about their belief that Israelis were leaking the information to pressure Syria to abandon the program. The Syrians pieced together who had access to the sensitive information and eventually identified the scientist as a traitor.
Before he disappeared and was presumed killed, the scientist told his CIA handler that Syrian Military Intelligence was focusing on him.
PRESIDENT BLASTED OVER FAILURE TO VISIT ISRAEL
The Emergency Committee for Israel is waging a media blitz to alert voters to President Obama’s failure to visit Israel during his four years in office.
“He’s quite a world traveler. But not to Israel. An oversight? Or an indication?” the pro-Israel organization wondered in a statement earlier today announcing a television advertisement highlighting Obama’s travel habits. “He’s traveled to the Middle East multiple times—to accept an award in Saudi Arabia, to give a major speech in Cairo, to hold town hall meetings in Turkey—but never stopped to visit our closest ally in the region.”
The 30-second spot asks viewers to consider why the president has voyaged around the world, but “hasn’t found time to visit our ally and friend Israel.”
The advertisement will run in critical swing states and those that have large Jewish populations, including Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, and Washington D.C.
In addition to the television campaign, ECI published a full-page ad in 23 Jewish newspapers across the country. It highlights the concerns that Jewish leaders have with the administration’s often-aggressive stance towards Israeli officials.
After highlighting these fears, the ad asks: “What will they be saying after another four years of Obama?”
Mentally Ill Pelosi: President Obama's Been to Israel ‘Over and Over Again’
Wow. I'm involved with the Emergency Committee for Israel. We have an ad up in several states calling attention to the fact that President Obama, who's been quite the world traveler, has never visited Israel as president. Did we make a terrible mistake? Were we unjust to President Obama? Do we have to pull down the ad?
No, no, and no. Contrary to Pelosi's apparent claim, President Obama hasn't been to Israel over and over again. He's never been as president, which is certainly what Pelosi implied. Well, maybe he visited Israel "over and over" before becoming president, and that's what Pelosi meant to say? No. When he was senator, Obama went on two trips to Israel, once with several other freshmen members of Congress, and then as a presidential candidate. And he'd never been interested enough in Israel to visit as a private citizen. So much for the notion that Obama's been "over and over again."
So Pelosi is wrong, and the Emergency Committee is right. But Pelosi's resort to a whopper to try to reassure pro-Israel voters does suggest how worried Democrats must be about the reaction to Obama's attempt to create distance between his administration and Israel, as Obama's Israel policy gets more scrutiny.
Rubio's plane makes emergency landing
Sen. Marco Rubio’s plane was forced to make an emergency landing in New Mexico Saturday, preventing the Florida Republican from stumping for Mitt Romney in Iowa..
Hi-Jackson Jr. hiding in Mayo to avoid investigation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)